If Stalin hadnt cmmieted the Purges.. [Archive]

peaccenicked

18th April 2002, 00:36

"Revelations from the Russian Archives

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPRESSION AND TERROR: STALIN IN CONTROL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During the second half of the 1920s, Joseph Stalin set the stage for gaining absolute power by employing police repression against opposition elements within the Communist Party. The machinery of coercion had previously been used only against opponents of Bolshevism, not against party members themselves. The first victims were Politburo members Leon Trotskii, Grigorii Zinov'ev, and Lev Kamenev, who were defeated and expelled from the party in late 1927. Stalin then turned against Nikolai Bukharin, who was denounced as a "right opposition," for opposing his policy of forced collectivization and rapid industrialization at the expense of the peasantry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stalin and colleagues, 1929
A celebration of Joseph Stalin's 50th birthday in the Kremlin, December 21, 1929, with party members Ordzhonikidze, Voroshilov, Kuibyshev, Stalin, Kalinin, Kaganovich, and Kirov, as a statue of Lenin looks on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stalin had eliminated all likely potential opposition to his leadership by late 1934 and was the unchallenged leader of both party and state. Nevertheless, he proceeded to purge the party rank and file and to terrorize the entire country with widespread arrests and executions. During the ensuing Great Terror, which included the notorious show trials of Stalin's former Bolshevik opponents in 1936-1938 and reached its peak in 1937 and 1938, millions of innocent Soviet citizens were sent off to labor camps or killed in prison.

By the time the terror subsided in 1939, Stalin had managed to bring both the party and the public to a state of complete submission to his rule. Soviet society was so atomized and the people so fearful of reprisals that mass arrests were no longer necessary. Stalin ruled as absolute dictator of the Soviet Union throughout World War II and until his death in March 1953"---------
I cant see any good in all this. Industralisation at such
huge human cost equals barbarism.
Even the the bureaucracy held hid the real nature of the economic choas that lead to the ever increasing dominance of the 'black' market

guerrillaradio

18th April 2002, 13:58

You seem to be forgetting that Stalin's collectivisation culminated in the deaths of 10 million people through starvation. He also brokered a deal with Hitler, which almost resulted in Russia going Nazi. He was paranoid, incompetent and verging on insane.

Kez

21st April 2002, 22:27

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 1:58 pm on April 18, 2002
You seem to be forgetting that Stalin's collectivisation culminated in the deaths of 10 million people through starvation. He also brokered a deal with Hitler, which almost resulted in Russia going Nazi. He was paranoid, incompetent and verging on insane.

that 10 million is a fucked figure, try there was a famine and they died of that, not worked to death, wake up and fuck ur school books

guerrillaradio

22nd April 2002, 21:02

Stalin apologists make me sick. Face it, he was a terrible leader. His collectivisation played a large part in the famine, and he sent all dissenters to gulags. Fuck every leader, be they left or right, who refuses to allow free speech and free press.

And you haven't attempted to justify the Nazi-Soviet Pact yet...

antitrot

25th April 2002, 00:09

Uhm... which purges? The purges were carried by the NKVD which was not controlled by Stalin. Saying the NKVD was controlled by Stalin is like saying the CIA is controlled by the President. He had some influence, duh, but he didn't control it. The only difference is that here, I think it's the other way around and the CIA director controls the president. ;)

The collectivization effort actually wasn't a failure. The limited starvation that did occur was not the fault of the Soviet government, but that of the kulaks who burned crops. Not just theirs, but the crops of any peasants that cooperated with the process of collectivization.

There might have been a few thousand deaths because of the kulaks, but anyone who states anything over that is either A) historically inept, B) an idiot with no ability to reason objectively, but he/she is more then likely C) both A and B.

This explains the purges very well...
http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/jsny.html

Kez

26th April 2002, 22:34

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 9:02 pm on April 22, 2002

And you haven't attempted to justify the Nazi-Soviet Pact yet...

Please man, dont say this, your insulting your own intelligence, which it seems is very limited

Reason for Nazi-soviet Pact:
Britain sent 6TH GRADE poltician to USSR, on a commercial ship to Moscow, who didnt even have the fuckin authourity to sign a deal, that was Britains effort for peace against Fascism.
The French were equally bad, Stalin had no choice but to sign neutrality pact with Ribbenhof(sp).
The soviets were ill-prepared for war, they were in the middle of the 3rd glorious 5 year plan, making commercial goods such as bikes and radios, when they had to change to make armaments, they had to buy time. And that was to be neutral against teh enemy, who would later use 85% of her force against the USSR.

GuerillaRadio, my comrade, you must read more into the things you wish to speak about. I am a firm believer that if you dont know enough about a topic, then you cant voice a valid opinon. Have you read any books about Stalin? I presume not, well read them then sya what was wrong with him. Reading your post reminded me of my history indoctrination sessions, textbooks stuff.

"The national question" - Stalin is good and informative on his opinion.

Comrade kamo

munkey soup

26th April 2002, 23:45

"Discussions" that devolve into personal attacks on intelligence are so lovely.

guerrillaradio

27th April 2002, 21:45

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 10:34 pm on April 26, 2002
Britain sent a 6TH GRADE poltician to USSR, on a commercial ship to Moscow, who didnt even have the fuckin authourity to sign a deal, that was Britains effort for peace against Fascism.
The French were equally bad, Stalin had no choice but to sign neutrality pact with Ribbenhof(sp).

So, because the moderate right-wingers were a bit lax in attempting to deal with a man who was already strongly rumoured to be murdering millions and causing the deaths of millions of others?? Is that your justification for a so-called Communist (being a leftist ) brokering a deal with a Nazi (being a rightist ) to split a neighboring country (Poland) in half?? Can you not see the hypocrisy of a leftist invading an innocent, inferior state and sharing her territories with a racist state whose ideology was supposedly the complete opposite of theirs?? Does Marxism not tell you that leftism is against imperialism?? Wake up boyo...and that's not forgetting the incompetence of Stalin in trusting Germany in the first place. Hitler had purged country of all leading leftists, and concentrated a huge propaganda campaign on the evils of Bolshevism.

Reading your post reminded me of my history indoctrination sessions, textbooks stuff.

So who should I believe?? A history textbook written by a historian, or communist propaganda produced by the machines which try to tell us that black is white??

I have no time for Stalin apologists. If you insist on apologising for a mass murderer, then I am NOT your "comrade". This question is actually irrelevant. Quite forgetting collectivisation (which, despite what antitrot tries to tell me, was a failure), the capitalist leanings (remember Stankanov??), the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the seizure of Eastern Europe (which may have been understandable under the circumstances, but still, it demonstrates Stalin's paranoia), the complete suppression of most human rights (free speech, free press, free anything), and starvation of millions (yes, millions), the fact remains that Stalin did commit the purges and on that basis alone, I would deem him a horrific leader of a police state.

What next?? "If Hitler hadn't committed the Holocaust, would he have made good sausages??"

Kez

28th April 2002, 13:32

ah man,
the way you claim anything not in your shitty textbook is soviet propaganda is typical of western indoctination.
HAVE YOU EVER EVER, READ a soviet written book? no, yet you call it propaganda...because your fuckin teacher, just like mine, ses so. Well fuck em.

Stalin had no choice with signing neutrality pact with hitler, it was either that or the complete annihalation of all soviet citizens, which would make our history "teachers" very happy.

Wake up for fucks sake. Stalin at no point trusted Hitler. Had he not split Poland, then Eastern Polish Jews would also have been exterminated, you think that would be good? NO.

On many occasions i have heard my teacher claim any soviet source is propaganda, and yet a brisih historian is supposed to be pure and righteous, fuck it.

Take the exams, eat schools shit, then research for yourself and spit the shit into the establishment.

comrade kamo

munkey soup

28th April 2002, 18:35

Kamo, I have a feeling if anyone were to argue the point that Stalin was bad against you, you would just claim that they have just been "indoctrinated." GR tried to argue, but you attacked him and said he was just quoting from evil western historians (who are all part of the great U$ empirical consipiracy, correct?).

guerrillaradio

28th April 2002, 21:55

Munkey - are you my schizophrenic other half or something?? I was about to say that exact thing...

Kamo - you can't just use "propaganda" and "indoctrination" as a blanket argument for everything y'know. It's so depressing the double standards some people employ. You call Clinton and Bush murderers, but I would much rather have them in charge of my country than some inept hypocrite who has to nickname himself "steel" to get any power. You're just a blinded commie at the end of the day, really wanting to believe that the most influential leader of the system you so devoutly support was not a mass murdering, selfish, greedy, paranoid, incompetent and brutal tyrant.

Kez

30th April 2002, 20:17

Fuck This.
Dont YOU SEE!
TEAchers are part of this anti-communist establishment
just today i listened to the following in my history lesson, directed to all students:
"Britain was not Communist in the Coldwar, and NEVER will be"
what kind of neutral comment is that? Its not.
Our textbooks always liekn Hitler to Stalin, withouth justification.

At the end of the day, i know your gonna do fuck all for the socialist cause, just like 2/3 of the forum. One could say your an armchair revolutionary.

I Will Deny You

30th April 2002, 20:37

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 4:02 pm on April 22, 2002
His collectivisation played a large part in the famine, and he sent all dissenters to gulags. Fuck every leader, be they left or right, who refuses to allow free speech and free press.
Exactly. If he was so wonderful, then why did he suppress everyone else's opinions? Surely such a wonderful man would come out on top no matter what his opponents wrote or said.

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 5:03 pm on April 17, 2002
Anyhow, surely using prisoners for hard labour wasnt bad, considering the circumstances
Unless those circumstances you're referring to were circumstances in which human rights did not matter, it was bad. Very bad, in fact.

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 3:17 pm on April 30, 2002
TEAchers are part of this anti-communist establishmentMost teachers aren't communists. That's correct. But do you really think that teachers go under some top-secret anti-communist training? I'm sure I would get in trouble if I went into my friend's history classroom and told all of his students that communism is the world's only hope, but let's face it. There is no great anti-red conspiracy that reaches down to public school teachers. The British government, rightly, does not think of communism as much of a threat. It's globalization and not communism that is the controversial, generation-dividing issue nowadays.

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 3:17 pm on April 30, 2002
Our textbooks always liekn Hitler to Stalin, withouth justification.I know! You can look through pictures of every single paranoid World War II-era anti-American dictator who invaded Poland and killed millions of people, and you will never find two men with more different mustaches than Hitler and Stalin.

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 3:17 pm on April 30, 2002
At the end of the day, i know your gonna do fuck all for the socialist cause, just like 2/3 of the forum. One could say your an armchair revolutionary.This just reminds me of when you called me something like this (I believe it was "champagne revolutionary") a while back. I don't recall much of a response.

munkey soup

30th April 2002, 20:45

I guess I better drop outta college and stop reading any book that wasn't published by anyone who disagrees with our friend Kamo, since, afterall, all teachers are part of the right-wing anti-communist conspiracy (yes, even the ones on record as speaking out against the establisment). And all authors that don't like Stalin are all evil as well, because our friend Kamo says so.

Fuck off, boyo.

MJM

1st May 2002, 08:43

On the topic of teachers etc.

Gramsci talks about this kind of thing, the way the elite rules. Through education and other intellectual systems.

5) Relation to Intellectuals.
5.1) Consent organized by organic intellectuals on behalf of bourgeoisie

Special function of intellectuals (besides organizing domination for the bourgeoisie) is to organize the consent of the masses in support of the dominant class. This comes easily, given the "prestige" of the dominant economic class. The function of "social hegemony" in civil society comprises: "The 'spontaneous' consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group [ie, through their intellectuals who act as their agents or deputies]; this consent is 'historically' cdaused by the prestige (and consequent confidence) which the dominant group enjoys because of its position and function in the world of production" (12).

---------------

8) Balance between hegemony (consent) and force
8.1) In relation to government power. Gramsci believed that hegemony was more effective in attaining and maintaining dominance (supremacy) than force. "...even before attaining power a class can (and must) 'lead'; when it is in power it becomes dominant, but continues to 'lead' as well...there can and must be a 'political hegemony' even before the attainment of government power, and one should not count solely on the power and material force which such a position gives in order to exercise political leadership or hegemony" (57f; see also 57-8 and 59 for similar statement).

8.2) Friends vs Enemies. Hegemony is exercised with respect to class allies, and force or coercion in respect to class enemies. Gramsci argues that the methodological premise of his study is based on: "that the supremacy of a social group manifests itself in two ways, as 'domination' and as 'intellectual and moral leadership.' A social group dominates antagonistic groups, which it tends to 'liquidate', or to subjugate perhaps even by armed force; it leads kindred and allied groups" (57).

8.3) Hegemony = consent + force

In his notes on Machiavelli, Gramsci states that "The 'normal' exercise of hegemony on the now classical terrain of the parliamentary regime is characterised by the combination of force and consent, which balance each other reciprocally, without force predominating excessively over consent. Indeed, the attempt is always made to ensure that force will appear to be based on the consent of the majority, expressed by the so-called organs of public opinion - newspapers and associations - which, therefore, in certain situations, are artifically multiplied. Between consent and force stands corruption/fraud..." (80f).
--------------------

http://www.socsci.mcmaster.ca/soc/courses/.../gramheg.htm#14 (http://www.socsci.mcmaster.ca/soc/courses/soc2r3/gramsci/gramheg.htm#14)

(Edited by MJM at 8:47 pm on May 1, 2002)

guerrillaradio

1st May 2002, 14:31

TEAchers are part of this anti-communist establishment

Oh my god, do you actually believe yourself?? You really think that teachers have formed an ESTABLISHMENT against communism?? What, do you think that communist teachers have to be sacked or something?? Well that's weird, cos I know several history teachers who are communists, they just condemn Stalin, which is something you're loath to do...

Our textbooks always liekn Hitler to Stalin, withouth justification.

There is plenty of justification to liken Stalin to Hitler. They were both suppressive fascists, they were both imperialists, and most importantly, they both had moustaches...

At the end of the day, i know your gonna do fuck all for the socialist cause, just like 2/3 of the forum. One could say your an armchair revolutionary.

IWDY already answered this pretty well, but I don't see why I have to run around with machinegun fighting some vague leftist cause to justify my presence on this board.

Dan Majerle

1st May 2002, 14:42

Camo what are you doing for the socialist cause instead of debating in this forum? Obviously conducting a guerrilla war by night and incognito?

Kez

1st May 2002, 19:08

So many wankers on this board.
Theres a difference between "anti-communist establishment" and "establishment that is anti-communist".
For the pricks that hadnt read what i wrote, i showed how the British Establishment is anti-communist, yet you decide to think that i wrote teachers are part of an anti-communist conspiracy.
Fuck, i dont even know y i should justify myself to people such as you.
I never mentioned some sorta guerilla warfare, infact if you had read the many threads before, i have stated i am against a guerilla warfare at this time, but you are too far up your arse to realise so.

Ok, now for GuerillaRadios shit comment
"There is plenty of justification to liken Stalin to Hitler. They were both suppressive fascists, they were both imperialists, and most importantly, they both had moustaches... "
=>moustaches..Right yeah hahah, such a funny joke....
=>Suppresive fascists..WTF, just because you rebuild a country doesnt make you a nazi, but your textbook probably says it does, and therefore it is the truth.
=>Imperialists..I take it you mean the Soviet Sphere of influence in East Europe. Well, considering America and the REAL imperialists wanted to attack the USSR at every opportunity, i see that as a justification as having influence in such coutries.

At least i can laugh and say i havent been indoctrinated hey Guerilla? BTW i have nothin against you, i know your intentions are well, without trying to patronise you

Yours in Struggle
Comrade Kamo

James

1st May 2002, 19:34

No one seems to be taking anything in that Kamo has said...or correctly that is.

Stop ONLY reading the jokes he writes (oh ok, i mean his abuse at u all...arm chair revolutionary or whatever it were called) and read into what he says properly.

He knows what you are saying, but he also knows beyond it too...he knows far more on the topic than many of us who know what we have been taught in our WESTERN schools.

I Will Deny You

1st May 2002, 20:20

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 2:08 pm on May 1, 2002
Theres a difference between "anti-communist establishment" and "establishment that is anti-communist".
For the pricks that hadnt read what i wrote, i showed how the British Establishment is anti-communist, yet you decide to think that i wrote teachers are part of an anti-communist conspiracy.
The British Establishment does happen to be anti-communist, but that's not a major point nowadays. And (as a sidenote not directed at you in particular, Kamo) I'm really sick of seeing kids who rail against their teachers just to prove how rebellious they are. You reminded me of people who do this by saying that your teacher's comment was clearly biased. But it seems to be plenty realistic (if a bit generalized). I mean, there's not much reason to believe that Britain will be painted red anytime soon.

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 2:08 pm on May 1, 2002
=>moustaches..Right yeah hahah, such a funny joke....
Hey! That was my joke first, you know. How unfair of you to acknowledge guerrillaradio individually but leave my name unmentioned when you hurled unnecessary insults at both of us. You could have just said something like "Lindsay's shit joke about mustaches was NOT funny" and I would have been satisfied.

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 2:08 pm on May 1, 2002
=>Suppresive fascists..WTF, just because you rebuild a country doesnt make you a nazi, but your textbook probably says it does, and therefore it is the truth.
Nazism itself is not the point. Stalin is, in fact a suppressive fascist. This has nothing to do with whether or not he rebuilt a country. It has everything to do with censorship of speech and the press (and a crackdown on anyone who practiced religion). He did, in fact, bring the USSR closer to fascism. You're right about him not being a Nazi, though--because Stalin killed more people than Hitler did!

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 2:08 pm on May 1, 2002
=>Imperialists..I take it you mean the Soviet Sphere of influence in East Europe. Well, considering America and the REAL imperialists wanted to attack the USSR at every opportunity, i see that as a justification as having influence in such coutries.
"influence" is putting it very, very lightly. What was the difference between Trumanesque imperialism and Stalinesque imperialism?

munkey soup

1st May 2002, 21:17

"TEAchers are part of this anti-communist establishment" -Kamo.

Maybe I got a little hot-headed in my response to this statement, but what I inferred from it was you were saying all teachers are anti-communist. While none of my teachers are communists, they don't try and brainwash me or "indoctrinate" me. In fact, most lean heavily to the left, and if they are doing any indoctrinating, its leftist indoctrination.

bindi020

2nd May 2002, 13:46

gregorian zercov won the war for stalin

guerrillaradio

2nd May 2002, 15:33

So many wankers on this board.

What a way to start a post. I love you too...

For the pricks...Fuck, i dont even know y i should justify myself to people such as you...GuerillaRadios shit comment

You're at it again...calm down. How's about you use some rational arguments instead of hot-headed insults??

just because you rebuild a country doesnt make you a nazi, but your textbook probably says it does, and therefore it is the truth.

Ok, you're totally obsessed with this whole textbook thing aren't you?? The reality is I wasn't referring to history textbooks, more Stalin's murder of millions and millions of people, the death of many millions more through starvation, his complete suppression of free speech and free press, gulags and persecution of Jews and Kossaks (small-scale, but still existent).

I take it you mean the Soviet Sphere of influence in East Europe.

Partly, but I'm also referring to the USSR's carving up of Poland with Hitler and invasion of Finland in 1939, and their encroachment into Japan in 1944-5.

Well, considering America and the REAL imperialists wanted to attack the USSR at every opportunity, i see that as a justification as having influence in such coutries.

"Influence"?? More like imperialism and colonialism. Stalin executed ?Hungarian? (not sure, someone please clarify) reformist Lazlo Rajk, imprisoned the leader of the Czech Catholic Church and attempted to oust Tito. Why?? Because they refused to apply Stalinism in their Comunist countries, opting instead for a more liberal Communism.

Ok, I can understand that for once Stalin had honest intentions in seizing Eastern Europe. I do genuinely believe that it was a defensive action. However, this does not "justify" it. The simple fact is millions of people had an oppressive system forced upon them by a foreign nation, for no other reason than they happened to neighbour it.

At least i can laugh and say i havent been indoctrinated hey Guerilla?

Judging by the content of your posts, I wouldn't be so sure...

BTW i have nothin against you, i know your intentions are well, without trying to patronise you

Hmm...maybe you should refrain from the insults then...

James

2nd May 2002, 17:07

Everyone be friends!!!

Everyone is misunderstanding each other...kiss and make up

Kez

2nd May 2002, 17:31

DAAMNIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!
urgggghhhhhh
numero uno:
"Ok, you're totally obsessed with this whole textbook thing aren't you?? The reality is I wasn't referring to history textbooks, more Stalin's murder of millions and millions of people, the death of many millions more through starvation, his complete suppression of free speech and free press, gulags and persecution of Jews and Kossaks (small-scale, but still existent). "

Have you ever read another textbook other than english/American?

Nummer Zwei:
"The British Establishment does happen to be anti-communist, but that's not a major point nowadays. And (as a sidenote not directed at you in particular, Kamo) I'm really sick of seeing kids who rail against their teachers just to prove how rebellious they are. You reminded me of people who do this by saying that your teacher's comment was clearly biased. But it seems to be plenty realistic (if a bit generalized). I mean, there's not much reason to believe that Britain will be painted red anytime soon."

OK, WTF
yeah, apparently try to be rebelious without cause, why would i give 2 FUCKS about school? I cant change anythin now, so y arse about being "rebelious"
i dont need to prove myself to anyone including your goodself. If i wanted to be stupidly rebelious i wouldnt be readin books every fucking day about marxism would i?

I dunno about your specific teachers, but the ones i have had are always painting picture of bad communism and communism=fascism=death

Nomer Erek:
"You're at it again...calm down. How's about you use some rational arguments instead of hot-headed insults?? "
without being too petty, i didnt throw any insults, apart from calling a certain group of indiviuals in a fit of pure rage. however i did say people had shit comments, and i still stand by that.

Im not justifying stalins death, but trying to get some truth sideways through the barage of anti-communist shit hurled at us.

fucks sake...phew

Comrade Kamo

James

2nd May 2002, 18:52

i'll say again...KISS AND MAKE UP!

I Will Deny You

2nd May 2002, 21:16

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 12:31 pm on May 2, 2002
Have you ever read another textbook other than english/American?
Not everything we learn, we learn from government-issue textbooks. I, for one, have read textbooks from a few countries in college, but 99% of what I know about Stalin, I learned from other (more reliable) sources.

I said that my comment on rebellious teenagers wasn't directed at you in particular. You still didn't respond to the fact that you teacher's statement wasn't unreasonable at all. (But then again, why respond and engage in a dialogue when you ain't gotta prove nothing to my goodself?)

Menshevik

2nd May 2002, 22:33

Stalin was a total asshole son-ofa-*****. GR, you speak the truth. Arguing that Stalin could have been a great leader is nuts; one of the reasons so many people died during the collective farm phase was not entirely because of famine or bad working conditions, but because people did not want to leave the farms in which ownership was handed over to them by Lenin. The Russian people had always been oppressed. Even after the Serfs were freed, none of them could afford land so they had to work for slave-like wages under the same people that had practically owned them before. Lenin said it himself, "Land, Peace, Bread." What more could the Russians ask for, but then to have some yahoo force off your land is unthinkable. Many, many people were killed because they refused to leave.
Now, about the purges, Stalin himself killed his entire head chiefs of staff because they had failed him by allowing the Germans to advance as far as Stalingrad. When they were at the outskirts of Moscow, he personally shot his commander-in-chief. As a result of this unexperienced officers had to take their place. Luckily there were still officers with skill like Zhukov that managed to drive the Germans back. But Stalin was willing to kill anyone who seemed subversive or wasnt working up to their potential. Yes, he was responsible for the deaths of over a million Russians, not his intelligence service or his secret police. None of this suffering would have happened if Stalin had not been in power.

guerrillaradio

3rd May 2002, 14:21

Have you ever read another textbook other than english/American?

I just made several very valid points and you rebutted all of them with your old "indoctrination" argument. I would appreciate a proper reply to every single point I made in my last post. If you can't cope with people contesting your opinions, then don't come on a discussion forum.

Kez

3rd May 2002, 19:06

FUCKS SAKE
The whole point of the thread was to discuss if Stalin had been good without the purges, so "menshevik" bangs on about purges among other things. fuckin hell
I still stick by my "indoctination" theory, however you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick, not for the first time one has to say.
What i said was "teachers are part of anti-communist establishment" which led the thread into some shit i care not about.
Pick up some points number them and i will answer them, i cant be fucked to sift through your shit to answer something i dont care about.

comrade kamo

guerrillaradio

5th May 2002, 00:41

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 7:06 pm on May 3, 2002
i cant be fucked to sift through your shit to answer something i dont care about.

Then don't start fucking threads then you silly boy. If you wanna participate in this forum, then you have to be prepared to go back a page and find the last significant post I made and then reply to it. It's really not much of an effort. If you don't, then it would appear very much that you have been out-debated and that you are left without any argument.

James

8th May 2002, 21:58

Why don't we just all start this thread again (within this one)...so, what do people think to "if stalin hadn't commited the purges, would he have been good leader?" or something like that...

I think you can look at this from two points; moral, and results. I personaly don't like the way he ran a totalitarian state, police being a major role. I know that alot of people were unhappy under him. But he did achieve great goals. I think Mao said stalin was 70% succesful, or something like that. I think i would agree. So i have mixed feelings on him. I don't know that much on him though.

Menshevik

8th May 2002, 22:49

No, he was insane and his policies were garbage. Besides you can't really begin to predict what would have happened exactly if a huge portion of history never happened--what if Hitler hadn't become leader of the Nationalist Socialist Workers' Party of Deutchsland? What if Gandhi hadn't been killed? What if Nixon hadn't bombed in Cambodia? What if, What if--these are pointless questions. We shouldn't become preoccupied with these "what if" scenarios. Let's just try to understand what happened, and God-willing prevent history from repeating itself.

Kez

9th May 2002, 18:46

what if people on this board didnt try to score points against each other and instead had a friendly "debate".

then again we probably wouldnt be "commies" and instead would be fat shitheads who sit on their fat arses and do fuck all but watch tv and eat hamburgers all day

comrade kamo

guerrillaradio

12th May 2002, 22:00

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 5:31 pm on May 2, 2002
Have you ever read another textbook other than english/American?

"If you imagine that Stalin wanted to improve the harvest or the lot of the peasant, then you are just fooling yourself. Collectivisation was a bloody, terrible and monstrous means of the seizure of absolute power because the free peasant and the master of the land, the farmer, constituted one of the main obstacles to absolute feudal power that Stalin really wanted."

From Lyudmilla Saraskina, a Russian, writing in 1994.

yuriandropov

12th May 2002, 23:27

the bad things about stalin weren't his purges. most who died deserved to die anyway and the numbers have been greatly exagerated. lenin would have killed the same number. the bad thing about stalin was that he was too dictatoral. he did work within a politburo, but anyone who didn't agree with him didn't really have a voice. the best example of democratic centralism in the USSR was shown by brezhnev. he didn't want to invade afghanistan, but the politburo overruled his descision. in stalins day, that wouldn't have happened. i agreed with his elimination of kulaks and i think forced collectivisation was essential to industrialise USSR, once that was done, stalin gave many peasents there land back. so basically, the only bad things about stalin were, his dictatoral powers, and his paranoia near the end of his life. now lets look at the good things. he industrialised the USSR, he turned an agrarian country with low GDP into the second biggest economy in the world, he turned a country with 10% literary rate into a country with 90% literary rate, he built what was, and still is, the best run metro system (moscow) in the world, he, or his poicies basically won WWII, he added 9 soviet republics to the union, he stretched the soviet influence to the whole of eastern europe, indo china, china (the sino-soviet split was after stalins death) and korea, he turned the 5th best (and thats being generous) army in the world to the mightiest armed forces known to man, he set up the greatest intelligance service known to man (nkvd, kgb), he turned a backward country into a superpower that could compete with the USA, he set up the program that put the first man in space, he massivly increased the standard of living in USSR, he cleaned up corruption, he cleaned up crime, he guarenteed everyone housing, education, health care, food on the table and a job (in the 40's and 50's anyway), he put in place the sports funding that would make the soviet union the most dominant sporting country ever and he defeated the political movement known as facism. responces please.

Anarcho

14th May 2002, 07:16

Yuri, I deny you several of those claims, and I question you're usage of others as a claim to "greatness".

He spread the USSR by 9 provinces... so, in your opinino, imperialism by force is a good thing?

I believe he moved the corruption from one side to the other.. it was a well known fact that bribes were a standard part of dealing with the beaurocracy taht was the USSR.

He did implement the policies needed to bring literacy to the countryside. That is fact.

The claim of the Soviet Military being the most powerful on earth is purly conjectural, and open to much debate.

The KGB/NKVD was a horrible thing, both in concept and design. They were on par with the CIA in dirty dealings.

Technically, the industrialization of Russia began with Katherine the Great, and continued from there. Stalin used the collecivisation of the farms to force the people into the cities. This helped both industrialization, and the indoctirnation/control of the people.

The liquidation of his upper echelon officers was a horrific mistake, that he paid for with the lives of million of Soviet soldiers.

Stalin was a monster, pure and simple. The few good things that he may have done are far outweighed by his atrocious crimes and deeds.

guerrillaradio

14th May 2002, 10:27

Good post Anarcho. I agree with it, but I'll add some things onto it...

"the bad things about stalin weren't his purges. most who died deserved to die anyway..."

That is just fucking sick.

"i agreed with his elimination of kulaks..."

Once again, I cannot find any way in which you can justify this...kulaks were a class brought into fruition by Leninism.

"and i think forced collectivisation was essential to industrialise USSR, once that was done, stalin gave many peasents there land back."

...And 5 million starved to death. But that's irrelevant to you I guess, cos they probably deserved to die anyway...

"his poicies basically won WWII..."

Not really. The USSR only defeated Germany cos winter hit at the right time in Stalingrad and they had numerial superiority. Stalin freaked out when Germany invaded Russia, and hid for two weeks, allegedly...

"he stretched the soviet influence to the whole of eastern europe, indo china, china (the sino-soviet split was after stalins death) and korea..."

Wow, so he was more Imperialist than the USA. How's that a good thing??

"he set up the greatest intelligance service known to man (nkvd, kgb)..."

Do you also celebrate the creation of the SS and CIA then?? I think not...

COMMUNISMO

16th May 2002, 19:55

In the words of Stalin himself: "One death is a tragedy, a million-just statistics" I am a Stalin admirer myself and i think he would have been a good leader even if he hadn't purged country...the people worshiped him and it is even said that when they were arrested they would say "if only Papa Joe knew". I think that Stalin made a good vanguardist leader, but his paranoia and inability to keep the people totally under control made him appear like a failure-which he wasn't

Kez

19th May 2002, 16:42

Is it right to kill 10 people if you are going to save 11 people?
OR
do you let 11 people die of not interfered causes?

Comrade kamo

Menshevik

20th May 2002, 00:58

WHAT????!!!

Menshevik

20th May 2002, 15:44

How is killing ten people going to save anyone?

Kez

20th May 2002, 19:09

its an example i made, answer it plz

Menshevik

20th May 2002, 22:45

It's a bogus question because unless you are in some kind of disease epidemic, killing anyone or letting anyone die isn't going to help you or save lives.

I Will Deny You

20th May 2002, 22:47

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 11:42 am on May 19, 2002
Is it right to kill 10 people if you are going to save 11 people?
OR
do you let 11 people die of not interfered causes?

Comrade kamo
In order for this example to work, you'll have to demonstrate how Stalin's murder of millions of innocent civilians saved the lives of even more civilians.

Lindsay

Kez

21st May 2002, 09:10

well, 1 example in stalins case is Collectivisation, it killed some, but is saved more.

guerrillaradio

21st May 2002, 12:51

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 9:10 am on May 21, 2002
well, 1 example in stalins case is Collectivisation, it killed some, but is saved more.

Have you any evidence of this??

Saved from what exactly?? I guess they did have a choice: they could either be purged or starved...

Kez

22nd May 2002, 11:41

Well, due to collectivisation, bastard kulaks started burning their own fucking wheat, so therofre there was a bit of a famine. But in the long run ie just pre war, more people were able to eat properly and more food was available for all. I believe this was a dramatic turn from what the czarist regime had done, ie ppl were starving because of unavailabiolity of bread, to Lenin who set out plans (War Communism, NEP), to Stalin who started collectivisation in practice, which should be said (yes/no?) that saved more ppl in the longer.

In conlusion, had stalin not done collectivisation, then more people would have died in the famine

Comrade Kamo

TheDerminator

24th May 2002, 18:15

Stalin without the purges is like Hitler without his particular brand of genocide.

It is a ludicrous question.

"Yuri" makes the assertion that Lenin would have done the same, but there is not one iota of evidence that Lenin would have condoned the purges of Stalin or his repression of those branded as "degenerates". The opposite. All the evidence supports that Lenin sought a tolerant collective leadership.

Stalin was a ruthless dictator, and to blame the NKVD is a ludicruous as not seeing that the President of the United States is not ultimately responsible for the policies which direct the modus operandi of the CIA. The buck stops here!

The collectivisation, which resolved the faminine does not justify the brutality of the means. The means was evil. Utter evil, and an insult to the spirit of the revolutionary Bolshevilk Party.

Much evil has been done in the name of good. Yuri thinks the victims deserved all they got. A vile sentiment. There is more than one way to skin a rabbit, and if Yuri, thinks an extermination programme was the only option open he's considerably more brutal than Yuri Andropov!

Andropov paved the way for Gorbachev, because he was a "theoretical purist" wishing to return to some form of Leninism.

Gorbachev came up with "Perestroika" and "Glasnost" whereas, as if he wished to carry on the spirit of Lenin, he would have realised that the objective of all-power to the Soviets was to ultimately give democracy and freedom to the Russian people. It was never about creating a technocracy, and though Lenin took action to safeguard the revolution, that action was in the name of the working class not in the name of ruthless power driven psychopath.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

derminated

Kez

24th May 2002, 22:24

U confused 2 seperate matters.

Im saying Collectivisation caused in the short term deaths (ie kulaks being punished or improsoned) but in the long term more people were able to escape the famine (which i think was mostly due to natural causes)

correct me if im wrong

Comrade Kamo

lenin

25th May 2002, 00:18

derminator, again you speak of no evidence. what about the reign of terror between 1917-1922 when lenin killed all his political enemies? what about lenins statement 'if it is necessary to kill 9/10 of the population, then we must do it', or 'when it comes to creating communism, there are no morales'. or the fact that he created all the institutions that put stalin in power. or the fact that when he was on his death bed, he only ever asked to speak to stalin. you sound like a nazi when they get asked about the holocaust! 'where is the evidence'. maybe lenin wouldn't have killed so many, but lenin thought the end always justified the means, especially when it came to communism.

guerrillaradio

25th May 2002, 15:01

Quote: from lenin on 12:18 am on May 25, 2002
...when he was on his death bed, he only ever asked to speak to stalin.

Where did you hear this?? Stalinist propaganda maybe?? You do know that Stalin had his image added to many photos of Lenin to make them look like close friends, cos Lenin did not hold Stalin in high regard at all. In the final months of his life, he rowed with him on several subjects, such as Stalin's brutality towards rebels and his cronyism in appointing allies to important posts. He even wrote in his will:

"Stalin is too rude...it is hardly the quality that we would expect in a General Secretary of the party. That is why I suggest he be removed from his post."

I'll let Dermy deal with your frankly ludicrous comparison of him and a Nazi...if only you knew sonny.

TheDerminator

25th May 2002, 17:35

"Lenin"

What are Ur sources for these two dreadful quotes?

Not the collective works of Lenin as far as I know!

The last letter of Lenin "I am following your case with all my heart. I am indignant over Orjonikidze's rudeness and the connivance of Stalin and Dzerzhinsky. I am preparing for you notes and a speech"

Preparing to put the knife into the bastards, and Lenin would have done exactly that.

U quote "'when it comes to creating communism, there are no morales" If Lenin wrote this he must have been drunk, because it goes against his belief not just in the self-discipline of the Bolsheviks, but also against his writings on sexuality and on his writings on the integrity of long-term socialist stategy. Lenin possessed integrity and morality. The "reign of terror"? Is this as if there was no counter-revolution whatsoever, is this as if the West had not backed the "White Guard"?

There was no French mob baying for the guillotine in the days of Lenin, nor was the a pesecution of the dispossed bourgeoisie.

The institutions? The Communist Party and the NKVD?

Sort of need the Communist Party U know, and the British OSS has admitted it had a presence in Boshevik Russia, and even if it did not the counter-revolution was real and U can make a case for creating a NKVD in those conditions.

On his deathbed, Lenin loathed Stalin as all his later correspondence proves beyond all doubt!

The end justified the means?

If only history was so simple as U see it. History dealt the Bosheviks a very hard set of cards, and it always was a doomed revolution because people like Stalin were in the pack, and because Lenin did not possess an advanced enough view of socialist society.

All the same, it was a greyier area for Lenin, and we have the benefit of hindsight. Ultimately, all our knowledge of Lenin points to the fact that Lenin acted only in what he saw was in the long-term interests of the Russian people, and the Russian people as a whole, herein Lenin was ruthless in that pursuit.

However, that was not Stalin or his cohorts. They did not give a shit about the interests of the Russian people only be mainting the power of their elite, and for Stalin that meant absolute power.

There is a huge difference between these two individuals and a huge difference between their ideals.

The "ends justifies the means" Do U thinik U R fucking God, sitting in some lofty judgemental distance from the reality of the hard conditions of the Russian people and the Boshevik Party during the time of Lenin, when all the powers of Ur so-called civilised were stacked up against Lenin?

All U R hypocritical quasi-Chiristian countries did nothing, but worry about their own their own elitist structures!

Did the ends justify their means as they aligned themselves against the Bolsheviks, and trampled upon the movements which led the fight for workers rights outside of Russia. Did the ends justify the means when they murdered Leibnicht and Luxemburg?

Did the ends justify the means when the bastards sat back and let Franco take over in Spain?

What did it take for the US to come into the Second World War?
Did the end justify the means for non-interventionism?

Does the end justify the means in Vietnam, in Chile in Afghanistan, in Israel/Palestine?

What a trite pseudo-Christian historical evaluation!

Does the end justify the means?

I can see what is coming next!

Two wrongs don't make a right!

Equally trite! Equally pseudo-Christian!
Equally a shallow analysis of historical development!

No. No. No.

The momentum of hisotorical right is on the side of the socialist movement. Not anywhere else. It is the leadership of the people against their oppression and exploitation of the worst kind.

Bourgeois hegemony is the unfreedom of all peoples on this planet and that affects even Cuba too! We have an unfree world!

The objective of the socialist movement is to create a world which is free for each and every individual for eternity. The historical moral right is with that movement, because only that movement can create it.

Lenin as far as I'm aware played an honourable role in that movement under the most difficult of circumstances and the collective works of Lenin stand testimony to that fact.

Cite the sources please. Otherwise U R a complete fucking liar.

U call Urself "Lenin" Judas perhaps, but not Lenin. The Spirit of Christ is the spirit of Socialism. Lenin was near to the Spirit of Christ than U. A lot fucking nearer.

Lenin was no Stalinist, and Ur statements R peddling another brand of evil as far as I can see. Me a nazi? U a propaganda victim of the worst kind, and Ur self-righteousness packs a vicious punch.

Take a look in a mirror. There is a viper in Ur heart and the name U gives Urself is its full-blown advertisement?

U believe the end justifies the means U fucking hypocrit!

Lenin! U R shitting on his name!

Scum!

U know where U can put Ur two wrongs don't make a right peurile drivel.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

Resistance is Futile!

derminated

El Che

25th May 2002, 21:27

Derminator, firstly I just have to say its great to see your back. And secondly, I think something becomes very clear, at least for me, upon reading threads such as this one. That being the fact that the people that call them selves Leninists make a better case against Leninism than the Socialists that reject Lenin. You however are in an unconfortable position, in that wish to draw a line that few other people see. You wish to "rescue" Lenin from the political philosophy, that for good or bad, is atributed to him. Stalinists say that in Stalin exists Lenin, sure they criticise the excesses but not the political model that makes these excesses possible, that model they say is Lenin`s legacy. You say that in Lenin inhabits Marx, so either you disagree with these people as to what the nature of Lenin`s legacy is, what it means to be Leninist, or you have more in common with them then you realise. In that the only thing upon which you disagree with the stalinists is the historical revision of stalin. Which is relevant in a confrontation of subjective reviews of history debate sort of thing, but really says nothing when it comes to political action. You both embrace Leninism therefore you are the same political faction, who`s only diferend is the historical appreciation of stalin`s contribution(?). So therefore I would like to introduce the question "what do understand by Leninism?", question that is a mere exercise on my part to try and grasp what the real differences are between people like Derminator, or Iron Heal and Lenin or Yuriandropov.

What does one bring on board when one assumes one`s self as being Leninist?

peaccenicked

26th May 2002, 16:35

When it comes to the time continuum, the whole sophistication of Marx is appreciated by Lenin more than any of his contemporaries. The collected works is sprinkled with gems. The most notable advance on Marx
was his theory on Imperialism, which is still seminal in understanding modern Imperialism.
Lenin has much more sophisticated audience than Stalin.
Here is Hugh MacDurmuid. The most important Scottish poet since Burns.
"Scotland has had few men whose names
Matter - or should matter - to intelligent people,
But of these MacLean, next to Burns, was the greatest
And it should be of him, with every Scotsman and Scotswoman
To the end of time, as it was of Lenin in Russia
When you might talk to a woman who had been
A young girl in 1917 and find
That the name of Stalin lit no fires,
But when you asked her if she had seen Lenin
Her eyes lighted up and her reply
Was the Russian word which means
Both beautiful and red.
Lenin, she said, was krassivy, krassivy'
John MacLean too was krassivy, krassivy'
A description no other Scot has ever deserved."

TheDerminator

26th May 2002, 17:22

El Che,

"That being the fact that the people that call them selves Leninists make a better case against Leninism than the Socialists that reject Lenin."

I disagree, if U have read my stuff on "isms" in the past, U know that consistently I have said that there was only one Marxist and that was Kark Marx, likewise there was only one Leninist and that was Lenin himself. The "followers" are all selfists. They do not use objective methodology to analyse history and to analsye political philosophy in its development process. Without the "OM" so to speak, U R just your own subjective self. God in Ur judgements on everything. U by Ur own position in political philosophy announce Ur own subjectivism.

The so-called socialist orthodoxy cannot be any different until they possess the OM. They R all selfists without the OM.

The Lenininsts making a better case? What Lenininists?
These apologists for that evil bastard Stalin? U must be joking! No my friend, U assume, because they seek to don the mantle of Lenin in order to legitimise their false God, that they have a possible right to do so. That right does not exist, because each human being deserves that justice is done to their name after death.

They do not possess the right because they putrify the name of Lenin in the name of their false God. If you were Lenin U would wish justice to be done to Ur role in history, and that is the right of the just, and the right of those who believe in historical justice is to address the issue of what was the true integrity of this man, and then to vindicate this integrity, if such integrity is found.

It is not a question of being a Leninist or being a Marxist or any ism. It is a question of ethical historical justice.

"rescue"? It is too late to rescue Lenin my friend, but the ethical socialist must vindicate those who risked their lives for socialism and those who lead the socialist struggle with integrity, as I believe Lenin did.

Whatever, the errors of Lenin, Lenin was only human, and it U judge a person such as Lenin on his whole contribution to the socialist movement, and on a legacy which was never Stalin's legacy. If U buy the latter, U buy the lie that the idolators of Stalin and the vilifiers of Lenin propagate. Lenin = Stalin.

For me the equation is a downright lie, and the objective historical facts show the equation is a downright lie. Lenin's model? Come on. The first real socialist country in backward Russia with all its problems? What the hell does anyone expect?

The conditions necessited just about every move, because they possessed no idea as to the nature of Socialist society. They were making it up as they went along, trial and error. This is praxis, and the problem with praxis, everything is learned the hard way.

Praxis stemmed from Marx not Lenin. It was his error, but it is equally appalling to blame Marx for the evil of Stalin. Lenin's was a socialist legacy in the spirit of Christ, Stalin was the closest thing to the devil incarnate that ever stepped foot on this planet. He never had Hitlers irrationalism or Hitler's skewered understanding of wrong and right. Stalin saw decency and trampled on that decency for his own ends. That makes him a worse bastard even than Hitler.

Necessity did not force Stalin to commit his heinious crimes a vile calculating essence made him commit horror after horror to more or less deify himself.

The comparison between Lenin and Stalin is stark, and if U cannot see it, U have no understanding of historical justice or of ethos in the socialist movement. U have bought one of the worst lies perpetuated in history, and it does not really matter what camp U R from, idolator or anti-Lenin, it does not matter. U R a subjective pliable mind. Not the first and not the last, but U do not possess the spirit of socialism, because it assert ethos, and it asserts justice for the living and for the dead.

I disagree profoundly with them, I have nothing in common with them. We come from totally different directions and U do me a diservice.

Historical revision of Stalin? No, U miss the point. It is about Lenin, not Stalin, and the texts on Lenin, require a revision somewhat!

The same faction. Utter trash! Torquemada embraces Christ, the Pope embraces Christ. They wouldn't know the spirit of Christ if it fell on them! Drivel my friend shallow drivel. Marx, Engels and Lenin embraced the spirit of Christ more than any fucking Pope! Judge people not by who they say they side with, but who they side with in reality, and these idolators of Stalin are siding with scum in reality.

""what do understand by Leninism?", question that is a mere exercise on my part to try and grasp what the real differences are between people like Derminator, or Iron Heal and Lenin or Yuriandropov.

What does one bring on board when one assumes one`s self as being Leninist?"

There is no such thing as Leninism, only idolators of Lenin assuming they each R the keeper of the flame. There is only one ism for a socialist and that is Socialism.
I am not a Leninist, I only seek to vindicate the integrity of his position as the facts bare out. The most advanced socialist view was made by Gramsci, who went further than Lenin, by bringing in the cultural dynamic, but I am not a Gramscian either, nor a Marxist, I am only myself, a socialist.

As far as I can make out Iron Heel, sees himself as an orthodox Marxist-Leninist, the Stalinist is a Stalinists, the scuzzball calling himself, Lenin is trying to be sardonic as far as I can make out, but just see it is the nephew of Yuri. Shows how irrational a thinker this guy is, seems to be luxuriating in evil. Neither R ethical people, the very opposite. The difference is ethos between me and these two as for Iron Heel, I am afraid the contributions I've read seem a bit mechanical in the level of thought, but I don't know this person, as far as I know he is an ethical socialist, and that is all I need to know from afar. It is the difference. It always will be the difference between us these two other types.

Vive la difference!

Resistance is Futile!

derminated

(Edited by TheDerminator at 5:42 pm on May 26, 2002)

El Che

27th May 2002, 00:54

Is it me or are we avoiding the issue here? The issue is the history of the socialist movement. Now your ideas on "isms" are very interesting and I agree with them to a certain extent. Subjective opinion is just that, but the truth is that the history of human evolution is punctuated by new ideas that revolutionise human social existence. Obviously these ideas are introduced by men, men that drop a bomb they created. New ideas cause an impact, drive change foward, and new ideas have men behind them since that is the only source for ideas. Ideas may or may not have reprecussion, depending on how many people adhere or not to them. You can not escape this, you cant wish to do everything your self and nither can only pay heed to "ojective" ideas. You are condictioned by your own culture and by echos from the past, of all that was before you came to be. There is a certain continuity in social existence and you, while you might wish to invent and reinvent your self, are non the less a social product and therefore linked to the present and past of your society. From Greek philosophy to the French revolution the society around you is shaped by "isms". You may renounce some of them, like say the christian tradiction, by you can`t renounce them all. There are surely other "isms" which you embrace, which you make your own and even use to define your self. Its pointless to revolt against "isms", there is more to life then objective methodology, things just aren`t that simple im afraid.

That is the question, which I have asked but was not answered. Do you reject or do you embrace Lenin`s contributions to social evolution? What does Lenin propose in your opinion? I know they are unconfortable questions, but I cant help you there, and rejecting the ideas of others as a philosophical position in life cant help you either, because you couldn`t do that if you wanted to.

Lenin`s ideas certainly had reprecussion, and they certainly did change the history of the socialist movement in praxis. Hail the mighty vanguard comrades! Its more important to realise Lenin`s impact, to acess his legacy and to reject or embrace it (to certain extents) then it is yap indefinatly about the heart and goodness of the man. Or at least its more important to me, I really dont care if Lenin was good at heart or not, I care more about the future and the way in which Lenin`s ideas continue to influence the future. Its importante to speak out, for or against, that influence that continues to shape the lifes of many and the socialist movement.

lenin

27th May 2002, 02:22

derminator, read my post on 'romanovs' to realise why i won't debate with you. if i present my argument and you present yours there would be no problem. but resorting to personal insults only hinders your argument.
about leninism and stalinism though. come on, you must realise that lenin paved the way for stalin. read the marxist theory of 'dictatorship of prolateriat'. it basically means when the prolatriat takes power and uses the state to get rid of its enemies. read lenins 'state and revolution' where he explains this furhter. he basically says until the bourgeoisie is eliminated the state will remain. only after they have been eliminated can communism be achieved.
i'll admit, stalin killed mor people than he should of and for too long. but lenin would have gone about it the same way. maybe lenin would of achieved more out of it though.
as for the institutions, come on, democratic centralism, that is another word for politburo, the politburo that put stalin in charge!
lenin did NOT want stalin to take over USSR, but he did NOT want trotsky either. he didn't trust trotsky and he thought stalin was too dictatoral (he was right). the bit about stalin and his death bed is true though. i read it from a book written by lenins sister and published in 1990. i will try to get a link to it here. she basically says that lenin like stalin for his ruthlessness but felt he was a bad choice for general secratary. she also says he didn't like trotsky because he was very arrogant.
anyway comrade, you need to drop the personal insults. we are never going to meet so what is the point in tring to intise me into a slanging match? personal insults on the internet is stupid because anyone can do it. just let your arguments speak for themselves.