Stalinism and leninism

[peaccenicked]

Stalinism is nationalistic, anti democratic, elitist and torturous and murderous. Lenin was no saint but if you read the State and Revolution, you might see that there is nothing in common with Stalinism and Leninism and they are diametrically opposed. There can be no unity.
The majority of the world's left understands this.
Leninism is not about transposing Russian conditions to the rest of the world. The most vital part of Leninism is this.
''3. History teaches us that no oppressed class ever did, or could, achieve power without going through a period of dictatorship, i.e., the conquest of political power and forceable suppression of the resistance always offered by the exploiters—the resistance that is most desperate, most furious, and that stops at nothing. The bourgeoisie, whose domination is now defended by the Socialists who denounce “dictatorship in general” and extol “democracy in general", won power in the advanced countries through a series of insurrections, civil wars, and the forcible suppression of kings, feudal lords, slaveowners and their attempts at restoration. In books, pamphlets, Congress resolutions, and propaganda speeches, Socialists have everywhere thousands and millions of times explained to people the class nature of these bourgeois revolutions and this bourgeois dictatorship. That is why the present defense of bourgeois democracy under the cover of talk about “democracy in general", and the present howls and shouts against proletarian dictatorship under the cover of shouts about “dictatorship in general", are an outright betrayal of socialism. They are, in fact, desertion to the bourgeoisie, denial of the proletariat’s right to its own, proletarian revolution, and a defense of bourgeois reformism at the very historical juncture when bourgeois reformism throughout the world has collapsed and the war has created a revolutionary situation. ''
From Lenin Thesis on bourgeois democracy.
What is different is the lack of revolutionary situations in any developed region of the world even though reformism and boom time are over.

[Revolution Hero]

It is surprisingly, but Stalin have called himself marxist -leninist.

[peaccenicked]

Hitler called himself a socialist. It is not what you say.

[RGacky3]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 11:03 pm on July 20, 2002
Hitler called himself a socialist. It is not what you say.

Hitler did not call him self a socialist, he killed socialists.

[peaccenicked]

Nazism, doctrines and policies of the National Socialist German Workers’ party, which ruled Germany under Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1945. In German the party name was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP); members were first called Nazis as a derisive abbreviation.

[Nateddi]

National Socialism isn't socialism at all. Hitler despised anything marxist leaning.

[peaccenicked]

It has nothing in common with socialism. I agree. But neither has stalinism.

[Revolution Hero]

Peaccenicked, stalinism is the way of governing of the SOCIALIST state. I don't say that this way is good, but you have to admit that it is based on marxism-leninism. Were there any capitalists or exploiters of the working class during Stalinism in the Soviet Union? No, there were not. Were there corrupt bueraucracy officials? No ,there were not, as they all were afraid of Stalin. They knew that Stalin would kill them if he would have found out about them being corrupt.
Stalin just have gathered a lot of power in his hands, the society was functioned under the strict rules, the state fought against the agents of the counter-revolution , there were not much of freedom, as the time was considered to be dangerous. All of these characterizes Stalinism.

[marxistdisciple]

"Were there any capitalists or exploiters of the working class during Stalinism in the Soviet Union?"

Yes, stalin and his cronies!

"They knew that Stalin would kill them if he would have found out about them being corrupt. "

Is that not repression and exploitation?


Yes, all of this characterises Stalinism which is why most of the world has such a close minded opinion of communism. I always used to think Stalin was what communism was about too....so someone actually saying Stalin's way was correct is not exactly going to recieve much support from the general public.

I don't know if it was his dictatorship with lack of democracy (completely against communist ideals) or the fact he killed millions of his own people (also against communist ideals.) He was as close to a communist as Hitler was.

I don't understand why everyone thinks communism is right wing. It is meant to go through a socialist transition anyway by Marx/Lenin's writing, to give people time to adjust to the system. you can't just change fundamental government and expect people to obey you, you have to give them some say! That's what democracy is about. Stalinism had no democracy, how can we call it communism when such a fundamental piece was missing?

[Conghaileach]

Socialism in Russia died in 1924.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from marxistdisciple on 12:24 am on July 23, 2002
"Were there any capitalists or exploiters of the working class during Stalinism in the Soviet Union?"

Yes, stalin and his cronies!

"They knew that Stalin would kill them if he would have found out about them being corrupt. "

Is that not repression and exploitation?





Firstly, Stalin didn't exploited the working class. Working people worked for their own benefit. And that was people who have put Soviet economy on the higher level and this happened in comparingly short time.

Secondly, that is called repression, not the exploitation. That is just the most efficient way of fighting the corruption.

[marxistdisciple]

Yes, it is also against Marx's philosophies, or shall we conveniently forget Stalin repressed by murdering millions? Sure, it was convenient, and terribly efficient, but really not democracy or freedom, therefore, not communism (at least not how marx had envisaged.)

Even Lenin denounced Stalin on his death bed.

[peaccenicked]

Stalinism emerged as a despotic form of 'crude communism'. Not far off Pol Pot.
First comes “crude communism” which:

“wants to destroy everything which is not capable of being possessed by all as private property. It wants to disregard talent, etc., in an arbitrary manner. For it the sole purpose of life and existence is direct, physical possession. The category of the worker [’the antithesis between lack of property and property, so long as it is not comprehended as the antithesis of labour and capital, still remains an indifferent antithesis, not grasped in its active connection'] is not done away with, but extended to all men. The relationship of private property persists as the relationship of the community to the world of things. ... The first positive annulment of private property - crude communism - is thus merely a manifestation of the vileness of private property, which wants to set itself up as the positive community system.”

according to Marx.

[Revolution Hero]

I don't say that Stalinism is a good system of government. I just said that Stalinism can function only inside the structure of the socialist state.
Moreover, Stalin didn't even make his own theory. He started right from the practical usage of his ideas. So, Stalinism is not the theory , but the form of governing of the socialist state.
Leninism is the theory , which is based on Marxism. We can say that Stalinism contradicts to the Marxism-Leninism, but at the same time hides under it's veil .