Soviet Union...

[R_P_A_S]

damn people. that's what it seems like. How you just gonna go marching with your army to neighboring countries and toppled their government system and install your own "communist puppets?"

I though the proletariat was supposed to do this. not some foreign bully. no wonder communism has such a bad name, and left people with a bad taste in their mouth..

why the hell do some of you pump this like it was cool or still rock all your 60 year old soviet propaganda?

:blink:

[manic expression]

I presume you mean the satellite states set up in Eastern Europe.

Yes, of course there is disagreement over the Soviet Union's actions after WWII, but one must look at the surrounding situation. The fact is that the people of the USSR had sufferred two devestating invasions within a span of a few decades, invasions which cost millions upon millions of lives. What did you expect them to do? Just give their former and potentially future enemies power again? From just a geo-political standpoint, creating buffer states is something that any power would do. I'm not saying it's right at all, I'm simply pointing out that it's not devoid of reasons that one should understand.

From what I can tell at this point, I have many problems with what the USSR did in Eastern Europe after WWII, but I do see the circumstances surrounding it as well.

[Ander]

I think propaganda of most kinds is pretty cool just because it's an interesting part of history. If I could get my hands on Nazi propaganda I would do so.

I agree with your point about Soviet imperialism however. This was supposed to be part of exporting revolution and while it was much cleaner than American overseas intervention (which generally ended in brutal dictatorships) there were some slip ups. Afghanistan is a pretty solid example of this.

In my opinion, the problem was the Cold War attitude. If it hadn't been for this mentality of having to compete against the United States for influence, some of the more crazy actions would probably not have occurred. Unfortunately, the conditions did not make it so.

[RedSabine]

The soviet leadership at the time (I.E. Stalin) didn't want to "export communism". There wasn't any communism to export! It just wanted bufferstates between itsself and Germany, and to have a fighting chance against the United States, which was quickly consolidating its global hegemony. The USSR just wanted a piece of the post WWII pie.

[chimx]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 15, 2007 08:50 pm
I presume you mean the satellite states set up in Eastern Europe.

Yes, of course there is disagreement over the Soviet Union's actions after WWII, but one must look at the surrounding situation. The fact is that the people of the USSR had sufferred two devestating invasions within a span of a few decades, invasions which cost millions upon millions of lives. What did you expect them to do? Just give their former and potentially future enemies power again? From just a geo-political standpoint, creating buffer states is something that any power would do. I'm not saying it's right at all, I'm simply pointing out that it's not devoid of reasons that one should understand.

From what I can tell at this point, I have many problems with what the USSR did in Eastern Europe after WWII, but I do see the circumstances surrounding it as well.
Imperialism isn't simply defined in terms of territorial acquisitions or the physical conquering and subjugation of a foreign body. It also implies indirect control via economic and/or political domination. Communist parties of the Eastern Bloc were generally subject to the Soviet politburo. This inhibited legislation that many felt was in the best interest of their nation or class, resulting in the decline of any sort of autonomy or freedom. When one is denied either, one has to wonder the purpose of what the soviets called, "worker power."

Of course, following the Sino-Soviet rift, "buffer states" were able to manipulate international politics for their advantage. The classic example is the manner in which Kim Il-sung of North Korea played off the fears of both China and the Soviets to maximize the DPRK's gain. Prior to this, of course, it was still barely anything more than a puppet state. Is it any wonder that the Korean War was only able to end once Stalin had died, despite two years of non-movement on either side?

I can't understand how anyone could apologize for such activity. You can dismiss it as the "same 'ol" of imperial powers, but the degree of manipulation the Soviets used is ghastly and rivals that of the United States in the 1950s and 1960s.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by chimx+March 15, 2007 09:39 pm--> (chimx @ March 15, 2007 09:39 pm)
manic [email protected] 15, 2007 08:50 pm
I presume you mean the satellite states set up in Eastern Europe.

Yes, of course there is disagreement over the Soviet Union's actions after WWII, but one must look at the surrounding situation. The fact is that the people of the USSR had sufferred two devestating invasions within a span of a few decades, invasions which cost millions upon millions of lives. What did you expect them to do? Just give their former and potentially future enemies power again? From just a geo-political standpoint, creating buffer states is something that any power would do. I'm not saying it's right at all, I'm simply pointing out that it's not devoid of reasons that one should understand.

From what I can tell at this point, I have many problems with what the USSR did in Eastern Europe after WWII, but I do see the circumstances surrounding it as well.
Imperialism isn't simply defined in terms of territorial acquisitions or the physical conquering and subjugation of a foreign body. It also implies indirect control via economic and/or political domination. Communist parties of the Eastern Bloc were generally subject to the Soviet politburo. This inhibited legislation that many felt was in the best interest of their nation or class, resulting in the decline of any sort of autonomy or freedom. When one is denied either, one has to wonder the purpose of what the soviets called, "worker power."

Of course, following the Sino-Soviet rift, "buffer states" were able to manipulate international politics for their advantage. The classic example is the manner in which Kim Il-sung of North Korea played off the fears of both China and the Soviets to maximize the DPRK's gain. Prior to this, of course, it was still barely anything more than a puppet state. Is it any wonder that the Korean War was only able to end once Stalin had died, despite two years of non-movement on either side?

I can't understand how anyone could apologize for such activity. You can dismiss it as the "same 'ol" of imperial powers, but the degree of manipulation the Soviets used is ghastly and rivals that of the United States in the 1950s and 1960s. [/b]
Everyone knows that what the Soviets did in Eastern Europe was against the best interests of those various nations and their people, but I didn't argue to the contrary.

We are using the term "imperialism" very loosely. "Imperialism" has to do with a lot of things, whereas the Soviet Union was created buffer zones through overt control.

To make unqualified comparisons with capitalist imperialism is in defiance of the facts IMO.

[chimx]

Most people define imperialism loosely purposefully. How do you define it so as to exclude the creation of subjugated buffer states? How is that at all different (if not worse) than what the United States did in areas such as South Korea, Japan, etc.

[Ander]

The Soviets also worked extensively through political means. Most of the Communist parties in Europe and Latin America were subject to Soviet direction; they basically dictated each party's policy. Many times this ended with unfortunate results, such as in the Spanish Civil War where Stalinism allowed the fascists to take control.

[R_P_A_S]

do you think socialism would of fair better under someone else's "dictatorship" per say. for example if like someone else besides the USSR being the "socialist super power" was encouraging and helping others achieve revolutions and backing different regions of the world do this.

I know they did help lots of other countries, specially here in Latin America. BUT! i get the feeling that they did it only for THEIR imperialist interest and competition with the United States. as opposed to bring about world socialism and democracy to Latin America.

and the *****-ass U.S. obviously also "liberated" latin America from "the iron grip of communism" FOR THEIR own benefit. i.e. free trade, exploitation, you know the deal.

[Ander]

Yes, it was pretty much for their own interests to fight capitalism wherever they could.

And it really depends on the circumstances as to what country would have been a "better" socialist superpower. Under the intense pressures of the Cold War I'm not sure if any socialist country could have progressed normally.

[Vargha Poralli]

Soviet imperialism as far as I know is just a Ultra-Maoist non-sense.There no financial capital export from Soviet Union to the other communist and developing countries.

In fact Trade with them had been in disproportionate favor to other countries. For e.g USSR bought Sugar from Cuba for more than the market rate and sold oil to them for less than the market rate.

The term Soviet Imperialism is just an outcome of petty politics because of ther is some egoist misunderstanding between Chinese and Soviet bureaucrats. This term has now been adopted by ultra-lefts in this board too.

[Hiero]

There were communist in European countries before the Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany. They Soviet Union just aided the communists they could and help them set up a government. This is not imperialism. It would have been wrong to leave these communist alone to face the US and British imperialists.

I think after WW2 and after Stalin the USSR may have had their own interests as well as the interest the communis they aided. There is the criticism that after the oppressed people liberated themsevles, that their trade with the USSR made them dependent on the USSR, only investing in industries that the USSR wanted. Che Guevara said that it is important that after liberation countries don't fall into a similar dependence on another super state, like the USSR. I think that may be indication he was worried about Cuba's reliance on sugar trade with the USSR.

[R_P_A_S]

I think some of you here should snap out of it and for a minute think about the people, people outside the communist parties, and the bureaucracy the very same people we want to liberate and fight for. and how this power trip, and personal competition only hurt more in the long run than it really help, or help communism progress.

I might be new here but you just can't shove your ideas and methods on people like that.
Even if it's good and better for everyone in the long run. I know there's no A_B_C manual on how to properly bring about socialism.

But It's obvious that mistakes were made and instead of justifying them, celebrating them and their contributors I think we should move on and reflect back on it as a learning experience not some sort of accomplishment or glorious time.

By no means am I trying to say that capitalism is better or that any bourgeoisie victory was good for the people in general HELL NAH! But I think we should move on from "the cool tanks", military parades and huge portraits of "leaders".. l

[( R )evolution]

I personally think we should criticize soviet actions as much as we do to western actions. We know the USSR was not real communism so we should stop defending them. Move away from trying to defend the USSR and start preaching the real message of communism and that of equality

[Budapestkick]

The satelite states could not be classsed as imperialism because imperialism by definition means exploitation of one territory for the benefit of another (the imperialist nation). Russia never really benefitted from the satelite states. It sold valuable exports such as oil to the satelite states for as little as one third of it's market value in exchange for shoddy consumer goods.

It is important to remember that Russia was invaded by 21 countries in 1918. The propping up of the satelite states was probably seen as a prudent defense by the bureaucracy rather than as any kind of expansionism. That doesn't justify it of course but those who equate it to traditional capitalist imperialism are completely incorrect.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 12:35 am
Russia never really benefitted from the satelite states.

SovRom in Romania, joint stock companies elswhere, SMAD and SAG in Eastern Germany? USSR took (not "bought", but just packed it up) about 124 milion $ in equipment and resources out of Hungary in the first years after the war. They brought out about 100 milion $ a year in coal out of Poland through so-called "trade agreements" (that one was signed august 16th 1945. - I'm giving you a verifiable data so you don't think that I'm bullshitting you): that sum represented a final profit per year after re-selling. Those profits were larger than Britain's investment-returns in India. Under the privilige of "iron curtain" and the Marshall plan Moscow robbed its colonies off its valuables for small amounts of rubles and sold those commodities to the west for American dollars.

So don't be ridiculous. Post-war colonial policy extended USSR's life span.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 18, 2007 01:23 pm
So don't be ridiculous. Post-war colonial policy extended USSR's life span.
I would say that post-war policy allowed the USSR to regenerate after experiencing one of the most devestating invasions in human history. The equipment they took gave them the ability to regain what they had lost during the war.

[WUOrevolt]

No matter how you look at it you can't call the USSR communist. There is no state in Communism, and I would hardly call the USSR socialiat either, but im not going to get into that now. And what the USSR did after WW2 is Imperialism. No matter how you look at it, there were soviet troops occupying parts of eastern Europe, which amounts to imperialism. Many may try to justify it using what happened to the Soviets over the span of 2 world wars, but you can't justify what they did.

[Digitalism]

Ok, bear with me because I learned this in my "World History" class last semester. Our professor, came off as sort of neutral when talking about this as countless times he repeated "I dont want to sound like I'm a communist sympathizer, but I understand what they wanted"

he mentioned that why USSR started this "Iron Curtain" is because they wanted to protect themselves from the West. I forgot the exact term he called it, but it definitely had everything to do with the West.

Man I sound pretty amateur at this, hey..I'm only learning. :p

[Die Neue Zeit]

Soviet imperialism as far as I know is just a Ultra-Maoist non-sense.There no financial capital export from Soviet Union to the other communist and developing countries.

In fact Trade with them had been in disproportionate favor to other countries. For e.g USSR bought Sugar from Cuba for more than the market rate and sold oil to them for less than the market rate.

Thanks for clarifying on the difference between the export of goods and the export of capital. For a while, I thought that the subsidized trade did qualify as imperialistic.

On the other hand, there were instances of capital export on the part of the Soviet Union, such as the Aswan Dam in Egypt.

You're seeing this being done by China today in Africa (and ironically this has been more effective in alleviating Third-World poverty than Western paternalistic attitudes of "aid" and "charity").


This term has now been adopted by ultra-lefts in this board too.

It's been awhile since you last posted here, but would you call ComradeRed an "ultra-left," too?




SovRom in Romania, joint stock companies elswhere, SMAD and SAG in Eastern Germany? USSR took (not "bought", but just packed it up) about 124 milion $ in equipment and resources out of Hungary in the first years after the war. They brought out about 100 milion $ a year in coal out of Poland through so-called "trade agreements" (that one was signed august 16th 1945. - I'm giving you a verifiable data so you don't think that I'm bullshitting you): that sum represented a final profit per year after re-selling. Those profits were larger than Britain's investment-returns in India. Under the privilige of "iron curtain" and the Marshall plan Moscow robbed its colonies off its valuables for small amounts of rubles and sold those commodities to the west for American dollars.

Thanks for pointing those out. :)

[Comrade Rage]

damn people. that's what it seems like. How you just gonna go marching with your army to neighboring countries and toppled their government system and install your own "communist puppets?"The Nazis were the ones who toppled the legitimate governments! What exactly are you arguing here, that the Red Army should have stopped pushing westward at the border of the USSR? WHY?

I though the proletariat was supposed to do this. not some foreign bully. no wonder communism has such a bad name, and left people with a bad taste in their mouth..Under perfect circumstances, yes. But fascism had taken over Europe, and it was up to the USSR to respond. And once they had, what were they supposed to do? Set up capitalist governments?!


why the hell do some of you pump this like it was cool or still rock all your 60 year old soviet propaganda?
'Cause it was cool.:cool:

But seriously, liberating Eastern Europe (and the world) from fascism was the biggest favor Stalin did the world.

[spartan]

The Nazis were the ones who toppled the legitimate governments! What exactly are you arguing here, that the Red Army should have stopped pushing westward at the border of the USSR? WHY?

I think he means the regimes that the USSR set up after WW2, which were subservient to the USSR (And were thus just as bad as the pro-US regimes set up by the US).

And by invasions i think he means what happened in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.

[Comrade Rage]

(And were thus just as bad as the pro-US regimes set up by the US).
How? Despite the bourgeosie propaganda, they didn't take their orders from Moscow. The only states that I think were total vassals of the USSR was the DDR (E. Germany), Hungary post-56 and Czechoslovakia post-68.

And by invasions i think he means what happened in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.I am undecided about Hungary 1956, but Czechoslovakia 1968 was a Social-Imperialist crime, I agree.

[Psy]

Under perfect circumstances, yes. But fascism had taken over Europe, and it was up to the USSR to respond. And once they had, what were they supposed to do? Set up capitalist governments?!

After the war Asia and Europe was in a more of a revolutionary situation then Europe after 1917, it was what Lenin and Trotsky was hoping for back when the Bolsheviks were in power. Stalin sold these revolution out to broker a deal with the imperialist powers, this at best was only buying time as it was only the USSR getting nuclear weapons that cemented the deal with the imperial powers.

In hindsight if it was Trotsky that running the USSR post WWII then the USSR would still exist as Trotsky would not have brokered such a deal with the imperialist powers and have fanned the flames of revolution in Europe and Asia. The imperialist powers would have had to deal with civil-wars flaring up across the world with the imperialist armies being tired of fighting, while the USSR would have been in danger of being nuked, unlike Japan the USSR had control of its skies and could shoot down US bombers.

[RNK]

In hindsight if it was Trotsky that running the USSR post WWII then the USSR would still exist as Trotsky would not have brokered such a deal with the imperialist powers and have fanned the flames of revolution in Europe and Asia.

Seems we have the next Nostradamus here. Damn, if only the Great Saviour Trotsky had been alive, we'd undoubtedly be living in a socialist utopia right now.

Come on, I'm not even that idiotic about Mao.

[Psy]

Seems we have the next Nostradamus here. Damn, if only the Great Saviour Trotsky had been alive, we'd undoubtedly be living in a socialist utopia right now.

Come on, I'm not even that idiotic about Mao.
Trotsky believed in world revolution, Stalin in building socialism in the USSR. The only reason the imperialist dealt with Stalin was they were at a huge disadvantage as the imperialist powers saw uprising sparking around the world all at the same time with the UK being far to weak to be any help and at a risk itself of revolution.

Trotsky would have seen this weakness as the opportunity to fan the flames of revolution and overstretch the US forces (the only threat to the USSR at the time as the UK was in danger of revolution itself) thinly across the globe, look at how much problem the US had in Vietnam now image the US if had similar resistance throughout Europe, Asia, Middle East and Latin America, on top of the Red Army being a huge wall protecting the USSR all immediate after WWII were its own population needs more consumer goods to be pacified.

[ecoTROTSKYIST]

Yo comrades :D

U cannot force people 2 adopt your way of thinking, to do so directly contradicts Marxist principles. Marxists understand that so long as there is a class structure there will always be class conflict and the potential for the immense majority to overthrow the barbarism of capitalist society. As comrades we have the responsibility to encourage and create an atmosphere which enables the proletariat of all countries to rise up and take their lives into their own hands, u cannot do this for them. Obviously this does not mean that we do not show solidarity with our comrades worldwide, as we are all internationalist- perhaps with the exception of the Stalinists.

Stalin, along with the despotism of his bureaucracy, not only didn't encourage the Russian revolution to spread, but actively stopped it to protect his own imperialist interests (just look at what happened in Spain) and the idiotic, hypocritical, anti-socialist and counter revolutionary idea of ‘socialism in one country’.

The world could definitely be very different if Stalin hadn’t betrayed the Bolshevik revolution by killing Trotsky, the last true Bolshevik.
Perhaps someone could explain to me what Stalin ever did that benefited humanity and the progression of socialism in general...

[spartan]

Perhaps someone could explain to me what Stalin ever did that benefited humanity and the progression of socialism in general...
Well if you ask the Stalinists that, they will more than likely reply that he defeated Fascism (Though its kind of hard to believe that one man single handedly beat millions of Germans and their allies, as that just seems like idol worship to me).

********************

Anyway, though i am an anti-Stalinist, i do feel that it is important to note the unique situation that all sides found themselves in at this critical moment in histroy.

Would Trotsky have been any different than Stalin in this situation?

Its really a "What if?" question that in the end doesnt matter because fate had another calling for Leon Trotsky.

What is important is that Trotsky never got a chance to prove himself as leader, thus we will never truely know if he would have ended up being better than Stalin (Though that depends on what you define as being better than Stalin) and what would have been different (If anything, though we can guess from his writings).

So all in all whats the point in wasting our time asking what if?

Especially when we know how things ended up going (Trotsky was murdered, whilst Stalin got to recreate the Russian Empire).

[RNK]

Trotsky believed in world revolution, Stalin in building socialism in the USSR.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Please read up on theory before you pollute this board with your idiocy.


Trotsky would have seen this weakness as the opportunity to fan the flames of revolution and overstretch the US forces (the only threat to the USSR at the time as the UK was in danger of revolution itself) thinly across the globe, look at how much problem the US had in Vietnam now image the US if had similar resistance throughout Europe, Asia, Middle East and Latin America, on top of the Red Army being a huge wall protecting the USSR all immediate after WWII were its own population needs more consumer goods to be pacified.

That was stupid. Seriously. Most useless post in this thread by far.

First of all, you seem to have no idea what "socialism in one country" means. You seem to think it means "screw any international revolution; we need only to have our revolution and then bask in the glory of our power". What it actually means is that we must be mindful of the changing nature of material conditions of one country to the next. History has shown that we can not expect a mass revolution to suddenly combust in every corner of the world; it's hard enough in a single country, yet alone every country, everywhere, instantaneously. Socialism in one country is the means of creating revolutionary movements linked to the local conditions of that country; you can not expect a revolution in Germany to be the exact same as a revolution in, say, Nepal. The two share unimaginably different conditions, in terms of economics, social advancement, geographics, and so on and so forth. The Bolshevik model of revolution can not simply be forced or superimposed over the planet.

Hell, why have so many idiot Trotskyists (note the emphasis on idiot) suddenly popped up to engage in some mental masturbation about their idol?

[spartan]

Hell, why have so many idiot Trotskyists (note the emphasis on idiot) suddenly popped up to engage in some mental masturbation about their idol?

No offence, but alot of people on this board have been asking exactly the same thing about all the Stalinists on here recently:D

The way i see it is that Trotsky was the lesser of two evils when compared with Stalin (Though that isnt saying much for both of them).

All in all Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists etc are only apart of the modern left via a fluke of histroy (Lenins complete fuck up of Marxism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century).

Why didnt that middle class boy just content himself with being a good teacher like his father?

We woudnt have to suffer with all these idealistic tumours (Stalinism, Trotskyism and Maoism) of the modern left then:(

[Psy]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Please read up on theory before you pollute this board with your idiocy.



That was stupid. Seriously. Most useless post in this thread by far.

First of all, you seem to have no idea what "socialism in one country" means. You seem to think it means "screw any international revolution; we need only to have our revolution and then bask in the glory of our power". What it actually means is that we must be mindful of the changing nature of material conditions of one country to the next. History has shown that we can not expect a mass revolution to suddenly combust in every corner of the world; it's hard enough in a single country, yet alone every country, everywhere, instantaneously. Socialism in one country is the means of creating revolutionary movements linked to the local conditions of that country; you can not expect a revolution in Germany to be the exact same as a revolution in, say, Nepal. The two share unimaginably different conditions, in terms of economics, social advancement, geographics, and so on and so forth. The Bolshevik model of revolution can not simply be forced or superimposed over the planet.

Hell, why have so many idiot Trotskyists (note the emphasis on idiot) suddenly popped up to engage in some mental masturbation about their idol?
After WWII there was a world revolutionary situation, this is the only reason why the imperialists dealt with Stalin instead of driving him back to at least the borders he had under the Molotov-Rubbentrop Pact. The uprisings following WWI was fresh in the minds of the ruling classes and they knew WWII made things worse due to aftermath of WWII radicalizing far more of the globe, this is also the reason for the Marshal Plan. Global capitalism needed to broker a deal with the USSR to buy enough time for the existing capitalist order to survive and Stalin saved capitalism by giving capitalists enough breathing room to crush the global revolutionary situation that accrued following WWII.

[ecoTROTSKYIST]

Would Trotsky have been any different than Stalin in this situation?


Comrade, u should read Trotsky's 'The Revolution Betrayed'
It clearly shows how things would have been different. And it is not simply Trotsky specking hypothetically on what could have been; it clearly shows the struggle between the Stalinists and the Opposition, and how chaotic, idiotic and hypocritical Stalin’s measures were. Just look at how Stalin empowered the kulak as an ill-thought-out short term measure, which directly and seriously threatened the very life of the revolution, and then blamed the 'Trotskyists' for worsening the problem when warning of the dangers of this plan (!)

In response to 'comrade' RNK:
"Irresoluteness before the individual peasant enterprises, distrust of large plans, defence of a minimum tempo, neglect of international problems-all this taken together forms the essence of the theory of 'socialism in one country'...not to hurry with industrialisation, not to quarrel with the muzhik, not to count on world revolution, and above all to protect the power of the party bureaucracy from criticism!"

Later comrades;)

[RNK]

No offence, but alot of people on this board have been asking exactly the same thing about all the Stalinists on here recently

That would hurt if I considered myself a Stalinist.


All in all Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists etc are only apart of the modern left via a fluke of histroy (Lenins complete fuck up of Marxism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century).

I'm sorry, but you aren't smart enough to be a left communist.


After WWII there was a world revolutionary situation, this is the only reason why the imperialists dealt with Stalin instead of driving him back to at least the borders he had under the Molotov-Rubbentrop Pact.

What the hell kind of skewed shit are you talking about? There was no "world revolutionary situation" immediately after WW2; communism in Western Europe was all but destroyed thanks to the Nazi occupation and those few who were left, namely among the French Maquis and Italian partisans were simply opted out of any sort of positions of power after the US and Britain set up their governments. There's no point even mentioning communists in Germany; they were an extinct species.

Then there's China, the only other hub of intense revolutionary activity; for the remainder of the 40s their entire efforts were spent on defeating the Nationalist regime and solidifying the revolutionary movement there. Their most immediate task was to strengthen China for the inevitable imperialist attack, which occured during the Korean War, only a year after victory. A few years later activity was started in French Indochina (ie Vietnam), the Phillipines, India, Cambodia, etc, with varied success (the Vietnamese and Cambodians they were victorious, though the Cambodian communists rejected international unity and revealed themselves to be tyrants using the ideology of communism as a front for their tyranny); the Phillipines movement continues to this day and has not been able to achieve success.

Then, of course, there are the dozens and dozens of other instances; the Cuban revolution, the various revolutionary movements throughout South America and Africa which raged for most of the late 40s, 50s, and 60s, as well as the plethora of communist parties and organizations throughout the western countries who had considerably less success.

So, as you see, revolutions did commence after WW2, thanks almost exlusively to the international efforts of the Soviet Union and China (who routinely took in revolutionaries from all around the world to give them theoretical training, and gave billions in support to far-reaching endeavours). So in a way, you were right; little of this was possible before WW2, but not because of Stalin.

Stalin, for his part, could do very little in Europe immediately after the war. As I said, communist forces in Europe were at that point either extinct or extremely weakened and it was very easy for the western allies to simply shove them out of the way -- people were happy enough to be rid of fascist oppression that capitalist oppression seemed like the highest pinnacle of freedom. A direct invasion of Western Europe by the USSR would have met with disaster; the combined forces of Europe and the West were at that time most likely capable of defeating the Red Army, particularly if you consider that the Wehrmacht and Italian and other Axis armies would have no problem (and did have no problem during the war) uniting with the west's forces. Not only that, but the US had the atomic bomb -- if you would have been willing to sacrafice a few million lives for a very precarious chance at victory I wouldn't really consider you a very smart person. Moscow would have been wiped off the map just as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, and the already-exhausted industrial economy of the USSR would not have been able to continue a prolonged fighting war for very much longer. They would have had to contend with overwhelming US/British air superiority over Western Europe (by comparison, the Luftwaffe in western Europe was completely destroyed, in the East, the Luftwaffe and Soviet air forces were just about equal in ability). Likewise, even after 1949, the Chinese communists were not in any shape to fight a slug-match with the US; their efforts in Korea were effectively defeated and they had no military economy to speak of other than Soviet hand-me-downs and suicide waves of troops. Even so, they did manage to spark revolutionary movements throughout the next ten years.

So in any case, your opinions are not only unfounded, but refuted by history.

[RNK]

In response to 'comrade' RNK:

You're a bigger idiot than Psy, I'm sorry.

[ecoTROTSKYIST]

"You're a bigger idiot than Psy"

HA...Irony!!! :D

[spartan]

I'm sorry, but you aren't smart enough to be a left communist.

That would hurt if i considered myself a left Communist;)

[Psy]

What the hell kind of skewed shit are you talking about? There was no "world revolutionary situation" immediately after WW2; communism in Western Europe was all but destroyed thanks to the Nazi occupation and those few who were left, namely among the French Maquis and Italian partisans were simply opted out of any sort of positions of power after the US and Britain set up their governments. There's no point even mentioning communists in Germany; they were an extinct species.

That is capitalist and Stalinist propaganda. There was armed communist movements in:Poland, Greece, Italy, Japan, Vietnam and elsewhere. The reason the French Maquis and Italian Partisans opted out of power was Stalin refused to aid ANY revolution to not offend the Americans and British.



Then there's China, the only other hub of intense revolutionary activity; for the remainder of the 40s their entire efforts were spent on defeating the Nationalist regime and solidifying the revolutionary movement there.

Only because Stalin was extinguishing the flames of revolution, Russia was reacting just like the British and Americans and asking all the resistance movements to hand over their guns as Stalin didn't want revolution let alone revolution independent of Moscow, Stalin was just as counter-revolutionary as the British and Americans when it came to the massive armed uprisings against the Axis powers.



Their most immediate task was to strengthen China for the inevitable imperialist attack, which occured during the Korean War, only a year after victory. A few years later activity was started in French Indochina (ie Vietnam), the Phillipines, India, Cambodia, etc, with varied success (the Vietnamese and Cambodians they were victorious, though the Cambodian communists rejected international unity and revealed themselves to be tyrants using the ideology of communism as a front for their tyranny); the Phillipines movement continues to this day and has not been able to achieve success.

That would have never happened if the US was busy putting down uprisings around the world. Even if Stalin simply armed both the Italian and Greece guerrillas with airdrops and flying spy planes over Italy and Greece to provide guerrillas with intelligence it would have tied up the bulk of the American forces in Europe fighting guerrilla wars their troops were not trained to deal with.



Then, of course, there are the dozens and dozens of other instances; the Cuban revolution, the various revolutionary movements throughout South America and Africa which raged for most of the late 40s, 50s, and 60s, as well as the plethora of communist parties and organizations throughout the western countries who had considerably less success.

Immediately after WWII armed revolutionary uprisings raged throughout former axis, they were derailed by being disarmed even by Stalin.




So, as you see, revolutions did commence after WW2, thanks almost exlusively to the international efforts of the Soviet Union and China (who routinely took in revolutionaries from all around the world to give them theoretical training, and gave billions in support to far-reaching endeavours). So in a way, you were right; little of this was possible before WW2, but not because of Stalin.

Stalin, for his part, could do very little in Europe immediately after the war. As I said, communist forces in Europe were at that point either extinct or extremely weakened and it was very easy for the western allies to simply shove them out of the way -- people were happy enough to be rid of fascist oppression that capitalist oppression seemed like the highest pinnacle of freedom. A direct invasion of Western Europe by the USSR would have met with disaster; the combined forces of Europe and the West were at that time most likely capable of defeating the Red Army, particularly if you consider that the Wehrmacht and Italian and other Axis armies would have no problem (and did have no problem during the war) uniting with the west's forces. Not only that, but the US had the atomic bomb -- if you would have been willing to sacrafice a few million lives for a very precarious chance at victory I wouldn't really consider you a very smart person. Moscow would have been wiped off the map just as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, and the already-exhausted industrial economy of the USSR would not have been able to continue a prolonged fighting war for very much longer. They would have had to contend with overwhelming US/British air superiority over Western Europe (by comparison, the Luftwaffe in western Europe was completely destroyed, in the East, the Luftwaffe and Soviet air forces were just about equal in ability). Likewise, even after 1949, the Chinese communists were not in any shape to fight a slug-match with the US; their efforts in Korea were effectively defeated and they had no military economy to speak of other than Soviet hand-me-downs and suicide waves of troops. Even so, they did manage to spark revolutionary movements throughout the next ten years.

So in any case, your opinions are not only unfounded, but refuted by history.
If the US could simply crushed the uprisings to the side they wouldn't have bothered making a deal with Stalin, they wouldn't also have bothered re-arming the fascists (as they would rather have puppets with no real ambitions but to please their imperialists masters) to deal with the most radical local populations.

There was no need for the Red Army to slug it out with west, all that had to be done by the USSR was arm the guerrillas that were already existed and let them bleed the Americans and British till they pull back while the Red Army blocked the Americans and British from advancing.

[ecoTROTSKYIST]

Spartan:
"Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists etc are only apart of the modern left via a fluke of histroy (Lenins complete fuck up of Marxism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century)"

What have u got against Lenin comrade?! And it's wrong 2 group Trotskyist movements with that of the Stalinists and Maoists. We call ourselves Trotskyist precisely because we follow the true ideals of Marxism; as seen in the writings and actions of all true comrades, such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, etc.

"[I don't] consider...myself a left Communist"
Mind if I ask what u do consider yourself 2 be comrade?

[spartan]

What have u got against Lenin comrade?!
I think that Lenin got Marxism completly wrong, simple as.

He changed Marx's "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" (i.e. the class) into a Dictatorship of a vanguard (Party) to primarily serve its own intrests (As can be seen with how it ended up in Stalins Empire), instead of the Proletariats (They kept them happy via a glorified welfare system).

Mind if I ask what u do consider yourself 2 be comrade?
The whole "I am not a left Communist" thing was just a joke, as RNK said something similar in an earlier post.

I am a Democratic Socialist, so i guess that i could be included into the whole left Communist grouping.

Check out my "Political Statement" in my profile, to better understand my basic political and economic beliefs.

I will add that i am not of the "Lets get into power via Bourgeois elections" Democratic Socialist types (Though Chavez, and the various other Latin American DemSoc's, is proving that this method can indeed work).

[Psy]

I think that Lenin got Marxism completly wrong, simple as.

He changed Marx's "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" (i.e. the class) into a Dictatorship of a vanguard (Party) to primarily serve its own intrests (As can be seen with how it ended up in Stalins Empire), instead of the Proletariats (They kept them happy via a glorified welfare system).

In Russia the proletriat was the minority during the Bolshevik era, Lenin did not gain much personally, it was the Bolsheviks that insisted that they did not get paid any more then the highest skilled worker and these polices were reversed by Stalin who widened the class division between the bureaucrats/managers and the workers.

[ecoTROTSKYIST]

I think that Lenin got Marxism completly wrong, simple as.
He changed Marx's "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" (i.e. the class) into a Dictatorship of a vanguard (Party) to primarily serve its own intrests (As can be seen with how it ended up in Stalins Empire), instead of the Proletariats (They kept them happy via a glorified welfare system)


Comrade, you have to take into account the material situation the Bolsheviks faced. Prior to the revolution Russia was an incredibly backwards country-that is in relation to its economic and industrial development, with phenomenal divide between the rich and the poor.

During the initial stages of revolutionary socialism in Russia it was inevitable that things had to happen which did not correspond to the ideals or aims of the Bolsheviks, or Marxists in general. For example Lenin believed in true Marxist democracy and that there should be no standing army etc. But this could never have been implemented so quickly after the Tsarist regime was abolished; especially when taking into account the level of opposition from the capitalists, the divide between the rural and urban areas, the development of the kulaks and of the counter revolutionaries-such as the anarchists movements.

Lenin was a genius who understood and fought for the ideals of Marxism. He had absolute compassion and unselfish desire to help humanity progress past them barbarism of this society. Although he did not follow the direct Marxist line, there is no way that Marx, or any1 who understands these ideals or philosophy, would not have supported what Lenin did. (That’s my opinion anyway).
Later comrades :D