how to understand stalinism - andy blunden

[peaccenicked]

http://home.mira.net/~andy/bs/index.htm

[Cassius Clay]

Sigh, there is no such thing as 'Stalinism'. That whole website if flawed, you can tell that by the article 'How solidarity beat Stalinism'.

It may of escaped your attention but Enver Hoxha (what you might call a 'Stalinist') spoke out in favour of the Polish working classes in 1980.

[James]

clay is right

[Ian]

Good stuff peacce. Enjoyed it.

It explains how stalinists co-opt workers movements and usurp power from genuine grass roots activists, It is truly the evil second soul of socialism as Draper calls it.

Clay you are denying the existance of Stalinism? I think it is plainly obvious that their is a difference between Stalinism and genuine scientific socialism. Marx often criticized bonapartism, Stalin was a bonapartist. Take your pick Stalin or Marx, when they are juxtaposed you can see their ideology is completely different so why don't you choose who to follow?

[Marxman]

There is no such thing as Stalinism (!?)

Cassius Clay, how many Marxist books have you read?

[Marxman]

By the way, an excellent Marxist site with dialectical content. I think it is meant absolutely for those who (Cassius Clay) think that Russia had communism.

[new democracy]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 12:05 pm on Oct. 26, 2002
there is no such thing as 'Stalinism'.
that's not mazdak will say!!! and saying this is like saying "there is no such thing as trostkism".

[Discourse of Method]

what? borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrring do you expect me to read that? first you have to click on the sections and crap, and you have to read a ton of stuff that doesnt help you at all because stalinism is never gonna take over anything except maybe a room of 4 or 5 kids smoking pot and saying "yeah man, stalin is the sheeeeeeeeeeit!" Yeah you got the free speech in a place like this to preach about radical stuff but you can never put it into action, are you crazy? im not. im just anarchist. anarchy in several parts of the UK and central europe!

[Cassius Clay]

The Contribution of J.V. Stalin to Marxism-Leninism
M.B. Mitin
M.D. Kammari
G.F. Aleksandrov

... The theoretical works of Comrade Stalin and the practical revolutionary-creative struggle for communism led by him has had a powerful transforming influence on science. Already the foundation of Marxism itself was a great revolution in science, and in our epoch the teachings of Marx and Engels, raised by Lenin and Stalin to a new, higher level, have become the scientific basis for the transformation of social relations, technology and nature itself.

Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin -- the continuator of the immortal work of Marx and Engels, the friend and companion-in-arms of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and continuator of his works of genius -- is the greatest thinker of our modern epoch, a treasure of Marxist-Leninist science. He has enriched and developed materialist dialectics -- a powerful means for the scientific understanding of social sciences, he has greatly and fruitfully influenced the development of natural sciences.

The Academy of Science of the USSR marked the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the birth of Comrade Stalin with a large series of sessions of its General Council and all its sections and scientific councils of numerous institutes. In a number of lectures, in an atmosphere of general enthusiasm, the great contributions of Comrade Stalin to the development and continuation of Marxism-Leninism and the creation of a new Soviet science and technology were summarized.

On December 26, 1949, representatives of historical and philosophical disciplines filled the conference hall of the Section of History and Philosophy, the hall in which 20 years ago Comrade Stalin gave a magnificent talk to the conference of Marxist agricultural workers that enriched the treasure of Marxism-Leninism. The sessions held were part of the sessions of the Academy of Sciences devoted to the seventieth anniversary of the birthday of the beloved leader.

Eminent Soviet scientists take their places at the presidium.

For the talk on the topic "J.V. Stalin -- of Marxist-Leninist Science" the podium is given to Academician M.B. Mitin.

J.V. Stalin, loyal follower of Lenin, continuator of his cause, made an invaluable contribution to the development of Leninism -- the speaker says. During an earlier period of the political activity of Comrade Stalin, at the time of his stay in the Caucasus, he already showed himself to be the most stalwart and consistent follower of Lenin. Already during these years, the speaker emphasized, Comrade Stalin created a number of original works of Marxist-Leninist theory, that represented by themselves a serious contribution to Leninism. In the Leninist spirit he approached questions of ideology, tactics, organization, the theoretical and practical training of the Bolshevik party.

The significance of the theoretical works of J.V. Stalin is great. He generalized all the ideological inheritance of V.I. Lenin, gave the theoretical substantiation of Leninism. Comrade Stalin gave the classical definition of Leninism: "Leninism -- he wrote -- is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular" (J.V. Stalin Problems of Leninism, Foreign Languages Press, Peking 1976, p. 3 [The Foundations of Leninism].)

In this definition Comrade Stalin emphasizes the continuous unity, integrity and progression of the teachings of Marks and Lenin. He pointed that the basis of Leninism is Marxism, that without understanding and beginning from Marxism there is no way to understand Leninism. In this way, Comrade Stalin drew attention to what is new that is connected with the name of Lenin, what Lenin contributed to the development of Marxist theory on the basis of the generalization of the new experience in the class struggle of the proletariat in the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolution.

Comrade Stalin always emphasizes that the theoretical basis of Leninism is Marxism. It is known that relatively recently there was an attempt in our philosophical literature to "complete" this statement of J.V. Stalin with the consideration that, along with Marxism, Leninism is based on the Russian classical revolutionary-democratic philosophy of the 19th century.

No doubt the significance of the classical philosophical thinking of the19th century is great as the most advanced and most revolutionary thinking of the pre-Marxist period. However, it is completely wrong to consider Russian classical philosophy as the theoretical basis of Leninism along with Marxism. Leninism, as pointed out repeatedly by Comrade Stalin, has one theoretical basis, and this basis is Marxism.

The work of Comrade Stalin The Foundations of Leninism written in 1924, right after the death of Lenin -- is an outstanding creative development of Marxist-Leninist science. A powerful force of theoretical generalization, of deep knowledge of history, runs through this whole work, there is the complete recognition of the treasure of ideas of Lenin -- all this characterized the role of V.I. Lenin as the creator of Leninism, as the continuator of Marxism for a new historic era. The work of Comrade Stalin The Foundations of Leninism and a number of other works of J.V. Stalin (The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists, Concerning Questions of Leninism, The Results of the Work the XIV Conference of the R.C.P.(B.), Questions and Answers and others) as a whole formed a united work on the question of Leninism.

Comrade Stalin showed the international significance of Leninism. He exposed sharply and straight-forwardly the attempts to distort Leninism, that attempted to restrict Leninism to the peculiar situation of Russia, that attempted to turn Leninism into a "purely Russian" phenomenon.

Comrade Stalin showed that the main thing in Leninism consists of the teachings on the dictatorship of the proletariat, that all other constituent parts of Leninism: the peasant question, the national question, the teachings on strategy and tactics... should be approached as a consequence of this main essence to which they are organically linked. In this way, Comrade Stalin emphasized the truly militant, revolutionary character of Leninism, which fights for the liquidation of capitalism and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the construction of a new society.

Comrade Stalin shows with a tremendous convincing force that Marxist theory is the guide to action, that thanks to Lenin the Bolshevik party possessed a great weapon, with which it could seize the most inaccessible fortress.

Lenin died in 1924. All the burdens due to the solution of the historical task of the construction of socialism in our country was carried out by Comrade Stalin. Under his leadership a gigantic transformation was accomplished that had no precedent in history and that radically changed the face of the country.

The epoch of Stalin is the epoch of the victory of socialism in one-sixth of the earth and the step-by-step transition from socialism to communism in the USSR. The international-historical significance of this victory is invaluable. The USSR was the first to pave the way towards socialism. The inexhaustible experience of the construction of socialism in the USSR is an example for all countries, for all fraternal communist parties.

Comrade Stalin creatively developed Leninism for this new epoch, showed the laws of this epoch, gave an answer to most complicated questions posed by revolutionary practice. Comrade Stalin enriched Marxist-Leninist theory with new statements and new directives corresponding to the new experience in the class struggle of the working class in the USSR and the whole world. What J.V. Stalin contributed to Marxist teachings is a new, higher stage in the development of Leninism. J.V. Stalin is a theorist of victorious socialism, the founder of the scientific theory of socialist society.

The victory of socialism in the USSR resulted in the creation of a new social-economic formation. The new social and state formation that has been created, developed and strengthened, displays social features specific only to this formation. Socialism has become part of the everyday life of millions of toilers. New social relations among people have emerged. The relations of production, i.e. the relations among people engaged in the social process of production, are built on the basis of the comradely co-operation and socialist mutual assistance. A new man of the socialist epoch has been formed.

J.V. Stalin made an all-sided analysis of the socialist mode of production, which is a superior mode of production to capitalism. He made the analysis of the radical difference between socialism and capitalism, the characteristics of the superiority of this mode of production as a higher stage, a more progressive social system that any former one, as a higher type of social organization of labor. J.V. Stalin thoroughly investigated the laws of this new formation.

Following V.I. Lenin's indications, Comrade Stalin developed a rigorous, scientific, theoretical and practical program for the socialist industrialization of our country. The socialist method of industrialization, he pointed out, is radically different from methods of industrialization in capitalist countries. Capitalist countries accomplished their industrialization by a ruthless exploitation of the toilers, the plundering of colonies, by means of conquests, plundering, burdensome loans. Capitalist industrialization resulted in the impoverishment of the toiling masses, the enlarging of the reserve army of labor and the formation of a huge mass of unemployed. It resulted in the sharpening of the economic crisis of capitalism, in mass misery and suffering for the toiling masses. The Soviet method of industrialization is based on the domination of social property over the instruments and means of production, on the internal sources of socialist accumulation for the development of industry. Following V.I. Lenin's considerations, Comrade Stalin worked out in theory and put into effect in practice a rigorous plan for the collectivization of agriculture. This was one of the most complicated tasks of the socialist revolution; nevertheless Soviet power successfully accomplished this task. As a result, in the Soviet village a revolution occurred whose significance, as pointed out by Comrade Stalin, can be compared to that of the October 1917 Revolution. Comrade Stalin created the theory of the collectivization of the countryside, he is the founder of the kolkhoz system.

On the basis of the collectivization of the countryside the former exploiting class in our country -- the kulaks -- were liquidated. All these social changes produced the conditions for the victory of socialism in all spheres of the economy of the USSR.

The victory of socialism in our country was established from the legal point of view with the adoption of the Constitution of the USSR of 1936. The Soviet Union entered a new period of development. Then de facto the question of the construction of communism was raised, the step-by-step transition from socialism to communism. In connection with the victory of socialism in the USSR new aspects and features of the new social formation were brought out. J.V. Stalin's historical contribution is based on the discovery of the laws of socialist society, on the deep theoretical generalization of this new epoch, on the concretization and development of Leninism on the question of the state, classes, labor, the driving forces, nations in socialism and communism.

In the Report to the XVIII Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.) (March 1939) on the question of the state, Comrade Stalin stated: "We cannot expect the Marxist classics, separated as they were from our day by a period of 45 or 55 years, to have foreseen each and every zigzag of history in the distant future and in every separate country. It would be ridiculous to expect the Marxist classics to have elaborated for our benefit ready-made solutions for each and every theoretical problem that might arise in a particular country 50 or 100 years afterwards, so that we, the descendants of the Marxist classics, might calmly doze at the fireside and munch ready-made solutions." (J.V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism, Foreign Languages Press, Peking 1976, p. 931.)

Stalin's statements regarding the possibility of the construction of communism in our country, regarding the preservation of the state in the period of communism in the case of capitalist encirclement, enriched Leninism with a new theoretical weapon, they gave to the Bolshevik party, to the working class, to all toilers of the Soviet country a great perspective, clarity of goals and inspired new achievements. They clarified with a powerful driving force, the subsequent development of the Soviet country, towards the heights of the new social formation. Comrade Stalin continued the work of Lenin on the question of the state which the latter could not conclude due to his early death.

J.V. Stalin first of all developed the complete characteristics of the classes of socialist society in the USSR. The essence of his explanations of the class content of socialist society may be summarized as follows:

a) The consolidation of socialism in the USSR implied the complete liquidation of all exploiting classes and strata in our country.

B) The victory of the October Revolution and the consolidation of socialism in the USSR resulted in a change in the social nature of the working class, peasantry and intelligentsia.

The social groups in Soviet society experienced radical changes: "...the working class of the USSR is an entirely new working class, a working class emancipated from exploitation, the like of which the history of mankind has never known before" (ibid., p. 801 [On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R.]). Also "... the Soviet peasantry is an entirely new peasantry, the like of which the history of mankind has never known before" (ibid., p. 802).

c) Soviet socialist society consist of two classes -- workers and peasants; the intelligentsia is a social stratum but not a separate class; the workers, peasants and laboring intelligentsia have equal rights in all spheres of the economic, political, social and cultural life of the country.

d) In the future, when all class differences will be overcome, the workers, peasants and intelligentsia will become the laborers of the communist society. In this way, on the basis of the generalization of the experience of Soviet socialist society, J.V. Stalin established that under socialism, as the first phase of communism, classes still exist, certain class differences among them are still preserved, that these classes have a new, socialist nature, but that only in the highest stage of communism will these class differences disappear.

These theoretical considerations were embodied in the Constitution of the USSR; they are a step forward in the development of the theory of Leninism, they enrich Leninism with new theoretical values. The existence of two classes under socialism, the existence of substantial class differences between them, are based on the existence under socialism of two forms of socialist property. Formerly it was more or less accepted that under socialism just one form of property would exist based on the socialized instruments and means of production. This question could not be posed in a more definite way since the required conditions did not exist. J.V. Stalin developed and concretized the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin on socialism, established that under socialist property may exist in two forms: the form of the consistently-socialist, state property, which is the whole people's property, and in the form of cooperative-kolkhoz property, the property of the collective producers.

The thesis of the two forms of socialist property under socialism was substantiated by Comrade Stalin. He elaborated the question of the socialist nature of the kolkhozes, the question of the forms of development and consolidation of the kolkhoz. All these form an eminent contribution to Marxist-Leninist science, which make it possible to expound the laws of development of socialist society.

J.V. Stalin concretized the Leninist teaching on the question of work under socialism and communism. Regarding this question, the main thesis could be summarized as follows:

1. Socialism and work cannot be isolated from each other; the socialist formation is first of all a formation that has no loafers or parasites, where the famous Leninist thesis: "he who does not work, neither shall he eat," that work is an obligation of all toilers, were put into effect. "Socialism -- said Comrade Stalin - does not in the least repudiate work. On the contrary, socialism is based on work. Socialism and work are inseparable from each other." (J.V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism, p. 663. [Speech Delivered at the First All-Union Congress of Collective-Farm Shock Brigaders.])

2. Under socialism work becomes an affair of popular honor and glory, it has a directly social character: the worker is honored, is a sort of social figure, society pays attention to him and he receives from society a great moral and material reward for work well-done.

3. Developing the famous consideration of Marx, Engels and Lenin on the question of socialism and communism, Comrade Stalin gave the following definition of these two stages of the new social formation. He pointed out that by equality Marxism understands:

"...c) the equal duty of all to work according to their ability, and the equal right of all working people to receive in return for this according to the work performed (socialist society); d) the equal duty of all to work according to their ability, and the equal right of all working people to receive in return for this according to their needs (communist society). Moreover, Marxism proceeds from the assumption that people's tastes and requirements are not, and cannot be, identical and equal in regard to quality or quantity, whether in the period of socialism or in the period of communism." (J.V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism, p. 741-742. [Report to the XVIIth Party Congress.])

The positions of Comrade Stalin are a development of the Marxist-Leninist teachings on socialism and communism. We have here a more concrete formulation of the main principles of socialism and communism based on the practical experience of the construction of socialism in the USSR.

J.V. Stalin, developing the Leninist ideas on socialism, and based on the victorious construction and consolidation of socialism in the USSR, discovered the new driving forces of socialist society that were unknown before and were absent in previous social-economic formations, namely: the moral-patriotic unity of the peoples of the USSR, Soviet patriotism.

Comrade Stalin discovered the driving forces of the development of the socialist society, which is a discovery of fundamental significance for Marxist-Leninist science. Comrade Stalin brought out new forms of social development, new stimulation for the development of socialist society. J.V. Stalin also discovered the special role played by self-criticism in the development of the Soviet country. Comrade Stalin's positions are well-known, that we need self-criticism as much as we need air and water.

The all-sided explanation of the significance of self-criticism, its tremendous role, the extent to which the party requires self-criticism as a means of proper leadership of the country, its significance as an objective law in the development of the socialist society -- these are all serious steps forward in the development of the Marxist-Leninist teachings of socialism.

In the works of Marx and Engels the national question is considered in the era of pre-monopoly capitalism. The national-liberation movement was studied in a number of countries: Ireland, Poland, Hungary, India and China.

Lenin, based on the main ideas of Marx and Engels, developed the views of the founders of Marxism with regard to the national question, created the teaching of the national question in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. Lenin substantiated and proved that the national question is a part of the general question of the proletarian revolution, of the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Lenin created a solid system of views on the question of the national-colonial revolutions in the era of imperialism. He linked up the national-colonial question with the question of the overthrow of imperialism.

The contribution of Stalin in the subsequent development of the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the national question is specially great. J.V. Stalin is the creator of the theory and the Bolshevik program of the national question. J.V. Stalin elaborated the Marxist theory of nations, the question of the origin of the nation, the peculiarities of the development of nations in Western Europe and in the East. He formulated the basics of the Bolshevik approach to the solution of the national question, substantiated the Bolshevik principle of the international unity of the workers.

By developing the theory of socialist society, the basis of the teachings of the Soviet socialist state, Comrade Stalin produced a scientific substantiation of the main problems and questions connected with the construction of the multinational Soviet state. The Soviet Union is for the whole world an example of brotherhood of peoples never before seen in history. The friendship of the peoples of the Soviet country has become one of the sources of the strength of our state, one of the sources of Soviet patriotism.

In the report delivered on the 27th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, Comrade Stalin gave the classical definition of the essence and strength of Soviet patriotism: "The strength of Soviet patriotism -- said Comrade Stalin -- lies in the fact that it is based not on racial or nationalist prejudices, but on the people's profound loyalty and devotion to their Soviet Motherland, on the fraternal partnership of the working people of all the nationalities in our country. Soviet patriotism harmoniously combines the national traditions of the peoples and the common vital interests of all the working people of the Soviet Union." (J.V. Stalin, On the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union [also in Works, Red Star Press, London, 1984, Vol. 15, p. 422-423].)

J.V. Stalin further developed the Leninist theory of the national question with respect to Soviet socialist society. He elaborated a very relevant thesis that determines the development of the culture of the peoples of the USSR. This thesis reads: the development of the culture of the peoples of the USSR is national in form but socialist in content.

Comrade Stalin points out that the slogan of national culture was a bourgeois slogan as long as power remained in the hands of the bourgeoisie, and the consolidation of the nation took place under the leadership of the bourgeoisie. The slogan of national culture, national in form and socialist in content, became a proletarian slogan when the proletariat achieved power, and the consolidation of the nation began to develop under Soviet power. "In point of fact - wrote Comrade Stalin - the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of the building of socialism in the U.S.S.R. is a period of the flowering of national cultures that are socialist in content and national in form; for, under the Soviet system, the nations themselves are not the ordinary 'modern' nations, but socialist nations, just as in content their national cultures are not the ordinary bourgeois cultures, but socialist cultures." (J.V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 12, p. 379. [Report to the XVI Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)])

This thesis has a fundamental significance and determined a whole program for the practical work in our national republics, a program based on solid ground.

In his article "The National Question and Leninism" (1929) and in the Political Report to the XVI Congress of the Party (1930) J.V. Stalin put forward new and most important positions about bourgeois nations and socialist nations. Formerly socialism was conceived in a very general manner, as the system that leads to the abolition of the nation. J.V. Stalin showed that socialism does not lead to the abolition of nations, but only to the abolition of bourgeois nations. He showed that based on the ruins of the old, bourgeois nations appear new, socialist nations that are far more solid and stable than any bourgeois nation, since they are free from antagonistic class contradictions. The statement of J.V. Stalin that in history there exist two types of nations - bourgeois and socialist, that bourgeois nations are linked to the fate of capitalism and that they should disappear with the collapse of capitalism, while the appearance of socialism leads to the creation on the basis of the old nations of new, socialist nations - these statements are a new, great contribution to the development of the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the national question, to the development of the teaching on socialism.

The huge and inexhaustible experience of the development of the Soviet multinational state, the development of Soviet nations was scientifically generalized by J.V. Stalin. What was given by him in the course of the elaboration of the question of bourgeois and socialist nations - is a new page in the Marxist-Leninist theory of the national question. In this respect J.V. Stalin also studied the question of the future of nations and national languages.

J.V. Stalin, a great representative of creative Marxism, is a continuator of the best qualities, features and traditions of V.I. Lenin. As is well known, from his very earliest works Lenin never failed to emphasize that a real Marxist should be able to take account of real life. Lenin reiterated many times the famous thesis of Marx and Engels, that "our teaching is not a dogma but a guide to action."

J.V. Stalin developed further, elevated to a new, higher stage the teaching of dialectical and historical materialism. His work "Dialectical and Historical Materialism" represents one of the most eminent works of Marxist-Leninist philosophy. It stands together with such works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism as Marx's "Capital," Engel's "Anti-Dühring" and Lenin's "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism." In this genius work the bases of dialectical and historical materialism are given in an extremely concise and compact way. Comrade Stalin made in this work a generalization of the contributions of Marx, Engels and Lenin on the teaching of the dialectical method and the materialist theory. He developed all this on the basis of the newest results of science and revolutionary practice.

J.V. Stalin is a great leader of the peoples of the USSR and the working people of the whole world, a coryphaeus of Marxist-Leninist science. He combines within himself colossal theoretical power and tremendous experience in leadership. J.V. Stalin is the leader of the CPSU(B) and the Soviet state. The power of the Stalinist leadership is based on mobilizing and inspiring directions, that are always aimed at what is most important, most relevant, most necessary for the fruitful and successful solution of the tasks that confront the working masses. The power of the Stalinist leadership is based on the brilliant dialectical analysis of phenomena, on the capability of considering facts and events in their development, in their interrelation, in their contradiction. Its power is the genius capability of looking forward into the future, in foreseeing the development and calling for the necessary actions. The power of the Stalinist leadership consists of a tough critique of the shortcomings, of helping those that lag behind, of assisting all that is new, progressive and capable of pushing a positive development in the decisive breakdown of the old, obsolete, that has become a brake on development. The power of the Stalinist leadership is based on the deepest Leninist faith in the creative and inexhaustible power of the popular masses.

...Prof. M.D. Kammari delivered a paper on the development of the Marxist-Leninist theory on the national question by Stalin.

The name of Stalin, a genius continuator of the great teaching and work of Lenin, is linked - said the speaker - to the solution of one of the most important questions of the socialist revolution. This question as well as others was elaborated by Stalin in close co-operation with Lenin.

Lenin and Stalin in their approach to the national question started off from the main ideas drawn by Marx and Engels. Lenin and Stalin developed these ideas in the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution, in the era of the construction of communism in the USSR; they merged and generalized these ideas into a solid system of views on the national-colonial revolutions, linked the national-colonial question with the question of the liquidation of imperialism, they explained the significance of the national-colonial question as a constituent part of the general question of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The works of J.V. Stalin give an all-sided scientific substantiation of the program and the policy of the Bolshevik party with respect to the national question and they are a directive for all communist parties: they are like a shining candle that sheds light on the path of the peoples of the colonies and dependent countries towards freedom and independence.

From the very first steps of his revolutionary career, J.V. Stalin together with V.I. Lenin defended and developed the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat in the revolution, the principle of proletarian internationalism in the construction of Russian Social-Democracy against the Bundists, Caucasian federalists and nationalists, who disguised themselves with socialist phrases.

In his work The Social-Democratic View of the National Question (September, 1904), J.V. Stalin made a remarkable contribution to the national program of the RSDLP.

Already in this period J.V. Stalin proved himself a leading theoretician of the national question. He mastered the Marxist dialectical method and gave an exceptionally deep, dialectical, classical, proletarian organization and solution to the national question. In this work lies the embryo of the ideas subsequently developed by Comrade Stalin in his classical work Marxism and the National Question (January, 1913), written on the eve of the First World War, when nationalist feelings in the working class were strengthened and fostered by the social-chauvinist parties of the Second International, the Bundists, Liquidators and Trotskyites in Russia. The work of J.V. Stalin the became a major statement of Bolshevism internationally before the war of 1914. This was a theoretical statement and the Bolshevik program regarding the national question as well. In his work, two theories, two methods, two programs, two ways of thinking regarding the national question are opposed to each other: that of the parties of the Second International and that of Leninism.

Comrade Stalin elaborated here the foundation of the Bolshevik approach to the national question: the requirement of considering the national question from the concrete historical, dialectical standpoint, in a discontinuous interconnection with the international situation corresponding to the era of imperialism, as a part of the general question of the revolution. Stalin substantiated the programmatic slogan of the party on the right of nations to self-determination and the principle of the international solidarity of workers as a required starting point for the solution of the national question.

By founding the Marxist theory of the nation, J.V. Stalin laid a solid theoretical basis for the program and the policy of the Bolshevik party regarding the national question, he created an invincible weapon for the struggle of Marxism-Leninism against any variety of the ideology and politics of bourgeois nationalism.

J.V. Stalin foresaw the future by linking up the solution of the national question with the growth of imperialism in Europe and the inevitability of the growth of democracy in Asia, with impending imperialist wars and the "complications" created by them, i.e. crises and revolutions.

This prediction of Comrade Stalin was completely borne out in the period of the First World War and especially in the period of the Great October Revolution.

J.V. Stalin points out two stages in the elaboration of the national question by the Bolshevik party: the pre-October stage, when the national question had not yet become an international question and was associated with the solution of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and the October stage, when the national question became an international question, when it merged with the question of the liberation of the colonies and became associated with the fate of the socialist revolution. These positions of Stalin together with his positions on the three periods in the history of the national-liberation movements -- the period of pre-monopoly capitalism, the period of imperialism and the Soviet period -- have an invaluable significance for the policies of the communist parties and for historical science as well. The victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution opened a new, Soviet stage in the solution of the national question and in the development of Marxism-Leninism in general. The October Revolution, as pointed out by Stalin, gave birth to a new era in the history of humankind, a new era in the history of the oppressed nations. The era of exploitation "without revolt" in the colonies is over, a new era has commenced, the era of the leadership of the proletariat and in the colonies, the era of its hegemony in the revolution.

J.V. Stalin made an all-sided elaboration of the question of the alliance of the proletarian revolution with the national-liberation movements of the peoples of the colonies and dependent countries, the question of the strategy and tactics of the communist parties, the idea of the hegemony of the proletariat in these movements; he substantiated and further developed Lenin's statement on the possibility of the transition of backward countries to socialism, skipping capitalism under the conditions of the support from proletarian revolutions in the developed countries. These ideas have become a great, transforming, creative revolutionary power capable of raising hundreds of millions of people to the struggle for their liberation.

The hegemony of the proletariat is new and decisive in the national-liberation movements, which gives these movements consciousness, organization, stability, an invincible power which leads to their victory over imperialism.

J.V. Stalin constantly emphasizes that the existence the Soviet Union is a decisive factor that facilitates and guarantees the success and final victory of all national-liberation movements of the peoples of the dependent countries and colonies, since the very existence of such a state constrains the dark forces of reaction, its successes inspire the oppressed peoples in the struggle for their liberation, facilitates this liberation. The liberation of the peoples of the countries of peoples' democracies in Europe and Asia bears witness of the greatness of the liberating role of the Soviet Union, as the liberator of peoples from the yoke of imperialism.

Comrade Stalin brilliantly foresaw that China would follow the path of the anti-imperialist popular revolution towards the creation of an anti-imperialist, popular power which would lead China to the socialist path of development. The creation of the People's Republic of China implies a new powerful blow against the whole colonial system of imperialism, which is undergoing a profound crisis, it elevates to a higher stage the struggle of the peoples of Asia and the whole colonial world in general. This victory implies a serious strengthening of the forces of peace, socialism and democracy, led by the USSR.

J.V. Stalin shows that the national question is posed and solved in Leninism differently as it was in the period of the Second International. J.V. Stalin points to the existence of four main elements in the Leninist theory of the national question:

"The first point is the merging of the national question, as a part, with the general question of the liberation of the colonies, as a whole...

The second point is that the vague slogan of the right of nations to self-determination has been replaced by the clear revolutionary slogan of the right of nations and colonies to secede, to form independent states...

The third point is the disclosure of the organic connection between the national and colonial question and the question of the rule of capital, of overthrowing capitalism, of the dictatorship of the proletariat...

The fourth point is that a new element has been introduced into the national question -- the element of the actual (and not merely juridical) equalisation of nations (help and co-operation for the backward nations in raising themselves to the cultural and economic level of the more advanced nations), as one of the conditions necessary for securing fraternal co-operation between the labouring masses of the various nations." (J.V. Stalin, Works, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1953, Vol. 5, pp. 52-60. [From Concerning the Presentation of the National Question.])

J.V. Stalin developed the Leninist thesis about the two tendencies in capitalism with regard to the national question: the tendency towards the formation of nations and national states and the tendency towards the "unification" of nations under the power of financial capital. J.V. Stalin argues that these tendencies are irreconcilable contradictions for imperialism since imperialism cannot "unite" without exploiting a nation. The struggle between these two tendencies enriches the analysis of capitalism in the period of imperialism and this contradiction is one of the sources of its structural weakness, internal instability, of the collapse of multinational bourgeois states, of the collapse and bankruptcy of the policies of the bourgeoisie with regard to the national question. The bankruptcy of the policies of German, Japanese, and after them Anglo-American imperialism in the colonies and the dependent, "Marshalized" countries, is a brilliant confirmation of the strength and significance of the Leninist theses.

For communism these two tendencies, emphasizes J.V. Stalin, are two sides of the same question: the liberation of the oppressed nations from the yoke of imperialism and their unification into a unified socialist world economy voluntarily and on the basis of total equality. Stalin together with Lenin created and strengthened the multinational socialist state, put into practice the national policy of the Soviet power, defined the paths and forms leading to the formation of a fraternal commonwealth of nations on the basis of the Soviet system, under the leadership of the working class and its party, defined the path for the formation and development of socialist nations and their culture.

Comrade Stalin brilliantly solved the complicated and intricate questions of relations between nations, accomplished a gigantic practical work in the foundation of the national Soviet republics and their unification into the USSR.

There is no single Soviet republic in whose formation and consolidation Stalin did not take a decisive and leading part.

J.V. Stalin brilliantly generalized the masses' revolutionary experience in the construction of the Soviet state. He posed the question of the federation, developed the most convenient forms of unification of Soviet republics into a unified state. He showed the superiority of the Soviet federation compared to bourgeois federations.

Soviet power established the complete political and legal equality of nations and liquidated national oppression. This achievement of the party and Soviet power has historic and world-wide significance. But this is not enough, J.V. Stalin pointed out. "The essence of the national question in the R.S.F.S.R. -- said J.V. Stalin at the X Congress of the R.C.P.(B.) -- lies in abolishing the actual backwardness (economic, political and cultural) that some of the nations have inherited from the past, to make it possible for the backward peoples to catch up with central Russia in political, cultural and economic respects." (J.V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 5, p. 39.)

This great historical task was accomplished by the party under the leadership of Stalin on the basis of the Leninist-Stalinist national policy, on the basis of the policy of industrialization and collectivization, the liquidation of the exploiting classes, the construction of socialism. The history of socialism and the social conquests of the peoples of the USSR was established in the Stalin Constitution. The great Stalin Constitution of the USSR declares that all nations and races, regardless of their past and present stage of development, regardless of their strength or weakness, should be entitled to equal rights in all spheres of the social life. The Soviet Constitution prosecutes any expression of the propaganda of national hostility as a severe offence against the pillars of the Soviet state. In Soviet society there are no privileged, oppressed, unequal nations or races. It is not national origin but individual capabilities, individual labor, that determine the place of a citizen in Soviet society. Comrade Stalin showed that on the basis of the Soviet system there were created and consolidated new Soviet, socialist nations which, according to their class structure, spiritual attributes, their socio-political orientation, radically differ from the old bourgeois nations.

Soviet nations are socialist nations, liberated from exploitation, from class antagonism with new Soviet, socialist moral and political characteristics, psychological types, consisting of fraternal classes, the working class, peasantry and intelligentsia, whose class boundaries are disappearing. These are nations that are building communism, freed from the remnants of capitalism, that are coming together and jointly constructing communism by means of all-sided socialist competition and fraternal co-operation.

The great commonwealth of socialist nations was created under the leadership of the Bolshevik party, under the leadership of the Russian working class, thanks to the correct, Leninist-Stalinist national policy, of disinterested assistance to formerly oppressed nations and considerate stand towards the particularities of their mode of life and culture. Thanks particularly to the accomplishment of this policy, the Russian working class and Russian people won the trust and support of all peoples of the USSR and all progressive peoples of the world. Comrade Stalin developed and raised to a higher stage the ideology of proletarian internationalism, the friendship of peoples, he showed that the source of friendship of the peoples of the USSR is the Soviet, socialist system, the internationalist policies of the working class, its party and state.

As a result of the accomplishment of this policy and the construction of socialism, the friendship of the peoples of the USSR has flourished, new relations of trust and fraternal co-operation have been established between them.

The multinational socialist state has survived a great test during the Great Patriotic war against the fascist invaders, under which any other state would have collapsed. There is no other state that could have emerged more strengthened and with the friendship of its people more consolidated than the Soviet state; Soviet patriotism, the friendship of peoples, the moral-political unity are powerful driving forces of Soviet society. Comrade Stalin generalized the experience of the war by stating that in the Soviet state the "national question and the problem of the co-operation of nations has been solved better than in any other multinational state" (Bolshevik, No. 3, 1946, p. 4. Translated from the Russian). The Soviet system gave to the peoples of the USSR a unique power. The works of J.V. Stalin have served and now serve our party and all fraternal communist parties as a weapon in their struggle against bourgeois nationalists, against the nationalist-fascist Tito clique, against right socialists and similar agents of Anglo-American imperialism, the speaker emphasizes.

The theory of culture as national in form and socialist in content has great significance in the struggle against nationalism, for the education of the working people in the spirit of internationalism, for the friendship of peoples, and makes possible the flourishing of the national cultures of the peoples of the USSR.

Comrade Stalin exposed the chauvinist theory of Kautsky, according to which the proletariat having come to power should take the path of assimilation. Comrade Stalin generalized the experience of the socialist revolution in the USSR and stated that it revived many new nationalities that were formerly "forgotten," it "gave them new life and a new development." Comrade Stalin foresaw that the same thing would happen in other multinational countries; as a result of a revolution in countries such as India, "scores of hitherto unknown nationalities, having their own separate languages and separate cultures, will appear on the scene." (J.V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 7, p. 141. [The Political Tasks of the University of the Peoples of the East.])

These statements of J.V. Stalin expose and overturn different bourgeois-cosmopolitan theories of the modern Anglo-American imperialists, who carry out a policy of forcible assimilation, swallowing all nations and races by the "superior" Anglo-American race. J.V. Stalin's prediction in his work The National Question and Leninism regarding the preservation of nations, national languages and cultures, have great theoretical and political significance. Comrade Stalin, the speaker points out, gave a clear perspective of the development of socialist nations, national languages and cultures, both in the period of the victory of socialism in our country and in the period of the victory of socialism in other countries and in the whole world. Here with unique strength Stalin's scientific predictions manifest themselves as dialectical-materialist, showing him to be a great theorist of creative Marxism. These statements of Stalin have a leading significance for all social sciences, for philosophy, the science of the state, law, language, the theory of literature, art and culture in general, as well as for the practice of the communist parties in all countries of the world, especially concerning the national question.

In the USSR under the leadership of the party of Lenin-Stalin a great cultural revolution is being carried out, which has involved all tribes and peoples of our country in the process of conscious historical creation. Gigantic efforts are being made to develop the national cultures and languages, an experience that has world-wide historical, scientific and practical significance. The great socialist revolution opened a new era in history, created a completely new world of social relations among people, nations, races, a new world of concepts, ideas, feelings, features that forced the creation of new words, enriched and developed the national languages. It is not surprising that the languages of the peoples of the USSR, both ancient and modern, those less developed or more developed, are now being filled with new forms, are undergoing a revolution, they experience leaps to qualitatively different states. As for culture and languages the struggle of socialism against reactionary bourgeois-nationalist, feudal-clerical and other similar tendencies and elements comes to a victorious end with the victory of socialism, with the victory of the principles of socialist internationalism, the Leninist-Stalinist national policy.

Comrade Stalin teaches that "every nation -- no matter how large or small it might be - possesses its own peculiarities, its own specific features that only belong to that nation and not to any other nation. These peculiarities are a contribution of each nation to the treasure of world culture, which makes the latter more complete and rich. In this respect all nations -- both small and large -- are entitled to equal rights and all nations are different from each other." (J.V. Stalin, Bolshevik, No. 7, 1948, p. 2. Trans. from the Russian). Comrade Stalin teaches that internationalism in culture implies respect for the cultural creativity of all peoples, not the suppression of national cultures, but assistance to their development.

That is why, points out M.D. Kammari, it is completely logical that it has been particularly the peoples of the USSR, educated by the party of Lenin-Stalin in the spirit of socialism, proletarian internationalism and friendship of the peoples, who saved world civilization from the fascist invaders and at the present time lead the camp of socialism and democracy, stand in the leadership of the struggle for socialism, democracy and democratic peace in the world.

The works of J.V. Stalin are a weapon in the struggle against all kinds of anti-patriotic, cosmopolitan ideologies and phraseologies in the service of Anglo-American imperialism. The works of Comrade Stalin are an irreplaceable weapon in the struggle with all kinds of nationalism, racism, imperialist ideology and policies.

The name of J.V. Stalin -- the genius follower of the great teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin -- has become a symbol and a banner of the liberation of peoples from the yoke of imperialism, the banner of proletarian internationalism. The great ideas of Leninist-Stalinist friendship and brotherhood of peoples that stand for a new world, concludes Professor Kammari, are currently inspiring hundreds of millions of people in all parts of the planet in the struggle for their liberation.

... Academician G.F. Aleksandrov gave a talk on the topic "The Struggle of J.V. Stalin for Militant Marxist-Leninist Philosophy." The speaker began his talk by reminding the audience that J.V. Stalin from the very beginning, as a pupil and companion-in-arms of V.I. Lenin, stood firmly for the struggle for the elevation of the working class, for its socialist education and political organization. Comrade Stalin gave an all-sided substantiation of the idea of the role of revolutionary theory in the workers' movement. Lenin's and Stalin's statement on the merging of the struggle of the working class with scientific socialism has special significance. The workers set out to construct a new world, communism. History has never provided an example of such construction. Unlike capitalism, socialist society cannot move forward spontaneously; it is formed, built and created consciously, according to a plan. The science of socialism and communism has a particularly important significance for the struggle of the working class. It was not in vain that the Bolshevik party, Lenin and Stalin, both before and after the Great October Revolution, strengthened the fervent agitation of Bolshevik ideals among the masses. It is not a coincidence that this task had been confronted for the past third of the century in the Soviet epoch. It would not be impossible to reach communism if the working class, the laboring peasantry, the intelligentsia, the popular masses, did not know the goals of this construction and the path towards its successful accomplishment. This is why the struggle of the party for the communist education of the Soviet people has acquired such significance in the epoch of the step-by-step transition to communism.

Comrade Stalin established a continuous link between the content and tasks of militant revolutionary theory and the situation and state of the working class. Marxism-Leninism is substantiated and developed by the working class, as the class ideology of the proletarian masses, of the communist party. The Leninist idea on the expression of the line and class struggle within the party played the most important role in the process of creating a party of a new type, in the class education of the Russian and international proletariat. This idea was adopted and developed by Stalin.

Already in his article The Class Struggle, written in 1906, Comrade Stalin expounded the question of the historical necessity of the construction of the proletarian party, its role in the political struggle of the proletarian masses, its ideological leadership in this struggle.

The Leninist-Stalinist party oriented and inspired the workers' revolutionary movement, raised its political, class level and the militant character of its struggle against the bourgeoisie, against imperialism; one can say that the communist party saved the workers' movement from bourgeois domination, from its division by the activity of the intelligence services of the bourgeoisie.

Comrade Stalin put forward and substantiated the tremendous significance of the implementation of the teachings of dialectical and historical materialism in the political struggle of the working class, in the practical activity of its party. Comrade Stalin gave an all-sided development and scientific substantiation to this deepest consideration that "mastering the Marxist-Leninist theory means assimilating the substance of this theory and learning to use it in the solution of the practical problems of the revolutionary movement under the varying conditions of the class struggle of the proletariat" (History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Short Course, p. 355.) Dialectical and historical materialism, therefore, requires a deep and exact study of the contemporary conditions of the class struggle, the implementation in practice of the materialist analysis of the political activity, the position of all classes involved in the class struggle. Lenin and Stalin defined struggle, the development of opposites, contradictions, as the essence of Marxist philosophy. They demanded that revolutionaries expose the main contradictions in society with a dialectical and materialist approach to the analysis of the perspective for the development of the struggle between these opposites, that they engage in an unconditional and purposeful struggle for the fastest and complete victory of the revolutionary class, the proletariat.

It becomes clear from here, continues Academician G.F. Aleksandrov, that the ideology of a communist party, its philosophical science, serves one goal -- the ideology of the proletariat in its class struggle against capitalism, for communism, for the scientific substantiation of the policies, the revolutionary tactics and strategy of the party. This is the essence of the ideology of the Leninist-Stalinist party. If the ideology of the bourgeoisie, its philosophical-historical system, collapses under the merciless blows of the practice of the class struggle, the development of natural sciences, if they burst, in the words of Great Lenin, like soap bubbles, then this is a result of the very fate of the bourgeoisie, the irreversible collapse of its social and state system.

If the ideology of the proletariat, its philosophical basis, dialectical and historical materialism -- in every single experience in the class struggle, in every single step forward, in the development of natural sciences found a proof of its principles, enlarged its influence on the working class and dealt powerful blows to the ideology of the bourgeoisie, then this is a reflection of the historical fate of the working class, of its great role as the gravedigger of capitalism, as the builder of communism.

In the defeat and collapse of bourgeois ideology, in the victories and triumphs of Marxist-Leninist philosophy is clearly seen the irreversible result to which the modern class struggle leads: the victory of the proletariat of all countries over the bourgeoisie, of the socialist camp over the capitalist camp.

Lenin and Stalin raised high the banner of militant Marxism in the party, gave an all-sided substantiation and developed the genius view of Marx and Engels on the irreconcilable struggle between proletarian and bourgeois ideology, as a law of class struggle. They were guided by this view throughout their revolutionary experience.

J.V. Stalin gave the deepest Marxist-Leninist analysis of the modern class struggle by showing that the struggle of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie had become an axis around which modern life turns. He also showed that the current struggle between dialectical materialism and idealist obscurantism comprises the ideological form of that very same class struggle of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois ideologists and philosophers, defeated by Marxism, always resort to cunning manoeuvering. They try to conceal the disgusting bourgeois essence of their thinking by pretending that they stand above classes, parties and ideologies. They pretend that they represent a "third force," that stands above the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Lenin and Stalin proved that in the struggle between modern classes, in the struggle between two camps -- the socialist camp and the imperialist camp -- there is no room for a "third force." This so-called "third force" always stood and stands now on the side of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat.

Lenin and Stalin teach that in a class society there is no room for an ideology, a philosophy that stands above classes. Lenin and Stalin put forward this question in a clear and exact manner -- there is no "third," "middle" line in philosophy: either the revolutionary materialist thinking of the proletariat, or the religious-mystical narcotic of the imperialists. There is no middle road here. The defence of objectivism is a class expression, the expression of bourgeois ideology.

By means of his genius materialist analysis of the modern class struggle, his fearless exposure of the deepest contradictions of the modern epoch, the scientific elaboration of the paths and ways of achieving victory for the international working class over imperialism, Comrade Stalin gives a classical example of how Marxist-Leninist philosophy should be understood and applied.

Every passing day confirms the genius Stalinist analysis of the modern epoch. This is how materialism -- the philosophy of the Marxist-Leninist party -- triumphs and idealism -- the ideology of the imperialist bourgeoisie -- finally collapses. The Stalinist conclusion on the inevitability of the collapse of imperialism and the undoubted victory of the proletariat is based on the creative application of dialectical and historical materialism in the analysis of the phenomena of modern social life, of the modern class struggle. Stalinist analysis ideologically arms the camp of peace, democracy and socialism, gives a scientific substantiation to the struggle waged by this camp.

Comrade Stalin teaches that Marxism-Leninism is not a dogma, but a guide to action. The party of the working class, says Comrade Stalin, is "not a school of philosophy or a religious sect. Is not our Party a fighting party?" (J.V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 1, p. 66. [The Proletarian Class and the Proletarian Party.])

Dialectical materialism requires a clear materialist analysis of reality, a struggle that can accomplish scientifically determined tasks that breaks down the obstacles posed by practice in the course of the struggle of the working class. Marxists translate the center of gravity to the application in life of the ideas of scientific communism. In this light, with the Marxists of the Leninist-Stalinist school "there is no discrepancy between word and deed... the teachings of Marx completely retain their living, revolutionary force." (J.V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 4, p. 318.) It is necessary to emphasize and always remember -- the speaker says -- that the Leninist-Stalinist philosophical science does not only imply that revolutionaries are bound to act with decision, to struggle with passion, but to act in struggle based on a deep knowledge of the laws of development of society. We owe to Comrade Stalin the great achievement of the total defeat of bourgeois ideology that denies the necessity for historical development, the achievement of the exposure of all advantages of the deep scientific knowledge of the laws of development of society for the proletarian masses and their communist parties. He showed that by mastering the laws of development of society one can lead the working class with confidence, one can see more than the proletarian class as a whole. This is the point, argues Comrade Stalin. "The ideologists push forward, and it is precisely for this reason that the idea, socialist consciousness, is of such great importance for the movement." (J.V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 1, p. 120. [Briefly About the Disagreements in the Party.]) The knowledge of the laws of development has a tremendous significance for the class struggle of the proletarian masses, induces the movement forward, accelerates the course of history towards the socialist revolution. And in the epoch of the dictatorship of the proletariat this leads to communism. This significance makes it possible to elaborate the correct political strategy, to take account of the experience of the revolutionary struggle in all countries, to determine correctly the main direction of the proletarian movement in a given country for a given historical period.

The political strategy of the party, based on the knowledge of the laws of development of society, accelerates historical development, leads the movement along the shortest path, prevents the working class from having unnecessary victims, from experiencing unnecessary sufferings in the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism. Failing to understand the laws of development of society means betraying the revolutionary, Marxist method, means closing ones eyes to the development of life and acting blindly and randomly.

Comrade Stalin placed special importance on the question of the scientific forecast of the development of social life by the revolutionary party and its leaders. Revolutionary theory provides knowledge of the laws of development of society, of the perspectives of this development. This is why theory, argues Comrade Stalin, "gives practical workers the power of orientation, clarity of perspective, confidence in their work, faith in the victory of our cause." (J.V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 12, p. 148. [Concerning Questions of Agrarian Policy.]). In the Report on the Results of the First Five-Year Plan Comrade Stalin said: "The communist party is invincible, if it knows its goal, and if it is not afraid of difficulties." (J.V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1976, p. 630.)

These statements of Marxist-Leninist theory have an exceptional significance for the understanding of the whole revolutionary spirit, the whole scientific content of materialism. These statements argue that only the Leninist-Stalinist stand in philosophy can provide the objective and correct analysis of the development of society, that reflects the historical truth, the objective course of the development of society.

In our time these words of Great Lenin acquired a new and brilliant confirmation: "by following the path of Marxian theory we shall draw closer and closer to objective truth (without ever exhausting it); but by following any ot

[Cassius Clay]

Yes I did it, I've finally succesfully paste and cutted. Praise Allah this is brilliant.

Er, anyway Ian Rocks how is Stalin a 'Bonarpartist' he joined the Bolsheviks from a early age and from then risked his life while preaching workers rights in Georgia and saving the Bolsheviks from financial collapse. He stuck with them when it seemed they had become even more isolated and in 1917 played a key role in organising the Bolsheviks (particular during Febuary-April) in Petrograd.

This is all compared to Trotsky who is oh so busy giving tips to New York waiters and for a tidy sum writing articles insulting Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

I do not have a precise definition of 'Bonarpartism' but I think you will find that it is a far more accurate description of Trotsky.

[Marxman]

Stalin was not only a Bonapartist but the biggest traitor and a murderer of human history. If you want to compare his "beatiful communist" deeds, try seeking the glossary for HITLER.

[Palmares]

Touche Marxman! If there is no such thing as 'Stalinism', then what is it that Stalin believed, or for that matter, any follower of his? Surely you are not going to say Marxism?

"Our party's most outstanding mediocrity."
In his last book, "Stalin", Trotsky wrote: "Our paths diverged so long ago and so far, and in my eyes he is so much the instrument of historical forces that are alien and hostile to me, that my feelings towards him differ little from those I have towards Hitler or the Mikado. The personal element burned out long ago."
- Leon Trotsky

[Cassius Clay]

Oh dear did any of you actually read the article? But because you all wish to follow the 'Crowd' you will just dismiss it as 'Evil Stalinist crap' or whatever.

It's good though Marxman that you bring up Hitler a man who said 'He had learn't alot' after reading Trotsky's writings. But apart from that you just resort to the same old rhectoric which could come from Mein Kampf.

I've given you evidence that Stalin and Lenin were extremely close friends and work colleagues, that this 'Biggest murderer' stuff is a load of rubbish, that it was Zioneve and Kamenev that had Kirov shot and that even after Stalin's death thousands of people were prepared to fight for Socialism in his name.

So I will ask you a few questions that I've been asking you since I arrived here and yet to have gotten a answer.

1: If life was so bad under Stalin then why is it a large majority of those who vote for the Communists in present day Russia happened to of grown up in the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's?

2: Surely if Stalin was the living monster that you like to portray then some parts of Leninism must of led towards this.

3: Now that Russia is free from your 'Stalinist Slavery' we don't see workers carrying portraits of Trotsky calling for 'Permanent Revolution'. Why is this?

And perhaps some others would be nice.

: What do you have to say about his 'Labor Armies' theory? What with it's 'Military discipline' and such.

: Why do you not accept the fact that Trotsky had almost zero support for his policies and that the people chose Stalin?

: Historians and proffesor's who have studied the state archives reveal that some 799,445 people died in the Soviet prison system from the early 1930's to 1953. For all reasons including execution and a very small minority were actually 'Political prisoners'. So why then do you continue with this lie that Stalin= 'Biggest mass murderer'?


Oh and Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist the fact that he joined the Bolsheviks from a early age and risked his life fighting for workers freedom will tell you that. This and if you read the article will show you that.

Unlike Trotsky who before the revolution wrote articles insulting Lenin and the Bolshevik party in general and after sold his memoirs to English Broadsheets for 75,000 pounds. The last bit ought to tell you what sought of man he was.

[peaccenicked]

Those are not questions just sick lies posed as questions. Who are you trying to kid? Stalin was a popularist dictator, so was Hitler.
You are fucking thoughtless stooge who is whitewashing mass murder. Why dont you just fuck off.

[Cassius Clay]

Oh that was a very good argument. Just another question though directed towards any moderator's around here. Is there a limit to how many insults and swear words one can put in their posts?

And no I won't 'Fuck of' just because you wan't me to.

[ThunderStrike]

its funny to read when people cant counter-argument clays facts and then result in swearing lmao..

it always results in swearing or fascist rubbish facts.. people are sooooooo brainwashed concerning Stalin, truly amazing.

[peaccenicked]

you morons dont deserve an answer.
If you want to be blind, why choose Che lives to broadcast your blindness. Malte is thoroughly anti-stalinist BTW. He would not question the veracity of a book like this.

http://www.yale.edu/yup/books/084803.htm
Stalinists are brainwashed twats who the movement will
isolate.

[Kehoe]

As for Stalin or any other leader one must always weigh them in the scales of overall sufficiency in their guidance of the people.There will always be undesirable circumstances wherein dire measures must be enacted,but at the end of the day the pendulum will swing strongly to one side.My grandfather always said that you can judge a chopper by his chips.


(Edited by Kehoe at 5:27 pm on Oct. 29, 2002)

[Ian]

I'm suprised peacce is actually responding to such bullshit, I mean these people do not even know what bonapartism is (Bonapartism is basically a personally cult built around an autocratic dictatorial populist), but to peacce's credit he has refrained from exploding at such idiocy. Peacce have you ever considered becoming a high school teacher? Education the world over needs more tolerant teachers ;)

[Cassius Clay]

Peacenicked why do you continue with the verbal insults? You were the one that started this thread and yet when somebody disagree's with you you act all surprised. One peice of advised to you would be to take into account that NOT everybody is going to agree with you all the time.

As for this Malte guy (whether he/she is pro-Stalin or a Trotskyite or whatever else) then if he is a half decent moderator then he will tell you to cut down on the swearing and insults.

Yeah that's a interesting link but it doesn't answer any of my questions. I read the link and it has some extracts from letters written by a person on a collective farm. But for all you know this man could of been a Kulak and suppose he was a poor peasant. What's your point? Do you think everybody is going to be happy with the collective farms?

Oh and Ian Rocks what's your point when you say 'These people do not even know what bonapartism is'? That was what I was asking you in the first place.

[peaccenicked]

Why?
Fascistic scumbag claims he doesnt understand that defending crimes against humanity is totally unacceptable to socialists.
Stop this whitewash of Stalin. Moron.

[Cassius Clay]

Well it's quite obvious that it is inpossible to debate with you.

I will repeat what I previously said. You were the one who started this thread, did you not (considering this a place where people come to debate) think that somebody was going to disagree with you?

And once again you call me a 'Moron' and 'Scumbag'. I take it you are about ten.

[peaccenicked]

There is no arguement. YOU are a LIAR. That is a fact. An
Anti-human bastard who should piss off from Che-lives.


(Edited by peaccenicked at 1:54 pm on Oct. 29, 2002)

[Cassius Clay]

''There is no arguement.''

There is now.

''YOU are a LIAR.''

You sound like a child whose been told that Father Christmas doesn't exist. All that I have said in this thread is FACT. I also asked a series of questions but have yet to get a answer.

''That is a fact. ''

So why don't you tell me where I have lied.

''Anti-human bastard who should piss off from Che-lives.''

Lets talk about who was 'Anti-Human'. Is it a man who calls for 'Military discipline' in factories, a person who wants to shoot workers who turn up late, somebody that was described as 'Judas' by Lenin and finally a man that believes that peasants are nothing more than scum?

The above is one Lev Bronstien.

[Kehoe]

When there is no equality among the people a portion will require crushing.A key tenet of Marxism-Leninism is the dictatorship of the proletariat which in reality is the dictatorship of the Party elite.Che was an avowed Stalinist who looked to the USSR for Socialist support in Cuba however Krushchev was not Stalin.The Soviets acknowledged Che as an adherent of Marxism-Leninism;however they viewed him foremost as a Maoist whose true allegiance was to Peking,and at the end of the day the Soviets were either directly or indirectly responsible for Ches failed campagins in the Congo and Bolivia.The popular perception of Stalin in the west is that of a ruthless and bloodthirsty tyrant but the question one must ask is how was(and is)comrade Stalin viewed in his own country?and do remember that to a Muslim fundamentalist anyone residing in America is a child of satan and deserving of death regardless of whatever socio-political ideology they may espouse.It is reported that 65 million Russians were killed in the USSR,35 million Chinese in the Peoples Republic of China,while only 22 million Poles,Jews,Chechs,Ukrainians,etc,persihed under the Nazi regime,yet keep in mind the greater populations of both the USSR and China.Comrade Lenin and Che are forever seen as revolutionaries first,Comrade Stalin is seen mainly as a bureaucrat,and Chairman Mao as both revolutionary and bureaucrat.How many bloodless revolutions can one name?Likewise,the transition from one social order to another demands the spilling of blood.It is an easy matter for socio-pyschoanalysts to sit in the comfort of their homes criticizing a situation from which they are far-removed.We all possess the capacity to be tyrants,we all have potential to be brave or else be numbered among cowards.

[Mazdak]

Ah... beware Cassius, like all the stalinists who are good at debate(ie, lenin, TS), you will eventually be seeing a white screen here.

The people here hate the truth. They are used to patting each other on the back and always agreeing. Now you came and gave them proof and alll he can say is "fuck off" and "you stalinists don't deserve my time" and such bullshit.

Oh, Kirov's assasination was also to some extent aided by Yagoda, who was a sympathizer with the rightest opposition. Try telling this to ND. Or anyone here.

[Kehoe]

The one offense I personally have found inexcusable in the bureaucratic decisions of comrade Stalin is the imprisonment and eventual execution of N.I.Bukharin,a theoretician of immense talent whom comrade Stalin himself had dubbed the Golden Boy of the Communist Party.

(Edited by Kehoe at 10:11 pm on Oct. 29, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Stalinists want a debate about their lies about mass murder and suppression. Stalin was up to his neck in it,
no one in the world outside the stalinists will countenance any other idea. It is against the law in some countries to deny the nazi holocaust and deny the 3.5 million or more murdered or to put them down as Kulaks and counter revolutionaries is to deny masses and masses of evidence to the contrary:and is to be bloody criminal in my eyes and should be made illegal. Never mind not allowed on Che-lives especially che-lives. Che came to oppose stalinism in favour of revolutionary humanism (read his works), that is why he is so internationally loved.

Marx, incidentally, opposed the death penalty.

The best book on the subject of State opression under Stalin in my possession. You should be made to read it in some rotten bourgeois jail. I prefer football hooligans to you.
http://www.socialistfuture.org.uk/msf/arti...he%20terror.htm (http://www.socialistfuture.org.uk/msf/articles/history/truth%20behind%20the%20terror.htm)

In my view, which unfortunate the minority on che-lives,
is that Stalinists are anti-working class eejits and should be banned from this bb along with the nazi filth that Malte bans automatically..
The capis are bad enough and we have a hard enough time showing workers that Stalinism is an enemy of the working class.
Trotsky is not flawless either and took anti democratic positions that made him to soft on Stalinism. Marx, and even Lenin knew that Socialism was the battle for proletarian democracy. The dictatorship of the proletariat was no idealised State but merely a transition to a classless society, an unfortunate joyless evil .
The sooner the left has to do without Stalinist bullshit,
the better.
I am not going to wade through your shit and going to wade through Irvings nazi revisionism. Everybody outside of your own stupid thick heads knows it is shit.
All of your theoretical knowledge exists to extol the "virtues" of Stalinism and not explain the revolutionary humanism that is at the heart of Marx's thought.
A defence of Stalin is living proof of ignorance of Marx's ideas and historical method.

One of these days, Stalinists including Mazdak will be voted off this site, it is like militant athiests having flat earthers as their bedfellows. Not tenable.

[Kehoe]

Ches slogan was,"the rifle will create the power",so much for opposition to the death penalty.Stalin,as Lenin,favored revolution in other countries,however the emphasis was upon the desire of the local populace acting as the ignition for such a revolution ... not one in which revolution was imposed upon people.I consider the idea that Che had looked to Chairman Mao as the true torch-bearer of Stalinism in that he found little Soviet support for his aspirations to carry on revolution in Latin America(as well as Krushchev withdrawing missles from Cuban soil destroying any chance of advancement into the Americas under the umbrella of nuclear threat).What do you wish to propose?that Che was running barefoot through the harsh backwoods of Bolivia handing out Socialist leaflets and saying,"Join me brethren in a pacifist non-violent revolution",this is about as likely as Mohandas K Gandhi leading armed guerilla raids against the British Viceroy.Ches entire persona is that of an armed and most militant socialist revolutionary.Che once made the statement concerning Marxism and the idea of one claiming to be a Marxist to that of a physicist saying that they are a Newtonian.The basics of Marxism has long been fundamental axioms to all students of Marx,likewise the revolutionary tenets of Leninism are accepted into that creed.As for the overall scheme of the stages from capitalism,imperialism,social revolution with the institution of the dictatorship of the proletariat that will establish a socialist society which acts as the medium in the transition to a classless society in which the state being no longer necessary will dissolve away thus bringing about the long prophesied synthesis of communism ... Comrades I tell you here and now that as imperialism is the highest expression of capitalism,likewise socialism is the highest expression of communism.As Pareto said,"Elites will always manipulate society,power merely shifting from one set of rulers to another".Government reflects a universal law of natural order and likewise there will always be a struggle for predominance.Lenins interpretation of Marxism is entirely authoritarian,deeming it necessary to,"subject the insurrection of the proletariat and non-proletariat masses to our influence,to our direction,to use it in our best interests".Lenin was a radical not a liberal,whose aim was to challenge the dominant liberal views.Marx himself taught that socialism cannot be based on ethical principles.One must realize that power creates law,not law power,for law has validity only when it is enforced ... law exists insofar as it governs.It is not,nor should it ever be,the socialist task to eliminate government of nations for this is nothing more than anarchy which to society is as senseless as a man possessing no mental faculty by which to govern his thoughts and actions.It is not the destruction of government as it exists for guidance of society,but the replacement of unjust governments by a form that is (as much as humanly possible) more equal in the interactions of people regardless to race,sex,or nationality.For these peculiar beliefs you may label me a Stalinist,Maoist,or whatever you wish;however,I am merely a man and a Socialist is as far as I will incline myself in the way of isms.

[peaccenicked]

How come you violent sods always get your history half skew.
''the rifle will create the power''
When was that his slogan. There is no politics in it. Mao says power comes through the barrel of a gun.
That is just a statement of fact.
Che said ''exhaust all democratic possibilities before
you use armed conflict"
In the case of Bolivia the CIA bought all the seats and selected the candidites.
Why not read Che writings ''Man and socialism in Cuba"
before you teach me how ignorant you are about
history.
Lenin was a democrat not a liberal.
What is all this shite about liberalism.
Where do you get all that nonsense from.
Have you read the "'State and Revolution"
Read that before you talk to me about Lenin's interpretation of Marx.
I really dont want to know how ignorant you are.
I know how ignorant you Stalinists are already.

[Marxman]

I see there is a dispute and someone thinks that it is I who doesn't believe that Stalinism exists! But I was merely trying to emphasize the stupid line of Cassius Clay which he stated the latter. Of course Stalinism exists, any Marxist should know that. It is a form of Bonapartism that has a centrist tendency among other corrupted tendencies. Stalinism leans from one class to another and creates certain authority this way, meaning that it enables ultimate POWER. Stalinism, as we know, was created in the decay of the Russian revolution when the degeneration of workers' state was apparent. The degeneration of workers' state was the birth of a bueracratic degeneration and thus the birth of STALINISM. All this is excellently and vividly explained by Trotsky. Further on, Stalinism started when the revolution (its true meaning) ended. The birth of Stalinism was due to Russia's backwardness, lack of a true leadership with an authority as Lenin (the subjective factor - Lenin on his deathbed), the intervention of many foreign capitalist states, the semi-feudal background of Russia, the uneducation of the proletariat, the isolation and so forth. These are excellent factors of the rising monster called Stalinism. The Stalinists' tendencies come mostly from Menshevism.

[Cassius Clay]

That's a great post Marxman but why don't you answer the questions?

[Marxman]

I must have forgotten. Which questions?

[Cassius Clay]

Page two.

[Cassius Clay]

Oh come on Marxman, even if it's just full of your usual rhectoric or some quotes from one of your 'Marxist Books' you can still answer.

[ThunderStrike]

the thing is: he doesn't have the answers to those questions? i got a plan lets just call it STALINIST rubbish (sarcastic)

[bolshevik1917]

I am always amazed that people actually consider Stalinism to be anything near Communism.

Stalin was a dictator, yes or no?

And you call Trotsky a nazi? are you aware it was Stalin's fault that Hitler took power in Germany?

Are you aware that Hitler and Stalin were friends at one point?

go, educate yourselves. Come back in a few years

http://www.marxist.com/LeninAndTrotsky/

http://www.marxist.com/bolshevism/

http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/

[Cassius Clay]

''I am always amazed that people actually consider Stalinism to be anything near Communism.''

People were amazed when Ali said he would beat Foreman but we know who was right in the end don't we.

''Stalin was a dictator, yes or no?''

No.

''And you call Trotsky a nazi?'' Where have I called Trotsky a Nazi? I may of compared the man's ideas to that of a Fascist but that is it.

''are you aware it was Stalin's fault that Hitler took power in Germany?''

No I wasn't. I'm aware that perhaps the KPD made a mistake when they called the SPD 'Social Fascists' when they could of put even more effort into fighting the Nazis, but we speak with the benefit of hignsight (spell?). And as it turned out the SPD was only to happy in collaborating with the Nazis in throwing the KPD out of the Reichstag. Guess Stalin was right on that one.

Anyway most people take the view that the Treaty of Versailles or the Wall street crash had more to do with Hitler's rise to power.

''Are you aware that Hitler and Stalin were friends at one point?''

No.

''go, educate yourselves. Come back in a few years

http://www.marxist.com/LeninAndTrotsky/

http://www.marxist.com/bolshevism/

http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/''

The first link doesn't work, the second one seems quite interesting but doesn't really go any further than 1921 while the third one appears to be that book you put a link to. I'll read it when I get enough money to buy

[bolshevik1917]

''Stalin was a dictator, yes or no?"

"No."

The words 'sand' 'head' and 'buried' spring to mind.

The first link does work if you copy and paste it, thats the book that proves Trotsky and Lenin were against Stalin. I could quote huge sections of it or you could all just read it for yourselves.

http://www.marxist.com/LeninAndTrotsky/

[Cassius Clay]

So why don't you prove that Stalin was a 'Dictator'? Hell the man wasn't even head of state, that honour belonged to Rhykov I believe.

As far as I'm aware throughout the whole of Lenin's writings over about 30 years there is one quote which is critical of Stalin (calling him rude) and this had more to do with personal matters than anything political. Yet there are dozens of quotes criticical of Trotsky from the early 1900's to late 1923.

[Mazdak]

Wasn't Kalinin the leader?

[bolshevik1917]

Lenin WANTED RID OF STALIN is that too hard to understand?

Why did Stalin hide Lenin's testament?

Stalin signed a pact with Hitler in 1939 - and you call Totsky a nazi??

In 1941 Stalin appointed himself head of government, commissar of defence and supreme commander of the Soviet Armed Forces. Yes 'appointed himself' thats democracy? no, dictatorship!

[Cassius Clay]

Yeah I think your right there Mazdak, anyway the guy who was head of state actually looked a bit like Trotsky. Whether that is of interest to anyone I don't know.

[Cassius Clay]

''Lenin WANTED RID OF STALIN is that too hard to understand?''

I guess it is. I'm aware of one quote in 1923 where Lenin 'suggests' (key word that) that Stalin be removed as General Secretary. But what is the reason? Because 'Stalin is to rude' and note that he doesn't actually suggest anyone to take Stalin's place. And at the time Lenin wrote this Stalin had had a row with Lenin's wife and naturally Lenin sided with his wife.

Yet despite this according to Lenin's sister Lenin valued Stalin above all the other member's of the politburo. And again there are literally dozens of quotes critical of Trotsky and others. Even in the one text that it is critical of Stalin it is still more critical of all the others.

''Why did Stalin hide Lenin's testament?''

Erm he didn't. For one thing Zioneve read the testament out in 1926 (although just the bit critical of Stalin) and second of all Stalin published the whole dam thing in a article in Pravda in 1928. He even joked that he 'was proud to be rude'.

''Stalin signed a pact with Hitler in 1939 - and you call Totsky a nazi??''

Once again please tell me where I have called Trotsky a Nazi. As for the pact I don't wish to go into detail but as late as the summer of 1939 Stalin offered the help of the Red Army to the Poles but because of a few Landlord's (I know it's more complicated than that but I'm just being lazy) arrogance the Soviet government faced little other choice as of August 23rd 1939.

''In 1941 Stalin appointed himself head of government, commissar of defence and supreme commander of the Soviet Armed Forces. Yes 'appointed himself' thats democracy? no, dictatorship!''

Okay then lets take what you say as fact, that he 'appointed himself' all those things in 1941. Now I would say that takes guts considering what had happened to the previous Russian leader who had taken command of the armed forces in war.

[bolshevik1917]

Firstly your information on the testament is false.

"Lenin's last writings were hidden from the Communist Party rank and file. Lenin's Testament, which demanded Stalin's removal as general secretary, despite the protests of his widow, was not read out at the Congress and remained hidden until 1956 when Khrushchev and Co. produced it, along with a few other items, as part of their campaign to throw the blame for all that had happened in the past 30 years onto Stalin's shoulders." Russia, revolution to counter revolution

Speaking on the testament itself, the author writes

"Lenin's began writing his Testament on the 25th December 1922, in which he critically assessed the qualities of the Bolshevik leadership. It contained his final recommendations. "Comrade Stalin, having become general secretary, has concentrated enormous power in his hands; and I am not sure that he always knows how to use that power with sufficient caution." He then deals with Trotsky's qualities: "On the other hand comrade Trotsky, as was proved by his struggle against the Central Committee in connection with the question of the Peoples' Commissariat of Communications, is distinguished not only by his exceptional abilities - personally he is, to be sure, the most able man in the present Central Committee - but also by his too far reaching self-confidence and a disposition to be too much attracted by the purely administrative side of affairs." In relation to the others: "I will only remind you that the October episode of Zinoviev and Kamenev was not, of course, accidental, but that it ought as little to be used against them personally as the non-Bolshevik past of Trotsky."

Here we have Lenin

PUTTING FORWARD A PLAN TO REMOVE STALIN

whilst also

PUTTING FORWARD TROTSKY AS THE BEST MAN TO SUCCEED HIMSELF.

What is hard to understand here comrade?

[redstar2000]

"Are you aware that it was Stalin's fault that Hitler took power in Germany?"

Not only am I not aware of this astounding revelation but I think it would come as a drastic shock to EVERY reputable historian who's ever written about the period.

We ought to have a separate thread on the Kommunist Partei Deutchlands (KPD). But briefly, they were the ONLY party to consistently fight the Nazis before and AFTER Hitler came to power. The notion that their sharp criticisms of the SPD's softness on Nazism "led" to the rise of Hitler is not only a bourgeois academic cliche (concocted to avoid naming the leading circles of the German ruling class who really brought Hitler to power) but a pure and simple libel.

Comrades Clay and Mazdek know that I am no particular admirer of J.V. Stalin. But let's criticize Stalin for what he SAID and what he DID...and not just total up everything bad that happened in the 20th century and blame it all on Joe. That's called "the devil theory of history" and even bourgeois historians were criticizing it by 1920 or so. (We should also stop blaming Joe for everything bad that happened INSIDE the USSR; at the very least, HE HAD HELP.)

[bolshevik1917]

Well heres your 'drastic shock' redstar....

Ted Grant

Why Hitler Came To Power

Written: December 1944

Source: The Unbroken Thread

The imminent defeat of Hitler raises many questions as to the past and future of Germany. According to the reports at the Quebec Conference[1], What to do with Germany once she has been defeated has loomed large as the problem which is worrying the spokesmen of Anglo-American imperialism. They consider this to be as grave and thorny a problem as the destruction of German imperialist power itself. Their fears as to the possibility of maintaining control of Germany by means of Allied armies of occupation has led the imperialists to launch a virulent hate campaign. Now at the head of the gang, spewing forth the foul doctrines of racialism and nationalism, of indiscriminate hatred of the Germans as a nation, thus emulating the worst features of the racial doctrine of the nazis, stands the so-called Communist Party leadership. In the rear, but more cautiously, for fear of their own membership, the Labour leaders, faithfully echo the Vansittart[2] teaching of their imperialist master.

But the fate of Germany today, as it has been for many decades, remains a key question for the fate of Europe. The reason for the insistence of the ruling class and of Stalin on the formula of unconditional surrender, lies in their fear of the socialist revolution which is rapidly maturing within Germany. Once the heavy band of the Gestapo and the SS has been removed there will be no organised force capable of maintaining the repression of the German masses. During the rule of Hitler, monstrous crimes and repressions on the part of the nazis have engendered a hatred which has few parallels in history. An enormous explosion is being prepared which threatens not only to blow the Nazi Party to smithereens but threatens the whole of the capitalist system itself. Every worker in Germany knows that it is the combines, monopolies, trusts and big capitalists who organised Hitler and placed him in control. As Rauschning[3], the ex-nationalist, ex-nazi Gauleiter of Danzig has pointed out, the expropriation of the Jews leads inevitably to the posing of the problem of expropriation of all the capitalists. It is not for nothing that Hitler has attempted to give his demagogy a 'socialist' coloration. This reflects the aspirations not alone of the German workers but the overwhelming majority of the German population as a whole. In the past few decades all the forms of capitalist exploitation and political rule have been tried and found wanting. Inevitably the socialist revolution will be automatically posed with the fall of Hitler.

But this is precisely what the ruling class of Britain and America and the traitors in the Kremlin fear more than anything else. The spectre of a Geman revolution - of a new and this time completed 1918, is their main preoccupation now that German militarism is in its death throes.

The instinct of the working class in the Allied countries is, while maintaining implacable hatred for fascism, to distinguish between the fascist thugs and the ordinary German worker. Profiting from their experience after the last world war when all the armies of occupation fraternised with the German masses (who easily convinced them that they were no different from themselves) the ruling class are attempting to place barriers in the way of its reoccurrence. The army staffs of both Britain and America have backed up the ideological campaign of chauvinist incitement by strict orders threatening punishment to any soldiers fraternising with German civilians.

The attitude of the British and American workers to the German workers can decide the fate of the coming German revolution and in so doing, will also decide whether there is to be a new version of fascism and imperialist World War Three. Under these conditions the necessity to enlighten the British masses as to the history and meaning of German events, at least since the last world war, becomes doubly important. It becomes necessary to restate the most elementary propositions of Marxism. Today, those traitors who point the finger of scorn at the German workers pretend that it is the fault of the German workers that Hitler came to power. They attempt to evade their own historic responsibility for this catastrophe. In commenting on the murder of Thaelmann[4] the Daily Worker cynically says that he fought for the united front in Germany with all other working class organisations in order to destroy fascism. That is why it is all the more necessary to explain to the British and other workers exactly what did take place. The new generation, in particular, must understand the part Stalinism played in German events prior to Hitler's seizure of power, if they wish to understand its present role.

Thaelmann has been murdered by the nazis together with tens of thousands of other victims of the fascist barbarians. But it is necessary to speak the truth if there are to be no more victims of the system which produced Hitler. Now the Stalinists wish to use Thaelmann's martyrdom as a cover for their crimes against the German people. All the more necessary then, to show the role that Stalinism played in the rise of Hitler.

The truth of the matter is that the Stalinists devoted the major part of their energy to ridiculing the danger of the nazis and concentrated their whole attention on fighting the social democrats as the 'main enemy'. They fought vicously against Trotsky's suggestion that the united front was the only means of smashing Hitler and preparing the way for the victory of the working class. From the lips of Thaelmann himself we get the following:

"Trotsky wants in all seriousness a common action of the Communists with the murderer of Liebknecht and Rosa (Luxemburg), and more, with Mr Zoergiebei[5] and those police chiefs whom the Papen regime leaves in office to oppress the workers. Trotsky has attempted several times in his writings to turn aside the working class by demanding negotiations between the chiefs of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party. (Thaelmann's closing speech at the 12th Plenum, September 1932, Executive Committee of the Communist International." (Communist International No 17-18, Page 1329.)

The Stalinists went even further, openly inciting the communist workers to beat up socialist workers, break up their meetings, etc, even carrying the fight to the school children in the very playgrounds! Thaelmann even put forward openly the slogan 'Chase the social fascists from their jobs in the plants and the trade unions.' Following on this line of the leader, the Young Communist organ The Young Guard propounded the slogan: 'Chase the social fascists from the plants, the employment exchanges, and the apprentice schools.'

But the line has to be carried through to the end. In the organ of the Young Pioneers which catered for the communist children, the Drum, the 'unifying' slogan is put forward:

'Strike the little Zoergiebels in the schools and the playgrounds'.

Thaelmann Denounced the United Front

Thaelmann indignantly repudiated the very thought of a united front with the Social Democratic Party. In an article published in Die Internationale, November, December 1931, page 488:

"It (the Social Democratic Party) threatens to make a united front with the Communist Party. The speech of Breitscheid[6] (whose murder was announced at the same time as Thaelmann's) at Darmstadt on the occasion of the Hesse elections and the comments of Vorwaerts on this speech show that social democracy by his manoeuvre is drawing on the wall the devil of Hitler's fascism and is holding back the masses from the real struggle against the dictatorship of finance capital. And these lying mouthfuls...they hope to make them more palatable with the sauce of a so-called friendship for the communists (against the prohibition of the German CP) and to make them more agreeable to the masses."

And again in a vehement attack on Trotsky:

"In his pamphlet on the question, How will National Socialism be Defeated?, Trotsky gives always but one reply: 'The German CP must make a bloc with the Social Democracy...' In framing this bloc, Trotsky sees the only way for completely saving the German working class against fascism. Either the CP will make a bloc with the social democracy or the German working class is lost for 10-20 years.

"This is the theory of a completely ruined fascist and counter-revolutionary. This theory is the worst theory, the most dangerous theory and the most criminal that Trotsky has constructed in the last years of his counter-revolutionary propaganda." (Thaelmann, closing speech at the 13th Plenum, September 1932: Communist International, No. 17-18, page 1329.)

But it is not necessary to deal with the dupe. The founthead of this criminal policy was Joseph Stalin. He even put forward the nonsensical theory that the Socialist Party and the fascists were one and the same thing:

"Fascism, said Stalin, is the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie, which rests upon the active support of the social democracy. Objectively, the social democracy is the moderate wing of fascism. There is no reason to admit that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie could obtain decisive successes either in the struggles or in the government of the country without the active support of the social democracy...There is also little reason to admit that social democracy can obtain decisive successes either in struggles or in the government of the country without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations are not mutually exclusive, but on the contrary are mutually complementary. They are not antipodes but twins. Fascism is a shapeless bloc of these two organisations. Without this bloc the bourgeoisie could not remain at the helm. (Stalin, quoted in Die Internationale, February 1932.)

In carrying out this theory the wise Manuilsky[7] had explained at the 11th Plenum of the Communist International April 1931:

"The social democrats, in order to deceive the masses, deliberately proclaim that the chief enemy of the working class is fascism...Is it not true that the whole theory of the 'lesser evil' rests on the presupposition that fascism of the Hitler type represents the chief enemy?" (The Communist Parties and the Crisis of Capitalism, page 112)

It was with this revision of all the teachings of Lenin that the Communist Party of Germany, with the assistance of the social democracy, confused and paralysed the workers and then handed them over without a battle into the hands of the fascist executioner.

The British hypocrites who now slander the German workers applauded this policy of betrayal at the time when the revolutionary socialists were raising their voice all over the world in an effort to prevent the tragedy which was impending in Germany. 'It is significant', jeered the Daily Worker of May 26th, 1932, 'that Trotsky has come out in defence of a united front between the Communist and Social Democratic Parties against fascism. No more disruptive and counter revolutionary class lead could possibly have been given at a time like the present'.

At the eleventh hour,just before Hitler's coming to power, Ralph Fox wrote in the Communist Review of December 1932:

"The Communist Party of Germany has now succeeded in winning the majority of the working class in the decisive industrial areas, where it is now the first party in Germany. The only exceptions are Hamburg and Saxony, but even here the Party vote has enormously increased at the expense of the social democrats.

"These successes have been won only by the most unswerving carrying through of the line of the Party and the Comintern. Insisting all the time that social democracy is the chief social support of capitalism, the Party has carried on intense and unceasing struggle against the German Social Democratic Party, and the new 'Independent Socialist Labour Party', as well as against the right wing and Trotskyist renegades who wanted the party of the proletariat to make a united front with social fascism against fascism."

It is this suicidal policy of Stalinism against which Trotsky and the International Left opposition waged a struggle in the critical years 1930-3 when the fate of Germany hung in the balance. Trotsky's works on Germany will remain forever as textbooks on the problem of the united front. They will serve as models for the revolutionary movement of the future. That we commence publication of Trotsky's material on this question in England for the first time, is a reflection on the revolutionary movement in Britain. Every student who desires an understanding of the degeneration of Stalinism will study this material with great care.

Even though Germany - The Key to the International Situation was written in 1931, it retains its freshness at the present time. The outline of the situation, not only in Germany, but in the other countries dealt with, indicates clearly Trotsky's profound understanding of the political process of development of our period. Trotsky and the Fourth International alone warned of the catastrophe that the coming to power of Hitler would mean for the workers of Germany, Europe and of the Soviet Union. When the Stalinists refused to learn the lesson of events, and in a most cowardly way, surrendered the German masses to Hitler without a fight, or even a shot being fired; when they even went so far as to proclaim the coming to power of Hitler as a victory for the working class - as it expressed the crisis of capitalism and his victory was merely that of the caliph of an hour, boastfully proclaiming 'our turn next' - it was then that Trotsky proclaimed the end of the Comintern as a force making for world socialism.

How pitiful, how despicable are the writings of the pen prostitutes of the Kremlin on Germany, when the real historical events are analysed. These Dutts[8], these Rusts, these Ehrenburgs, not satisfied with having betrayed the German workers into the hands of the Nazis, now systematically disseminate chauvinist poison to the Allied workers in order to assist Anglo-American imperialism to enslave the German people. Having proved incapable of leading the German workers to victory, they now actively oppose the socialist revolution in Germany. Thus as always in politics, ineptness and stupidity, if not corrected, become transformed into treachery.

The German and British workers will yet present their accounts not only to their imperialist oppressors but to their hirelings in the ranks of the working class. Once the working class realises the full depth of their treachery, like the traducers of the Commune, they will forever be held to scorn in the memory of the working class.

It would have been impossible to conceive that elements claiming to represent the working class should stoop to such depths as the Stalinists. From the social democrats nothing more could have been expected - they remained faithful to their past tradition of reformist betrayal. The Stalinists have often enough in the past referred to the murder of Liebknecht and Luxemburg and the betrayal of the revolution of 1918. But nothing in their record could equal the long list of crimes marked up to the account of Stalinism.

Surely, all the gods must have laughed at the spectacle of the Stalinist leaders solemnly intoning that it was necessary to 're-educate' the German workers - and their educators? Allied imperialism and Stalinism! Yes, re-education is necessary! Re-education of the ranks of the working class as to the role of the leadership of the organisations claiming to represent them. Re-education which will assist them to burn out the cancer of Stalinism and reformism which will lead the workers only to further catastrophe. In order to accomplish the task of 'educating' not only the German but the British and world workers, it is necessary that the advanced guard should be trained and armed with a knowledge of the Marxist method and of the history of past defeats. As an indispensable means of understanding the position in Germany today, it is necessary for the workers to conscientiously study the works of Trotsky. Germany is still the key to the international Situation - with an understanding and with a knowledge of the past and future tasks we will go forward to the building of a new socialist world.

NOTES

[1] Towards the end of the war a series of talks took place, one in Quebec (in 1943), between Churchill and Roosevelt on problems which would emerge for imperialism at the end of the war, especially in the Balkans, central Europe and Germany.

[2] Robert Vansittart, head of the Foreign Office, opposed the policy of appeasement towards Hitler, but primarily from an anti-German stance, while paying lip-service to anti-fascism.

[3] Hermann Rauschning was a capitalist who initially supported the nazis as opponents of the organised working class but then changed his position when the nazis became out of control, publishing a book, We Never Wanted This. In nazi Germany a Gauleiter was a district 'leader'.

[4] Ernst Thaelmann joined the German Communist Party in 1920, he became its leader with Stalin's support in 1925. Arrested by the nazis in 1933, he was murdered in 1944.

[5] Karl Zoergiebel was the Social Democratic commissioner of the Berlin police. Fritz von Papen was appointed Chancellor on June 1 1932. On July 20 he removed the Social Democratic government of Prussia. He became vice chancellor under Hitler.

[6] Rudolf Breitscheid (1876-1945) was a socialist deputy in the Reichstag. He fled to France when Hitler came to power and was handed over to the Nazis by the Vichy regime. Vorwaerts was the central organ of the SPD.

[7] Dimitri Manuilsky was secretary of the Comintern 1931-43.

[8] Prominent Stalinist publicists, Dutt and Rust of the British CP and Ehrenberg of the Russian bureaucracy.

[Cassius Clay]

''Firstly your information on the testament is false.''

No it isn't.

"Lenin's last writings were hidden from the Communist Party rank and file. Lenin's Testament, which demanded Stalin's removal as general secretary, despite the protests of his widow, was not read out at the Congress and remained hidden until 1956 when Khrushchev and Co. produced it, along with a few other items, as part of their campaign to throw the blame for all that had happened in the past 30 years onto Stalin's shoulders." Russia, revolution to counter revolution''

Whether or not the person who wrote this just wrote it because he/she was lying or that they themselves had bought the lie I've know way of telling but this is wrong.

"Lenin's began writing his Testament on the 25th December 1922, in which he critically assessed the qualities of the Bolshevik leadership. It contained his final recommendations. "Comrade Stalin, having become general secretary, has concentrated enormous power in his hands; and I am not sure that he always knows how to use that power with sufficient caution." He then deals with Trotsky's qualities: "On the other hand comrade Trotsky, as was proved by his struggle against the Central Committee in connection with the question of the Peoples' Commissariat of Communications, is distinguished not only by his exceptional abilities - personally he is, to be sure, the most able man in the present Central Committee - but also by his too far reaching self-confidence and a disposition to be too much attracted by the purely administrative side of affairs." In relation to the others: "I will only remind you that the October episode of Zinoviev and Kamenev was not, of course, accidental, but that it ought as little to be used against them personally as the non-Bolshevik past of Trotsky."

So what can we tell by this. That Lenin is not sure whether Stalin is capable of using the power in his position as General Secretary properly. Big deal. He (Lenin) also warns against a spilt between Trotsky and Stalin.

Now in my opinion Lenin basically says of Trotsky that he is too bureauctic ('purely administrative side of the work') and 'Non-Bolshevism' is a far greater insult than anything written about Stalin.



''Here we have Lenin

PUTTING FORWARD A PLAN TO REMOVE STALIN''

No we don't. Lenin thinks that Stalin maynot be up to the job, that's all nothing else.

''whilst also

PUTTING FORWARD TROTSKY AS THE BEST MAN TO SUCCEED HIMSELF.''

I cannot see anywhere where Lenin declares Trotsky 'The Best man to succeed himself'. Once again there are numerous quotes from Lenin which are critical of Trotsky but all you can find on Stalin is 'That he is to rude'.

''What is hard to understand here comrade?''

Nothing.

[bolshevik1917]

If all you can do is pass off my quotes and sources as 'lies' then so be it.

Ok, look closesly at the testament. Lenin recommends 'the comrades to find a way to remove stalin from that position'. You say its 'just because he was rude' but if you read into it you will see that after Lenin was off work ill he returned and told Trotsky he was shocked at the beurocracy that was appearing in the party (mainly Stalin) and suggested they work together to get rid of him.

On the other hand, Lenin said Trotsky was 'the most able man in the present Central Committee'

Again comrade, what here is not clear to you?

(Edited by bolshevik1917 at 4:11 am on Nov. 10, 2002)

[Cassius Clay]

''If all you can do is pass off my quotes and sources as 'lies' then so be it.''

No Comrade not at all. You seem like a intelliegent guy who is willing to have a debate so lets debate without the insults and swearing that have dominated this thread for the first four pages.

Now then what I called a lie was when the author of that book said that the testament was kept secret till 1956. This is wrong (for one thing Stalin offered to resign over it) and the below article ought to show that (among other things) to you.

''In this issue we publish the third in the series of materials relating to the ‘Lenin Testament’ and the relations between Lenin and Stalin. The two statements of Maria Ulyanova, the sister of Lenin, given below were published for the first time in the USSR in 1989 during the period of ‘perestroika’. Yu. Murin and V. Stepanov who prepared these and related documents for publication in the Soviet journal ‘Izvestia TsK KPSS’ noted that the background to the writing of these two statements was the joint plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the A-UCP(B) held in 1926:

‘The opposition (L.D. Trotsky, G.E. Zinoviev, L.B. Kamenev and others) in their struggle against I.V. Stalin and the majority in the CC used the last letters written by V.I. Lenin, in which he had put forth his opinions of eminent party leaders, and accused the CC of hiding these documents from the party. G.E. Zinoviev in his speech at the plenum talked about the contents of V.I. Lenin’s letter to I.V. Stalin dated 5 March 1923. Consequently the following documents were read out in the plenum : V.I. Lenin’s letter to the Congress dated 25 December 1922, the follow-up letter dated to the Congress dated 25 December 1922 – ‘On the question of nationalities or ‘autonomisation’ and the letter ‘To the party of Bolsheviks’ dated 18 (31) October 1917 on the attitude of L.B. Kamenev and G.E. Zinoviev towards the question of the armed rebellion.

‘Following the discussion at the plenum and having taken into consideration the reading of the letters of V.I. Lenin, G.E. Zinoviev, L.D. Trotsky, N.I. Bukharin and I.V. Stalin, M.I. Ulyanova issued statements which were appended to the stenographic report of the plenum.’

(‘Izvestia TsK KPSS’, No. 12, 1989, below p. 200, translated from the Russian by Tahir Asghar).

It is clear from the second statement made by Maria Ulyanova that the first had been prompted by the request of Bukharin and Stalin to guard the latter a little from the attack of the opposition. The involvement of Nikolai Bukharin in the preparation of Maria Ulyanova’s statement dated 26th July is evident from the following note in his handwriting on the letterhead of the CC of the RCP(B) which is preserved in the former archives of the CPSU(B) :

‘In view of the systematic slander on Comrade Stalin by the opposition minority in the CC and the unending assertions regarding a virtual termination of all relations by V.I. Lenin with I.V. Stalin, I feel obliged to say a few words about the relations between Lenin and Stalin as I was present alongside of Lenin during the whole period at the end of V.I.’s life.

‘Vlad. Ilyich Lenin highly valued Stalin, so much so, that at the time of the first stroke and also during the second stroke V.I. entrusted Stalin with the most intimate of assignments while emphasising that it is Stalin alone that he is asking for.

‘In general, during the whole period of his illness, V.I. did not ask for any of the members of the CC and did not want to meet any of them and would ask only for Stalin to come. Thus all the speculations that V.I.’s relations with Stalin were not as good as with others is totally contrary to the truth’.

(Loc. cit. Translated from the Russian by Tahir Asghar).

In the first statement Maria Ulyanova rejected the charges made by the opposition that there had been a rupture between Lenin and Stalin in the last months of the life of Lenin and also affirmed the closeness of the political and personal relations between the two Bolshevik leaders. Zinoviev in his speech of 21st July 1926 at the joint plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission of the A-UCP(B) had referred to the evaluations by Lenin of Stalin in the second part of his ‘Letter to the Congress’ (24th December, 1922), the continuation of the letter (4th January 1923) and the article ‘On the Question of Nationalities or ‘Autonomisation’. On the question of Stalin’s ‘rudeness’ Maria Ulyanova asserted her opinion that the incident between Stalin and Nadezhda Krupskaya was ‘completely personal and had nothing to do with politics’. It had arisen as by the decision of the Central Committee Stalin was charged with the responsibility of ensuring that no political news reached Lenin during the period of his serious illness as per the instructions of the doctors. Nadezhda Krupskaya had breached this decision which led to Stalin criticising her and in turn was hammered by Lenin. Maria Ulyanova considered that ‘had Lenin not been so seriously ill then he would have reacted to the incident differently’.

The second, undated, statement by Maria Ulyanova is more reflective of the events in the last months of the life of Lenin. Ulyanova sought to delve more deeply into the connection between the last letter of Lenin which demands an apology from Stalin for his behaviour with Nadezhda Krupskaya with the last writings of Lenin and the political line of Stalin in the period after the death of Lenin. Maria Ulyanova sheds new light on the personal and political intimacy between Lenin and Stalin. We learn that Stalin was a more frequent visitor to Lenin in the period of his illness compared to the other party leaders. Lenin turned to Stalin for help when he came to the decision that in the event of his becoming paralysed he wished to end his life by consuming potassium cyanide. Maria Ulyanova’s account of this matter is of great value as it answers the scandalous charge levelled by Trotsky that Stalin had arranged for Lenin to be administered poison. (L. Trotsky, ‘Stalin’, Vol. 2, London, 1969, p. 199). The narration is of further value in countering the assiduously fostered notion prevalent in the west that Trotsky was in some sense closer to Lenin and in fact the ‘heir’ of Lenin and Leninism. From her direct knowledge of the discussions of Lenin and Stalin on the subject of Trotsky, Maria Ulyanova is able to aver that Lenin stood in close political proximity to Stalin despite the difference between the two on the Caucasian question. (On this see the note ‘Bolshevism and the National Question’, ‘Revolutionary Democracy’, Vol. 1, No. 2, September 1995, pp. 66-69). Ulyanova’s account of the dissatisfaction of Lenin with Stalin on the matter of sending monetary assistance to the émigré Menshevik Martov may not convince many of Lenin’s political correctness on the question, rather political sympathy may go to Stalin who exclaimed to Lenin that he should find another party secretary if he wished to send money to this enemy of the workers.

The differences between Lenin and Stalin manifested in Lenin’s last letter to Stalin where he demanded an apology from Stalin originated, as Maria Ulyanova pointed out, from a situation where Stalin was required by the party politbureau to ensure the compliance of the doctors’ instructions that Lenin should not be informed of political developments. Ulyanova indicates that the ‘maximum fear’ was of Nadezhda Krupskaya who was accustomed to holding discussions on political matters with Lenin. Stalin’s attempt to maintain the medical instructions precipitated the quarrel with Krupskaya in which he threatened to take her before the Central Control Commission of the party. This in turn provoked the contretemps between Lenin and Stalin.

Lenin’s letter to Stalin of 5th March 1923 did not touch upon the fact that Nadezhda Krupskaya was circumventing the medical instructions and that Stalin had been charged by the politbureau to ensure their compliance. Lenin demanded that Stalin withdraw his words to Nadezhda Krupskaya, apologise or face a rupture in their relations.

This letter is well known as it was circulated at the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU by Khrushchev in 1956 and later reprinted all over the world by the revisionist Soviet press.

It is now known that Khrushchev had been a member of the Trotskyist opposition in the early 1920s so that, as Kaganovich has pointed out in his memoirs, the ‘secret speech’ represented an example of political recidivism.

Lenin’s letter to Stalin was held back at the request of Nadezhda Krupskaya and was eventually delivered personally by M.A. Volodcheva to Stalin on 7th March, 1923. Stalin immediately replied to the letter of Lenin but it was not read by the intended recipient as Lenin’s health worsened. The rebuttal of Stalin is self-explanatory. It is published as an appendix to the two statements of Maria Ulyanova for the first time in the English language.''

So tell me something, if the opposition are using the testament (although just the bit critical of Stalin) to launch attacks against Stalin in 1926 then how precisly is it kept secret for another 30 years? Also once again Stalin published the whole thing in a article in Pravda in 1928, even joking that 'He was proud to be rude'.


''Ok, look closesly at the testament. Lenin recommends 'the comrades to find a way to remove stalin from that position'.''

Without suggesting anyone to replace him.

''You say its 'just because he was rude' ''

Yes.

''but if you read into it you will see that after Lenin was off work ill he returned and told Trotsky he was shocked at the beurocracy that was appearing in the party (mainly Stalin) and suggested they work together to get rid of him.''

Who sais this? That book of yours or Trotsky the same man who alledges that Stalin had Lenin killed?


''On the other hand, Lenin said Trotsky was 'the most able man in the present Central Committee' ''

And his 'Non-Bolshevism' would be a flattering remark would it.

Here's just one quote from Lenin which shows what he really thought of Trotsky.

''Trotsky arrived, and this scroundrel at once came to an understanding with the Right wing of Novy Mir against the Left Zimmerwaldians! Just so! That is just like Trotsky! He is allways equal to himself-twists, swindles, poses as a Left, helps the Right, so long as he can.'

Vladimir Ilich Lenin 1917. He also called Trotsky 'Judas' in a letter to Zioneve in 1923.

''Again comrade, what here is not clear to you?''

Everything is clear except the sudden disaperance of Marxman.

[bolshevik1917]

Ok then, good. I am willing to debate as long as points are backed up with evidance.

Firstly, the testament as a whole was supressed. Stalin did print a very small part but the rest of it was kept under lock and key for a long time.

From 'lenin and trotsky - what they really stood for'

"The remark which Lenin is "alleged on Trotsky's authority" to have made was published in the original edition of the minutes of the Petrograd Committee, but subsequently suppressed on the grounds that the speech of Lenin had been copied out incorrectly by the minutes secretary. Undoubtedly, the whole text, as is the case with many of Lenin's speeches is badly edited, full of gaps and incomplete sentences. But only one page was deleted - the page that contains Lenin's remark on Trotsky. In his book, The Stalin School of Falsification, Trotsky reproduces a photo-copy of the page in question. The original is in the Trotsky Archives, together with a great deal of other material which has been suppressed in the Soviet Union. Monty Johnstone does not question the authority of the material. He dare not: it has been attested to, not only by every serious historian of the Russian Revolution, but also by the material published by the Soviet bureaucracy after the Twentieth Congress, including Lenin's suppressed "Testament", which was published by the Left Opposition in Russia and by Trotskyists abroad thirty years before the text was made public by the Soviet ruling clique. Naturally, they only published a fraction of the material, which shows Lenin's opposition to Stalin. But a still greater amount remains under lock and key, in the "closed" section of the Lenin Library, available for the scrutiny only of the Party's hack "historians"."

Monty Johnston who is mentioned in the above text was a stalinist who produced a pamphlet against trotsky, the idea of the lenin and trotsky book by Grant and Woods was to expose Johnstons work as stalinst rubbish, and they did just that as you will know by reading it.

Another one of Johnstons favorites was this thing you keep saying about 'totskys non bolshevism'.

"On page 21 of his work, Johnstone quotes from Lenin's last letter to Congress - the famous Suppressed Testament, which was only made available to the rank-and-file of the Communist Parties by the Soviet leaders after the 20th Congress. Johnstone quoted what Lenin has to say about Trotsky's personal characteristics, but omits one sentence which is very relevant to his own work. Lenin, in his last word to the Russian Communist Party, warned that Trotsky's non-Bolshevik past should not be held against him.
Monty Johnstone has spent over half his work digging up all the refuse he can"

And you, like Johnston, keep digging up all these Lenin - Trotsky feuds from the past. Again the book deals with this.

"The incident of the so-called August Bloc was later blown out of all proportion by the Stalinist falsifiers of the history of Bolshevism, with their barefaced invention of “Trotsky’s Bloc” with the Liquidators. The August Bloc undoubtedly represented the shipwreck of conciliationism, showing the impossibility of unity between Bolshevism and Menshevism. Trotsky was particularly upset at this move towards a split which upset all his plans. He railed against Lenin, who replied in kind. Some harsh words were said in both sides in the heat of the moment, which would later be fished out of the archives and used by the Stalinists for unprincipled factional purposes in the struggle to discredit Trotsky after Lenin’s death, despite the explicit instructions in his Testament that “Trotsky’s non-Bolshevik past should not be used against him”."

Again "Trotsky’s non-Bolshevik past should not be used against him" was Lenin's advice.

And what do these wonderfull 'Leninists' the Stalinists do? Use Trotskys non-bolshevik past against him!

When Lenin recommended Stalin be removed you comment that he simply 'thought he might not be up to the job'

Well was he not proved right?? What did Stalin do for communism? he turned it into a vision of monstrocity, a slandered dictatorship. Even today the wounds caused by Stalinism are still fresh on our movement comrade.

I strongly recommend you read the Lenin and Trotsky book though, it will save me having to quote the whole thing to keep counter arguing you.

Also, check out this picture of your hero http://www.heretical.org/miscella/churchil.html

(Edited by bolshevik1917 at 9:48 am on Nov. 10, 2002)

[Cassius Clay]

''Ok then, good. I am willing to debate as long as points are backed up with evidance.''

Good, so I will once again ask the question that if Zioneve and the opposition are using the testament to attack Stalin in the 1920's how is it kept secret to the the 1950's? And please come up with a better answer than Stalin shot anybody who dared mention it.

''Firstly, the testament as a whole was supressed. Stalin did print a very small part but the rest of it was kept under lock and key for a long time.''

No it was the opposition that decided to publish only a small part of it (to the party in the 20's). I guess Stalin realised when he (if you take the totalalitarin perspective) published the whole thing that it was as much critical of others as it was him.

From 'lenin and trotsky - what they really stood for'

"The remark which Lenin is "alleged on Trotsky's authority" to have made was published in the original edition of the minutes of the Petrograd Committee, but subsequently suppressed on the grounds that the speech of Lenin had been copied out incorrectly by the minutes secretary. Undoubtedly, the whole text, as is the case with many of Lenin's speeches is badly edited, full of gaps and incomplete sentences. But only one page was deleted - the page that contains Lenin's remark on Trotsky. In his book, The Stalin School of Falsification, Trotsky reproduces a photo-copy of the page in question. The original is in the Trotsky Archives, together with a great deal of other material which has been suppressed in the Soviet Union. Monty Johnstone does not question the authority of the material. He dare not: it has been attested to, not only by every serious historian of the Russian Revolution, but also by the material published by the Soviet bureaucracy after the Twentieth Congress, including Lenin's suppressed "Testament", which was published by the Left Opposition in Russia''

So here we have it, proof (along with the article on the previous page) that the testament was published by the opposition in Russia during the 1920's. What the rest of this quote fails to explain is how it was still kept secret.

''and by Trotskyists abroad thirty years before the text was made public by the Soviet ruling clique. Naturally, they only published a fraction of the material, which shows Lenin's opposition to Stalin.''

All that Lenin sais is that Stalin 'Is to rude' (I've explained the circumstances behind that) and that Lenin feels that Stalin maynot be up to the job and as such Lenin suggests that they find somebody to replace Stalin. Although just in the position as General Secretary (eg he doesn't scream that Stalin should be expelled, even from the politburo) . Note that Lenin doesn't actually suggest anyone who could do a better job.

''But a still greater amount remains under lock and key, in the "closed" section of the Lenin Library, available for the scrutiny only of the Party's hack "historians"."

Do you mind if I ask when this book was written? I gather it was some time in the 1960's so I don't blame the people who wrote this (perhaps they shouldn't of used such logic though since I could just say that Jesus's diary's prove he was a racist bastard. You see where this logic goes wrong.) but history has proven them wrong. If they were right then surely Yelstin and Gorby would of published it.

''Monty Johnston who is mentioned in the above text was a stalinist who produced a pamphlet against trotsky, the idea of the lenin and trotsky book by Grant and Woods was to expose Johnstons work as stalinst rubbish, and they did just that as you will know by reading it.''

Oh I'm sure santa claus will deliver come Christmas.

''Another one of Johnstons favorites was this thing you keep saying about 'totskys non bolshevism'. '''

Well you have to admit that from a 'Stalinist' (not that such a thing exists) perspective it is a preety strong argument. I mean I don't neccesarily have a go at Trotsky or supporters of the man (such as your self) in using Lenin's testament as a argument against Stalin.

If we used that logic then there would be no discussion.


"On page 21 of his work, Johnstone quotes from Lenin's last letter to Congress - the famous Suppressed Testament, which was only made available to the rank-and-file of the Communist Parties by the Soviet leaders after the 20th Congress. Johnstone quoted what Lenin has to say about Trotsky's personal characteristics, but omits one sentence which is very relevant to his own work. Lenin, in his last word to the Russian Communist Party, warned that Trotsky's non-Bolshevik past should not be held against him.''

Yeah and Lenin's sister said that Lenin infact valued Stalin above all of the other members of the party but that didn't stop the opposition from using the fact that Stalin had had a row with Lenin's wife against him, did it. Neither does it change the FACT that Lenin mentionecd 'Trotsky's non-Bolshevism', or that Lenin thinks Trotsky is beurcratic.

''Monty Johnstone has spent over half his work digging up all the refuse he can"

Excuse my ignorance but what is 'refuse'?

''And you, like Johnston, keep digging up all these Lenin - Trotsky feuds from the past. Again the book deals with this.''

I must admit that this Johnston bloke does sound intesting. But why should I not point out that there are dozens of quotes from Lenin which are critical of Trotsky from around 1900 right up to 1923 yet there is just one critical of Stalin?

"The incident of the so-called August Bloc was later blown out of all proportion by the Stalinist falsifiers of the history of Bolshevism, with their barefaced invention of “Trotsky’s Bloc” with the Liquidators. The August Bloc undoubtedly represented the shipwreck of conciliationism, showing the impossibility of unity between Bolshevism and Menshevism. Trotsky was particularly upset at this move towards a split which upset all his plans. He railed against Lenin, who replied in kind. Some harsh words were said in both sides in the heat of the moment, which would later be fished out of the archives and used by the Stalinists for unprincipled factional purposes in the struggle to discredit Trotsky after Lenin’s death, despite the explicit instructions in his Testament that “Trotsky’s non-Bolshevik past should not be used against him”."

Well first of all I would say that Trotsky did a fine job discrediting himself. There is a reason why the united opposition and their policy's only got 6000 votes out of the 725,000 votes cast in the December 1927 elections.

''Again "Trotsky’s non-Bolshevik past should not be used against him" was Lenin's advice.''

I redirect you to the point I made when you first bought that up. I must admit that I haven't seen this before though, how do I know that it isn't a forgery? Afterall Trotsky alledged that Stalin had Lenin killed (which is rubbish) and it was never printed in my school books which are so pro-Trotsky and sound like a broken record on Lenin's will.

''And what do these wonderfull 'Leninists' the Stalinists do? Use Trotskys non-bolshevik past against him!''

And Trotsky and the opposition were the first ones to use Lenin's testament against Stalin so why shouldn't the Bolshevik Party use Trotsky's Non-Bolshevism against him?

''When Lenin recommended Stalin be removed you comment that he simply 'thought he might not be up to the job' ''

Yes.

''Well was he not proved right??''

No.

''What did Stalin do for communism?''

Try reading the article 'Stalin's contribution to Marxist-Leninism' on page 1 of this thread. Also perhaps spreading Socialism from Seoul to Berlin without launching any war of agression (which is what Trotsky wanted). Oh yeah and the fact that partisans died with 'Za-Stalina' on their lips everywhere from Vietnam to Albania in the fight against Fascism.

''he turned it into a vision of monstrocity, a slandered dictatorship. Even today the wounds caused by Stalinism are still fresh on our movement comrade.''

U$ propaganda has made the word 'Stalinism' envoke horrible emotions yes but why should you believe the same people who told you that the Contras were freedom fighters and that Saddam was doing wonderful things for the Arab world? The truth is that the USSR up until the mid 1950's was a workers democracy which was true to the ideal of Socialism. This is why the Capatalists (begining with Churchill and Hitler) were/are so scarred of what the Soviet Union and Stalin represented.

''I strongly recommend you read the Lenin and Trotsky book though, it will save me having to quote the whole thing to keep counter arguing you.''

Oh but you can be a good Comrade and save me the time and money of having to go out and buy it.

''Also, check out this picture of your hero http://www.heretical.org/miscella/churchil.html''

That was erm a strange website. For one thing I was pleasantly surprised to find something which proves that Churchill was infact anti-semitic (I've been looking for that precise quote for a long time) but it does have some of it's own anti-semitic overtownes (in my opinion anyway) what with it's 'Jewish Capatalists' and the part where it alledges that Churchill was saved by a Multimillionaire Jew (that was my understanding I could of been wrong).

It sounded (and looked with the pictures) something from a Neo-Nutzi site. It then alledges something along the lines of '40,000 political prisoners shot a day at the height of the Stalinist terror'.

R...............ight.

[bolshevik1917]

How did Zinoviev get hold of the testament? Because Lenins death left him in a position of power beside Stalin and Kamenev.

Again I return to the book

"Lenin told Krupskaya that the Testament was to be kept secret until after his death, and then it should be made public to the ranks of the Party. However, Lenin was seriously paralysed by a third stroke on the 9th March 1923. Power effectively fell into the hands of a triumvirate of Zinoviev, Kamenev and Stalin. Nine months later, on the 21st January 1924, Lenin died. It was very convenient for Stalin. The triumvirate were determined to keep Trotsky from the leadership and therefore decided to keep Lenin's Testament under lock and key."

Zinoviev and Kamenev were against Stalin, but they were willing to work together to keep Trotsky out the picture, thats why Zinoviev and Kamenev didnt say much more about the testament and locked it up to continue the battle for beurocratic power with Stalin.

Zinoviev and co later submitted to Stalin, Trotsky never gave up.

"On the 7th November 1927, the tenth anniversary of the October Revolution, the United Opposition intervened in the marches and demonstrations with banners proclaiming: "Strike against the kulak, the NEPmen and bureaucrat!" "Carry out Lenin's Testament!" and "Down with opportunism!" Trotsky and the other Opposition leaders were given a tremendous reception by the workers of Leningrad, who voiced their dissatisfaction with the bureaucratic leadership. The workers and the youth were sympathetic to the Opposition, but exhausted and disheartened. As Trotsky warned the impressionistic Zinoviev, who took this as a sign that the situation had changed, this sympathy did not mean that the masses were prepared to take action. On the contrary, this demonstration convinced the ruling group of the need to take immediate measures against the Opposition. One week later, after a ferocious campaign of denigration, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rakovsky, Smilga and Yevdokimov were expelled from the Central Committee. In December the entire Left Opposition was expelled from the Communist Party. As a consequence, those who lacked a political perspective and backbone capitulated. The Zinovievists deserted the Opposition. Demoralised and disoriented, Zinoviev and Kamenev surrendered to Stalin. The Trotskyists, in contrast, refused to submit."

You also might want to know that Zinoviev later admitted that the myth of "Trotskyism" was deliberately invented at the time he broke with Stalin.

[Cassius Clay]

''How did Zinoviev get hold of the testament? Because Lenins death left him in a position of power beside Stalin and Kamenev.''

That's some alliance they've got there when Zinoviev is launching attacks on Stalin by using Lenin's testament in early 1926. With friends like that who needs enemies?

"Lenin told Krupskaya that the Testament was to be kept secret until after his death, and then it should be made public to the ranks of the Party. However, Lenin was seriously paralysed by a third stroke on the 9th March 1923. Power effectively fell into the hands of a triumvirate of Zinoviev, Kamenev and Stalin. Nine months later, on the 21st January 1924, Lenin died. It was very convenient for Stalin. The triumvirate were determined to keep Trotsky from the leadership and therefore decided to keep Lenin's Testament under lock and key."

'It was very convenient for Stalin' Again this is implying that somehow Stalin was responsible for Lenin's death.

As for that final part, Trotsky himself (and his supporters) admit that he himself played a role in the fact that the testament was not revealed at the time. Infact it's one of his main regrets.

''Zinoviev and Kamenev were against Stalin, but they were willing to work together to keep Trotsky out the picture, thats why Zinoviev and Kamenev didnt say much more about the testament and locked it up to continue the battle for beurocratic power with Stalin.''

Sigh, once again I've given you evidence that Zinoviev for one was using Lenin's testament against Stalin to the party in 1926. So how is it kept under lock and key for the next 30 years ?

''Zinoviev and co later submitted to Stalin, Trotsky never gave up.''

I wouldn't call launching a terror campaign and threatening to assanaite members of the Bolshevik government and in the end murdering Kirov submission but still.

"On the 7th November 1927, the tenth anniversary of the October Revolution, the United Opposition intervened in the marches and demonstrations with banners proclaiming: "Strike against the kulak, the NEPmen and bureaucrat!" "Carry out Lenin's Testament!" and "Down with opportunism!" Trotsky and the other Opposition leaders were given a tremendous reception by the workers of Leningrad, who voiced their dissatisfaction with the bureaucratic leadership. The workers and the youth were sympathetic to the Opposition, but exhausted and disheartened.''

Em 'Exhausted and disheartened' from what precisly? This is late 1927 the Civil War ended atleast six years previously, there was no shortage of food and in the cities atleast life would of been better than it had ever been. And they clearly weren't 'exhausted' enough to turn this protest into a riot.

''As Trotsky warned the impressionistic Zinoviev, who took this as a sign that the situation had changed, this sympathy did not mean that the masses were prepared to take action. On the contrary, this demonstration convinced the ruling group of the need to take immediate measures against the Opposition.''

This 'Riot' (and that's what it was, even fanatically anti-Stalin books such as 'The Russian Revolution a peoples tragedy' admit that, with accounts saying that the 'Demonstrators', mostly students and thugs actually attacked police on top of party buildings) meant that the police cracked a few heads and that Trotsky further discredited himself among the rank and file of the party and the workers in general.

''One week later, after a ferocious campaign of denigration, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rakovsky, Smilga and Yevdokimov were expelled from the Central Committee.''

And then given the chance to put there views and policy's across in a perfectly fair election the next month. Doesn't sound like the actions of a evil dictator determined to rid of any opposition to me.

''In December the entire Left Opposition was expelled from the Communist Party.''

Because they had recieved only 6000 votes out of 725,000 votes cast and refused to accept democracy and still called 'For the overthrow of Soviet authority'.

''As a consequence, those who lacked a political perspective and backbone capitulated. The Zinovievists deserted the Opposition. Demoralised and disoriented, Zinoviev and Kamenev surrendered to Stalin. The Trotskyists, in contrast, refused to submit."

Once again I wouldn't call murdering Kirov surrendering. But still this book in that last sentence has just acknowledged the fact that a Trotskyite opposition existed in the 1930's.

''You also might want to know that Zinoviev later admitted that the myth of "Trotskyism" was deliberately invented at the time he broke with Stalin.''

Well if you take Zinoviev by his word then you will admit that he allied with Trotsky in planning to murder leading members of the Soviet government.

[Kehoe]

Debating bones and dust ... if your efforts produce new insights into the creation of a truly just socialist society then is has all been well worthwhile.

[bolshevik1917]

Comrade Kehoe, the ‘bones and dust’ is the method of Stalinism which is still accepted as ‘marxism’ by a small minority in our movement. The writings of Trotskyism are importaint tools of marxism, when Stalinists refer to them as ‘fascist’ then it causes harm. When Stalinists say the Soviet Union was communist after Lenin’s death this also causes a huge damage to our ideas and perspectives.

Therefore debates like these will happen untill the Stalinists eventualy wither away. I speak for many when I say I will not sit back and let a great revolutionary marxist like Trotsky be slandered by the supporters of a bloated bourgoise tyrant!

Anyway..

Zinoviev and Stalin may have been enemies, but both saw Trotsky as a major threat. Trotsky stood, like Lenin, for true Marxist ideas. Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev wanted to rule the people, they had no intentions in working for a socialist society. The testament was kept from the rank and file of the party, and also from the people of Russia. Zinoviev had a degree of power after Lenin’s death and obviously had access to the testament, using Lenin’s demands for the removal of Stalin to try to improve his own chances of gaining some power. There was no reason why Zinoviev, Kamenev or Stalin would want to let Lenin’s words on Trotsky out into the open, as his support would have further increased and as they saw him as a threat this would not have been good.

Stalin feared Trotsky, if he didn’t he wouldn’t have went to so much lengths to slander and eventually murder him!

Some more on the ‘Stalin was just a bit rude’ debate.

From ‘Lenin’s last struggle’ Alan Woods 1970

“Lenin's threat to break off all comradely relations with Stalin and his accusations of "rudeness" in the "Testament" are often explained away by vague references to this incident. But in the first place, what Stalin did was not a "personal" matter but a grave political offence, punishable by expulsion from the Party. The offence is magnified by the fact that Stalin's position in the Party made it incumbent on him to root out such behavior, not to champion it.”

“However, this "little incident" must be seen in its proper context. It is only the most distasteful and obvious of the manifestations of Stalin's disloyalty.”

“Lenin's last active days were spent organising his fight against the Stalin faction at the Congress. He wrote a letter to Trotsky asking him to take up the defence of the Georgian comrades, and to the Georgian leaders warmly committing himself to their cause. It should be noted that such emphatic expressions as "with all my heart" and "with very best comradely greetings" are very rarely met in the letters of Lenin, who preferred a more restrained style of writing. It was a measure of his commitment to the struggle. It should also be pointed out that Lenin's bloc constituted a political faction - what was later known by the Stalinists as an "anti-party bloc". The Stalinists had already organised their faction which controlled the party machine.”

I should also point out that the Lenin and Trotsky book contains letters from Lenin to Trotsky and Stalin which would make quite interesting reading. Unfortunately I could not find them online, all the more reason to buy it.

You might also want to look into the history of Stalin’s influence on his puppet parties in various countries. The CPGB for instance, were strike breakers during the war (following orders from the Kremlin) and had some funny ideas, like getting very patriotic and marching around with union jacks. Then there was the German party which allowed Hitler in, as I showed earlier in the thread.
‘The History of British Trotskism’ by Ted Grant has much detail on this. Yet again another fantasic exposure on Stalinism comrade, worth a reading (once you have finished the first one)

http://www.marxist.com/hbt/

[Cassius Clay]

''Comrade Kehoe, the ‘bones and dust’ is the method of Stalinism which is still accepted as ‘marxism’ by a small minority in our movement.''

'Small Minority' tell me something when was the last time there was a uprising by workers and peasants with the cry of 'Long Live Trotsky' on their lips? Now then five years ago there was a uprising in Albania by the workers and peasants against a Mafia Capatalist state. These people fought for what they had under Hoxha, which was freedom.

''The writings of Trotskyism are importaint tools of marxism, when Stalinists refer to them as ‘fascist’ then it causes harm.''

So once again how is Trotsky's 'Labor Armies' scheme with it's 'Military Discipline' any different from Fascism?

''When Stalinists say the Soviet Union was communist after Lenin’s death this also causes a huge damage to our ideas and perspectives.''

To your movement of ultra leftists and anarchists yes I suppose it does cause damage.

''Therefore debates like these will happen untill the Stalinists eventualy wither away.''

Tell that to the people of Albania or those who were prepared to die in 1956 in Georgia in the fight to protect Stalin's name.

''I speak for many when I say I will not sit back and let a great revolutionary marxist like Trotsky be slandered by the supporters of a bloated bourgoise tyrant!''

And let's take a look at what this 'Great Revolutionary Marxst' represented shall we. The Title of the article is 'Trotskyism Revisited'.

''An article appeared in The Independent on the 25/11/1993 which gave details of a friend of Leon Trotsky's living in Mexico, Diego Rivera, who provided information to the FBI on anyone that he suspected of being GPU (Soviet intelligence) agents. His allegations were directed against anyone working in such organisations as the Mexican Communist Party (PCM) to Mexican trade unions. This in itself is interesting because, officially Rivera and Trotsky broke personal relations on May 31, 1940. Trotsky wrote in a letter to the chief of the Federal District in Mexico, 'I have nothing in common with the political activities of Diego Rivera. We broke our personal relations fifteen months ago.' (US National State archives; Trotsky Archive.)

But many people were mutual friends of the two, both of them worked in the same organisations such as the American Committee for the Defence of Leon Trotsky (ACDLT). Charles Curtiss was such a friend who sent Trotsky several reports of his meetings with Rivera: 'During my visit in Mexico, from July 4, 1938 to approximately July 15, 1939, I was in close association with Diego Rivera and Leon Trotsky.... I served as an intermediary between them,' (Writings of Leon Trotsky, 1939-40)

Trotsky of course knew of this, thus helping Rivera in supplying information to the FBI.

To return to the article in The independent, a Professor William Chase of the University of Pittsburgh was quoted at the end stating that he has 'concrete information' to prove that Trotsky was an FBI informant. Red Youth has subsequently obtained this information (the source relevant to this particular revelation is US State archives - RG 84 or from Prof. Chase himself. Any other evidence will be referred to after the quotation).

According to the Professor, the information Trotsky provided to the FBI was a means to obtain a US visa. But as the Professor points out, 'By providing the US Consulate with information about common enemies, be they Mexican or American communists or Soviet agents, Trotsky hoped to prove his value to a government that had no desire to grant him a visa.'

Trotsky's hysterical allegations were directed against anyone who might share sympathies with the USSR under Stalin. In America the ACDLT campaigned for the asylum of Trotsky in the US. At the time of the World Congress Against War and Fascism and the Latin American Labour Congress, Trotsky asked his supporters to 'mail as soon as possible known names of congress delegates who are GPU agents'. Prof. Chase admits himself the ridiculous nature of these allegations which leads one to think of the number of honest proletarian and democratic persons whose names who were supplied to the FBI, 'Trotsky's accusations that liberals and radicals who did not share his views on certain issues were Stalinists or GPU agents further diminished his support in the US.'

But there is more. With this array of high-flown allegations Trotsky accepted an invitation to appear in front of the 'Dies Committee'. This is otherwise known as the US Congress House Un-American Activities Committee. It was linked to overtly fascist figures, conducted anti-democratic witch-hunts and played a leading role in passing many anti-labour laws. Such was the anti-fascist and proletarian stance of Trotsky (fortunately, Trotsky never appeared on this committee because he never got a visa, but as we shall see he passed on information to the US government by other means). Now we come to the central point of this Red Youth exclusive: Trotsky's courtship of the FBI:

'In June [1940], Robert McGregor of the [US] Consulate met with Trotsky in his home... he met again with Trotsky on 13 July... Trotsky told McGregor in detail of the allegations and evidence he had compiled... He gave to McGregor the names of Mexican publications, political and labour leaders, and government officials allegedly associated with the PCM [Mexico and the USSR were the only countries in the world to materially support the fight against Franco's Fascism in the Spanish Civil War 1936-39]. He charged that one of the Comintern's [the Communist international's] leading agents, Carlos Contreras served on the PCM Directing Committee. He also discussed the alleged efforts of Narciso Bassols, former Mexican Ambassador to France, whom Trotsky claimed was a Soviet agent, to get him deported from Mexico.'

'Upon receipt, the State Department transmitted McGregor's memo to the FBI.

'...The Information, while not new, responded to both bodies' concerns.'

Well, there you have it. The outwardly anti-communist and anti-democratic veneer of the US was shared by Trotsky.

While the whole world was facing the onslaught of fascist forces, when the USSR with the guidance of the communist party and comrade Joseph Stalin were facing this attack single-handedly on the behalf of all progressive humanity, when the colonies of imperialism were striving for national liberation, Trotsky and his vile organisations were aiding reaction every-where and still play their significant part in this today. While Red Youth prints this new evidence, it is of no surprise to us or anyone at all acquainted with the role of Trotskyism, that Trotskyism is truly the agent of the ruling class within the ranks of the working class and is used to full advantage by our enemies to this day as much as in the past. 'Overnight many of the older anti-Bolshevik crusaders abandoned their former pro-Czarist and openly counter-revolutionary line, and adopted the new, streamlined Trotskyite device of attacking the Russian Revolution 'from the left'. In the following years it became an accepted thing for a Lord Rothermere or a William Randolph Hearst to accuse Josef Stalin of 'betraying the revolution' [one can still see this as we are taught that it was obvious that Trotsky was the natural successor to Lenin in our schools and have to read the books of another state informer and Trotskyist - George Orwell]....

'Adolf Hitler read Trotsky's autobiography as soon as it was published. Hitler's biographer, Konrad Heiden, tells in 'Der Fuehrer' how the Nazi leader surprised a circle of his friends in 1930 by bursting into rapturous praise of Trotsky's book' ('The Great Conspiracy Against Russia,' Kahn and Sayers).

But to be fair, Trotsky should be left to speak for himself. 'The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin, that old hand at the game, that professional exploiter of all that is backward in the Russian labour movement, seems like a senseless obsession.... The entire edifice of Leninism Is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay. '(Letter to Chkeidze 1913)

'Brilliant!' cried Hitler, waving Trotsky's 'My Life' at his followers. I have learned a great deal and so can you!' ('Great Conspiracy').

Lalkar, March-April 1997.



II. On the Use of Trotskyists as Japanese Spies in China

Mao Zedong

Mao Zedong, the Secretary of the Communist Party of China, states about the cooperation of the Japanese with the Trotskyists: 'only a short while ago in one of the divisions of the Eighth Revolutionary Peoples' Army, a man by the name of Yu Shih was exposed as a member of the Shanghai Trotskyist organisation. The Japanese had sent him there from Shanghai so that he could do espionage work in the Eighth Army and carry out sabotage work.

'In the central districts of Hebei the Trotskyists organised a 'Partisan-Company' on the direct instructions of the Japanese headquarters and called it a 'Second Section of the Eighth Army'. In March the two battalions of this company organised a mutiny but these bandits were surrounded by the Eighth Army and disarmed. In the Border Region such people are arrested by the peasant self-defence units which carry out a bitter struggle against traitors and spies.

'Trotskyist agents are being sent to the Border Regions where they systematically apply all methods in their sabotage work against the cooperation of the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. They try to destroy the morale of the soldiers of the Eighth Army, the students and the people of the Border Regions. They try to incite people against the United Front, against the Central Government, against the war of independence, against Marshal Chiang Kaishek.'

In an interview with the Soviet journalist, R. Carmen who is at present in China, Mao, who is recognized by the Japanese as the best strategist in China, declared that the attempts of the reactionary English and other politicians to convince China to renounce its plans are destined to be shattered. 'China is not only determined to beat the Japanese but also to strengthen the National and United Front and to extend it. Only very few people want to have an understanding with the Japanese and fight against the Central Anti-Japanese Government and the United Front... If we do not destroy these people then it will be difficult to be victorious against the Japanese. But the Chinese people - and with them the Communists, the progressive elements in the Kuomintang and the other parties - are determined to carry out the struggle to a victorious conclusion.'

Translated from the German by V.P. Sharma.
Rundschau (Basel), No. 41, 3rd August, 1939, p. 1169.

''Zinoviev and Stalin may have been enemies, but both saw Trotsky as a major threat. Trotsky stood, like Lenin, for true Marxist ideas. Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev wanted to rule the people, they had no intentions in working for a socialist society. The testament was kept from the rank and file of the party, and also from the people of Russia.''

Are you saying that 'The rank and file of the party' didn't attend party congresses? Or that the people of Russia didn't read Pravda where Stalin jokes 'That he is proud to be rude'?

''Zinoviev had a degree of power after Lenin’s death and obviously had access to the testament, using Lenin’s demands for the removal of Stalin to try to improve his own chances of gaining some power.''

No argument from me here.

''There was no reason why Zinoviev, Kamenev or Stalin would want to let Lenin’s words on Trotsky out into the open, as his support would have further increased and as they saw him as a threat this would not have been good.''

'Further increased' from the mere 6000 party members who voted for him and his policy's I supppose.

''Stalin feared Trotsky, if he didn’t he wouldn’t have went to so much lengths to slander and eventually murder him!''

Yet by all accounts (including Trotsky's) Stalin was the only one who showed any respect to Trotsky at politburo meetings, while virtually the enite party wanted the man expelled. The truth is that if it weren't for Stalin Trotsky would of been expelled far earlier.

“Lenin's threat to break off all comradely relations with Stalin and his accusations of "rudeness" in the "Testament" are often explained away by vague references to this incident. But in the first place, what Stalin did was not a "personal" matter but a grave political offence, punishable by expulsion from the Party.''

I wasn't aware that having a row with a fellow party members wife was 'punishable by expulsion'. The things you learn.

''The offence is magnified by the fact that Stalin's position in the Party made it incumbent on him to root out such behavior, not to champion it.”

Who said Stalin 'championed it' not only did Stalin apologise he even offered to resign. And this still doesn't change the FACT that according to Lenin's sister Lenin valued Stalin far more than anybody else.

“However, this "little incident" must be seen in its proper context. It is only the most distasteful and obvious of the manifestations of Stalin's disloyalty.”

This is little more than worn out rhectoric. If that ain't good enough for you then why don't you tell me how many times Lenin called Stalin 'Scroundrel' or 'Judas'?

“Lenin's last active days were spent organising his fight against the Stalin faction at the Congress. He wrote a letter to Trotsky asking him to take up the defence of the Georgian comrades, and to the Georgian leaders warmly committing himself to their cause. It should be noted that such emphatic expressions as "with all my heart" and "with very best comradely greetings" are very rarely met in the letters of Lenin, who preferred a more restrained style of writing. It was a measure of his commitment to the struggle. It should also be pointed out that Lenin's bloc constituted a political faction - what was later known by the Stalinists as an "anti-party bloc". The Stalinists had already organised their faction which controlled the party machine.”

So let me get this straight. Stalin (a man called by Trotsky as 'A grey blur' and destined 'To play second or third fiddle') allready controlls the party machine by 1923 to the point where the 'Stalinists' (in 1923 oh please not even the most right-wing 'historians' try to come up with this one) are actively fighting Lenin's policy's.

Sigh...

''I should also point out that the Lenin and Trotsky book contains letters from Lenin to Trotsky and Stalin which would make quite interesting reading. Unfortunately I could not find them online, all the more reason to buy it.''

Guess I'm going to buy the dam book then.

''You might also want to look into the history of Stalin’s influence on his puppet parties in various countries. The CPGB for instance, were strike breakers during the war (following orders from the Kremlin) and had some funny ideas, like getting very patriotic and marching around with union jacks.''

Erm this is wrong since a leading British Communists was 'Purged' on orders from Moscow for suggesting a policy which was very much pro-Bosses. And let's for a moment say that your right, tell me something. Which is worse collaborating with the Imperial Japanese Army in the fight against Chinese workers and peasants or possibly being a victim of too much 'Patrotism' in the fight against Nazism?

''Then there was the German party which allowed Hitler in, as I showed earlier in the thread.''

You didn't show anything, the person who wrote that was fanatical in his hatred for Stalin and as such was prepared to criticise the KPD's policy (in which they made mistakes, yes) only with the slightest justification. Not to mention that the author spoke with that great benefit called hignsight.

I gather that the same guy who wrote that article also wrote this book in which it criticises the British CP for co-opearating with Bosses during the war. Rather strange then that he feels the need to criticise the KPD in NOT collaborating the SPD in 1933. I mean can't the guy make up his mind.

Oh yeah and whatever happened to that German Revolution he was predicting.

'''he History of British Trotskism’ by Ted Grant has much detail on this. Yet again another fantasic exposure on Stalinism comrade, worth a reading (once you have finished the first one) ''

I also reccomend 'The Fight' by Norman Mailer since we are in the mood of reccomending books.

[redstar2000]

Sorry I'm late, comrades, but between Trotsky as FBI agent and Stalin as secret sponser of the 3rd Reich, it's getting kind of foggy around here.

But I did want to respond to the article so kindly furnished by bolshevik1917 on the KPD.

It's based on a completely unsupported assumption; that IF the KPD had entered into a united front with the SPD, THEN Hitler would have been stopped. It (and presumably yourself) ASSUME that the SPD was REALLY opposed to fascism.

The record suggests otherwise; the SPD had no objection to fascist methods of crushing the left uprisings throughout Germany in the post-World War I period. When the SPD Government in Prussia was dissolved by von Papen, the SPD decided to fight back by...filing a lawsuit.(!)

I'm unable to put my hand upon the exact reference, but there is a book entitled "Smashing the Nazi" (or something like that) in the course of which an academic went through the police arrest records of Berlin in 1932 to see WHO the KPD was actually fighting in the streets--the SPD or the Nazis. Out of 100 KPD members arrested for street fighting, 99 were arrested for fighting Nazis (the single remainder was arrested for fighting with members of the Stahlhelm...a para-military group organized by the Conservative Party).

The slogan that, admittedly, was forced on the KDP leadership by the rank-and-file was: "SMASH THE NAZI WHEREVER YOU FIND HIM".

Far from "smashing the SPD from below", even the KPD leadership favored a "united front from below"--that is, communists and social-democrats at the bottom SHOULD unite in a common struggle against the Nazis. Most SPDers were not interested.

In fact, suggesting that there was ANYTHING the KPD could have done to STOP the Nazis is really kind of silly. The KPD in 1932 had 300,000 members; both the SPD and the Nazis were MUCH larger...and MUCH richer. 95% of the KPD membership were unemployed workers; 90% had been members of the KPD for less than 2 years.

In the November 1932 elections, the KPD and the SPD together had FEWER members in the Reichstag than the Nazis plus the Catholic Center plus the Conservatives. When the Conservatives and the Nazis came to agreement and especially when they could bring the Catholic Center party on board, the rise of Hitler became inevitable.

Oh yes, and when Hitler was sworn into office, the KPD called upon the SPD to join in a general strike (the same tactic that had frustrated a military coup eleven or so years earlier)...the SPD, as you might expect, declined to participate.

If the piece you brought forward, bolshevik1917, is a representative sampling of trotskyist "history", I would be shocked. I expect better from you folks.

[bolshevik1917]

Firstly, I cannot resist an attack on such nationalism.

“Which is worse collaborating with the Imperial Japanese Army in the fight against Chinese workers and peasants or possibly being a victim of too much 'Patrotism' in the fight against Nazism?”

The ‘lesser of the two evils’ debate once raged between Kautsky and Lenin. It seems you, like Stalin, have taken Kautsky’s side.

Have you read ‘the proletarian revolution and the renegade Kautsky’ by Lenin?

Some quotes may give you Lenin’s views on such patriotism.


"Complete equality of rights for all nations; the right of nations to self-determination; the unity of the workers of all nations ...... "Insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation fights the oppressor, we are always, in every case, and more strongly than anyone else, in favour, for we are the staunchest and the most consistent enemies of oppression. But insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation stands for its own bourgeois nationalism, we stand against."

“From the point of view of the proletariat, recognising “defence of the fatherland” means justifying the present war, admitting that it is legitimate. And since the war remains an imperialist war (both under a monarchy and under a republic), irrespective of the country—mine or some other country—in which the enemy troops are stationed at the given moment, recognising defence of the fatherland means, in fact, supporting the imperialist, predatory bourgeoisie, and completely betraying socialism. In Russia, even under Kerensky, under the bourgeois—democratic republic, the war continued to be imperialist war, for it was being waged by the bourgeoisie as a ruling class (and war is a “continuation of politics”); and a particularly striking expression of the imperialist character of the war were the secret treaties for the partitioning of the world and the plunder of other countries which had been concluded by the tsar at the time with the capitalists of Britain and France.”

“If a German under Wilhelm or a Frenchman under Clemenceau says, “It is my right and duty as a socialist to defend my country if it is invaded by an enemy”, lie argues not like a socialist, not like an internationalist, not like a revolutionary proletarian, but like a petty—bourgeois nationalist. Because this argument ignores the revolutionary class struggle of the workers against capital, it ignores the appraisal of the war as a whole from the point of view of the world bourgeoisie and the world proletariat, that is, it ignores internationalism, and all that remains is miserable and narrow—minded nationalism. My country is being wronged, that is all I care about—that is what this argument amounts to, and that is where its petty—bourgeois, nationalist narrow—mindedness lies. It is the same as if in regard to individual violence, violence against an individual, one were to argue that socialism is opposed to violence and therefore I would rather be a traitor than go to prison.”

“The Frenchman, German or Italian who says: “Socialism is opposed to violence against nations, therefore I defend myself when my country is invaded”, betrays socialism and internationalism, because such a man sees only his own “country”, he puts “his own” ... bourgeoisie above everything else and does not give a thought to the international connections which make the war an imperialist war and his bourgeoisie a link in the chain of imperialist plunder.”


Theres a whole lot more, I guess that’s another book for you christmas list comrade.

Anyway, back to the topic.

Comments on Albania 5 years ago, don’t know too much about it to be truithfull. Perhaps you could enlighten me on how much ‘communism’ they have over there now. And you should read up on this ‘military discipline’ stuff, you have taken things well out of context. If you want a defenition of fascism (which by the way is nothing to do with Trotsky) try http://www.tedgrant.org/works/4/8/fascism.html
Some fantasticly untruithfull and slanderous lie’s in this anti-trosky rant. No concrete evidence either, and you rely on the US National State archives which is odd for someone who rants on about anti-stalin propoganda!

“The outwardly anti-communist and anti-democratic veneer of the US” you forgot to add “of which I am relying on their sources”

Didn’t it occur to you that as an ‘anti-communist and anti-democratic veneer’ the best way to destroy or hold back communism was to ‘expose’ (eg; to lie about, to slander) one of its main revolutionaries?

Something to think about isnt it.

With regards to Hitler, he also commented once that he ‘learned from Karl Marx’ so whats your point?

To ‘learn from’ does not always mean to ‘agree with’. Besides, Stalin was a good friend of Adolf’s at one point. In August 1939 Germany and Russia signed a non-aggression pact. This made a European war inevitable, but ensured that Hitler would first strike westwards not eastwards. The USSR established friendly trading relations with Germany. In effect, as Trotsky said, Stalin assumed the role of Hitler's quartermaster. While it was permissible for the Soviet Union to manoeuvre between different capitalist powers to safeguard itself, Stalin's policy was a complete betrayal of the elementary principles of a Leninist foreign policy. After the signing ceremony was over, Stalin proposed a toast - to Adolf Hitler: "I know how much the German people love their Fuehrer", he said. "I should therefore to drink a toast to his health."

The RCP had a few good songs in retaliation to the ‘trotsky is a nazi’ accusations. One was set to the music of "Oh my darling Clementine", which went like this:

Leon Trotsky is a Nazi.
Yes, I know it for a fact!
First I read it, then I said it,
Before the Stalin-Hitler Pact.

Chorus:

Oh my darling, Oh my darling,
Oh my darling Party Line.
Never break thee or forsake thee
Oh my darling Party Line.

In the Kremlin, in the Kremlin,
In the Fall of thirty nine,
Sat a Russian and a Prussian,
Working out the Party Line.

In Siberia, in Siberia,
Where the Arctic son doth shine
Sat an old Bolshevik
Who they called a dirty swine.

Party comrade, Party comrade,
What a sorry fate is thine!
Comrade Stalin does not love you
'Cause you left the Party Line.

To this, they added a couple of lines to the tune of Auld lang syne:

And should old Bolshies be forgot
And never brought to mind,
You'll find them in Siberia
With a ball and chain behind.

A ball and chain behind, my dear,
A ball and chain behind,
For Stalin shot the bloody lot
For the sake of old lang syne.

And I see you (unsurprisingly I must say), return to 1913 to find an old Trotsky against Lenin quote, how original. Need I remind you of Lenin’s words in the ‘testament’ once more? Im yet to view any letters to Stalin, or to anyone else but Trotsky in which he signs them with ‘warmest comradely greetings’ and ‘best comradely regards’.

On a last note (im in a hurry here) the Germany situation I am currently reading a book on http://www.marxist.com/germany/ perhaps as it is a complex subject it desrves a thread of its own as comrade Redstar already suggested.

[JozifD]

As you please bolsh.'17.
...but i'm not a Stalinist. I only recognize that Democracy has nothing to do with Communism. Democracy is just a government infrastructure functional to a capitalist economy. As such, statements like "Stalin was not democratic" are meaningless.

That said, regarding my "defense" of Stalin on the history forum, I was just saying that a weaker, and maybe more "democratic", leadership wouldn't have withstood the nazi onslaught. At that time, it probably required a dictator to defeat another one.
With that I'm not implying that Stalin and Hitler are the same. Stalin certainly committed some crimes, but there are fundamental differences. Holocaust and extermination of the eastern untermenschen where integral part of the nazi doctrine for world domination. Stalin purges were just means to reach objectives (read the '36 constitution) I cannot do else than agreee upon.

--- Happiness is the maximum agreement of aspirations and reality ---

[Cassius Clay]

''Firstly, I cannot resist an attack on such nationalism.

“Which is worse collaborating with the Imperial Japanese Army in the fight against Chinese workers and peasants or possibly being a victim of too much 'Patrotism' in the fight against Nazism?”

The ‘lesser of the two evils’ debate once raged between Kautsky and Lenin. It seems you, like Stalin, have taken Kautsky’s side.''

First of all is this still a valid excuse in collaborating with the Japanese in slaughtering Chinese workers and peasants? Second of all you forgot to quote the bit where I said 'If what you say is true' (and if it is there is a difference between possibly beating up a few workers and slaughtering millions, not to mention the British CP, unlike the Trotskyites were fighting for the side which had morals and more importantly history on their side).

The FACT is a leading British Communist party member was expelled from the party when he suggested a policy which was very much pro-bosses.

And once again the hyprocisy of your Trotskyite arguments is staggering. If the KPD didn't co-operate with the SPD then it's Stalin's fault for Hitler rising to power. Yet if the British CP co-operates with the British State during WW2 in the fight against Nazism then obviously Stalin is a Imperialist who sold out the workers.

''Have you read ‘the proletarian revolution and the renegade Kautsky’ by Lenin?''

No.

''Some quotes may give you Lenin’s views on such patriotism.''

Oh ofcourse it's wrong for a British worker to feel some 'Patriotism' when his country is fighting a life or death struggle against Nazism.

"Complete equality of rights for all nations; the right of nations to self-determination; the unity of the workers of all nations ...... "Insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation fights the oppressor, we are always, in every case, and more strongly than anyone else, in favour, for we are the staunchest and the most consistent enemies of oppression. But insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation stands for its own bourgeois nationalism, we stand against."

“From the point of view of the proletariat, recognising “defence of the fatherland” means justifying the present war, admitting that it is legitimate. And since the war remains an imperialist war (both under a monarchy and under a republic), irrespective of the country—mine or some other country—in which the enemy troops are stationed at the given moment, recognising defence of the fatherland means, in fact, supporting the imperialist, predatory bourgeoisie, and completely betraying socialism. In Russia, even under Kerensky, under the bourgeois—democratic republic, the war continued to be imperialist war, for it was being waged by the bourgeoisie as a ruling class (and war is a “continuation of politics”); and a particularly striking expression of the imperialist character of the war were the secret treaties for the partitioning of the world and the plunder of other countries which had been concluded by the tsar at the time with the capitalists of Britain and France.”

“If a German under Wilhelm or a Frenchman under Clemenceau says, “It is my right and duty as a socialist to defend my country if it is invaded by an enemy”, lie argues not like a socialist, not like an internationalist, not like a revolutionary proletarian, but like a petty—bourgeois nationalist. Because this argument ignores the revolutionary class struggle of the workers against capital, it ignores the appraisal of the war as a whole from the point of view of the world bourgeoisie and the world proletariat, that is, it ignores internationalism, and all that remains is miserable and narrow—minded nationalism. My country is being wronged, that is all I care about—that is what this argument amounts to, and that is where its petty—bourgeois, nationalist narrow—mindedness lies. It is the same as if in regard to individual violence, violence against an individual, one were to argue that socialism is opposed to violence and therefore I would rather be a traitor than go to prison.”

“The Frenchman, German or Italian who says: “Socialism is opposed to violence against nations, therefore I defend myself when my country is invaded”, betrays socialism and internationalism, because such a man sees only his own “country”, he puts “his own” ... bourgeoisie above everything else and does not give a thought to the international connections which make the war an imperialist war and his bourgeoisie a link in the chain of imperialist plunder.”

Lenin wrote all that in regard towards World War One, and what he writes is correct but he was NOT talking about WW2. Lenin (and any sane person) would of happily allied with British and American Capatalism in the fight against Nazism if the circumstances said there was little other choice.

But what you appear to of wanted Stalin to do is call for open revolution (and thus greatly aiding the Nazis) in the only country which is a Soviet ally when the Soviet Union is facing a life or death struggle.

Get real.

''Theres a whole lot more, I guess that’s another book for you christmas list comrade.''

Yeah I suppose a book Lenin wrote in WW1 which was only about WW1 and the circumstances behind it and what a 'Socialist' should do would be really helpful in criticising Stalin and the Comintern in WW2.

''Comments on Albania 5 years ago, don’t know too much about it to be truithfull. Perhaps you could enlighten me on how much ‘communism’ they have over there now.''

Now this may of not been your intention but even here it appears you are 'Mocking' (perhaps that's the wrong word) the Albanian workers and peasants who grew up under Hoxha because their revolution failed. The reason why it failed was because of NATO intervention.

I hope this is not the case and that I'm mistaken. If not then need I remind you that the Russian Revolution of 1905 also failed.

''And you should read up on this ‘military discipline’ stuff, you have taken things well out of context. If you want a defenition of fascism (which by the way is nothing to do with Trotsky) try http://www.tedgrant.org/works/4/8/fascism.html
Some fantasticly untruithfull and slanderous lie’s in this anti-trosky rant. No concrete evidence either, and you rely on the US National State archives which is odd for someone who rants on about anti-stalin propoganda!''

Did he not come up with his 'Labor Armies' scheme then? And U$ archives (The U$ being very much anti-Stalin and pro-Trotsky) don't lie. The Nazi archives didn't lie when the details taken from the meeting of the meeting chaired by Heydrich were discovered. Neither did the Soviet archives lie when they revealed that 799,445 people died in the Soviet prison system between 1930 and 1953.

“The outwardly anti-communist and anti-democratic veneer of the US” you forgot to add “of which I am relying on their sources”

'I' wasn't relying on any of the U$'s sources, the article that I quoted may of but 'I' didn't rely on anything. 'Anti-communist and anti-democratic veneer of the US' which according to their own state archives Trotsky allied with in the fight against Communsim.

''Didn’t it occur to you that as an ‘anti-communist and anti-democratic veneer’ the best way to destroy or hold back communism was to ‘expose’ (eg; to lie about, to slander) one of its main revolutionaries?''

This would explain why Trotsky is seen as a hero throughout the western world would it? This is why my schoolbooks preach how Trotsky 'Was Lenin's Natural successor' and how he was just a innocent victim of 'Stalinist repression'?

And once again archives do NOT lie. If they were to be mean't as a form of propaganda then they wouldn't be 'Archives', would they?

''Something to think about isnt it.''

Indeed it is.

''With regards to Hitler, he also commented once that he ‘learned from Karl Marx’ so whats your point?''

Will you stop shooting the messanger, that was a article I quoted. Anyway I wasn't aware that Hitler in the 1930's started reccomending to his fellow Nazis that they read the manifesto, yet he said that of Trotsky.

''To ‘learn from’ does not always mean to ‘agree with’.''

True enough.

''Besides, Stalin was a good friend of Adolf’s at one point.''

Oh ofcourse who could forget the pair meeting in the Kremlin to discuss the carve up of the world and how to finally crush Trotsky who represented the true freedom for the working classes.

''In August 1939 Germany and Russia signed a non-aggression pact. This made a European war inevitable, but ensured that Hitler would first strike westwards not eastwards.''

What you forget to mention is that the USSR had called for years to creat a 'Anti-Fascist front', ever since Hitler had come to power. The Soviet government offered the Red Army's help in protecting the people of Czechslovakia in 1938. Even as late as August 1939 Stalin proposed that the Red Army come to defence of Poland (who had previously help carve up Czechslovakia) if the Germans attacked.

But dare I say if these offers had been excepted you would be criticising Stalin right now for 'Collaborating wtih Polish Imperialists and betraying the working classes'.

And 'This made a European war inevitable', please as if Stalin (who faced no other choice as of August 23rd 1939 other than to sign the Non-agression treaty) is resposible for WW2.

Like Comrade Redstar 2000 (who believe me is no fan of Stalin) said, if this is your 'Trotskyite' version of history, then I'm shocked.

''The USSR established friendly trading relations with Germany. In effect, as Trotsky said, Stalin assumed the role of Hitler's quartermaster.''

Russia in 1918 'had friendly trading relations' with Imperial Germany yet I don't here you criticising Lenin. 'Hitler's quartermaster' (coming from the same source which claims Stalin had Lenin killed), that's some quartermaster who had for years called on the world to unite and crush his 'master'.

''While it was permissible for the Soviet Union to manoeuvre between different capitalist powers to safeguard itself, Stalin's policy was a complete betrayal of the elementary principles of a Leninist foreign policy.''

Agreed on the first point. So how was 'Stalin's policy a complete betrayal of the elementary principles of a Leninist forgiegn policy' ? Did not the Soviet Union have freindly relations with Weimar Germany in 1923? Was it not in the early 1920's that the Soviet Union began to seek diplomatic regonition from the west? What about the example of the Turkish Communist party in 1921 with some criticising the Bolsheviks of 'selling out' the Turks.

Oh but I forgot, by this point the evil 'Stalinists' allready controlled the state.

''After the signing ceremony was over, Stalin proposed a toast - to Adolf Hitler: "I know how much the German people love their Fuehrer", he said. "I should therefore to drink a toast to his health."

Diplomatic courtesy, and did not 'The German people love their Fuehrer'? To say otherwise would be historical simplicity. As for Hitler health, well unless you propose (even with the benefit of hinsight) to kill Hitler in 1939/40 and turn the wrath of the German Army against you, this time led by Generals who knew what they were doing I would be hoping the Fuehrer's health remains good.

Anyway it wasn't Stalin who talked with Hess for hours over the world's politics and how evil the Soviet government is?

''The RCP had a few good songs in retaliation to the ‘trotsky is a nazi’ accusations. One was set to the music of "Oh my darling Clementine", which went like this:

Leon Trotsky is a Nazi.
Yes, I know it for a fact!
First I read it, then I said it,
Before the Stalin-Hitler Pact.

Chorus:

Oh my darling, Oh my darling,
Oh my darling Party Line.
Never break thee or forsake thee
Oh my darling Party Line.

In the Kremlin, in the Kremlin,
In the Fall of thirty nine,
Sat a Russian and a Prussian,
Working out the Party Line.

In Siberia, in Siberia,
Where the Arctic son doth shine
Sat an old Bolshevik
Who they called a dirty swine.

Party comrade, Party comrade,
What a sorry fate is thine!
Comrade Stalin does not love you
'Cause you left the Party Line.

To this, they added a couple of lines to the tune of Auld lang syne:

And should old Bolshies be forgot
And never brought to mind,
You'll find them in Siberia
With a ball and chain behind.

A ball and chain behind, my dear,
A ball and chain behind,
For Stalin shot the bloody lot
For the sake of old lang syne.''

That's a great song (the Nazis and even worse the Spice girls once did catchy tunes is well), but could you please answer me the question of where I have called Trotsky a Nazi?

''And I see you (unsurprisingly I must say), return to 1913 to find an old Trotsky against Lenin quote, how original.''

It wasn't me that bought it up but the person who wrote the article which I quoted. Still doesn't change the FACT that Trotsky said that though.

'How original', much like Lenin's testament.

''Need I remind you of Lenin’s words in the ‘testament’ once more?''

There it is again.

''Im yet to view any letters to Stalin, or to anyone else but Trotsky in which he signs them with ‘warmest comradely greetings’ and ‘best comradely regards’.''

Neither am I aware of any quotes by Lenin which call Stalin 'Judas'.

But here is just one quote from Lenin on what he thought of Stalin.

'' When during the Eleventh Congress, in 1922, Preobrazhensky criticized the fact that Stalin led the People's Commissariat for Nationality Affairs as well as the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection (in charge of controlling the state apparatus), Lenin replied:

`(W)e need a man to whom the representatives of any of these nations can go and discuss their difficulties in all detail .... I don't think Comrade Preobrazhensky could suggest any better comrade than Comrade Stalin.

`The same thing applies to the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection. This is a vast business; but to be able to handle investigations we must have at the head of it a man who enjoys high prestige, otherwise we shall become submerged in and overwhelmed by petty intrigue.' ''

''On a last note (im in a hurry here) the Germany situation I am currently reading a book on http://www.marxist.com/germany/ perhaps as it is a complex subject it desrves a thread of its own as comrade Redstar already suggested.''

Very much agreed.

[bolshevik1917]

As you can see from Lenin's attack on the nationalist Kautsky there is NO WAY he would have sided with capitalism.

Lenin saw a country not as a single minded being but as an area of land containing a ruling class and a working class.

What makes you think he would have sided with a countries ruling class against another?

Are you under the impression that Nazi Germany did not contain a working class? Or that the world should turn their back on them.

The very basics of Marxism teach us that the job of removing the ruling class (whether it Hitler, Blair, Bush, Hussain) lies with AND ONLY WITH the workers themselves. And that collaboration with the ruling classes are deadly!

I was not mocking Albania, I genuinley do not have any knowledge on the subject.

I propose you find me a quote by Leon Trotsky that states 'late workers would be shot'

This is rather odd, you say " And once again archives do NOT lie. If they were to be mean't as a form of propaganda then they wouldn't be 'Archives', would they?"

Then why do the 'archives' say Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK when he didn't?

"So how was 'Stalin's policy a complete betrayal of the elementary principles of a Leninist forgiegn policy' ?"

I dont seem to remember Lenin toasting to any blatant fascist dictators health, do you?

"Diplomatic courtesy, and did not 'The German people love their Fuehrer'? To say otherwise would be historical simplicity. As for Hitler health, well unless you propose (even with the benefit of hinsight) to kill Hitler in 1939/40 and turn the wrath of the German Army against you, this time led by Generals who knew what they were doing I would be hoping the Fuehrer's health remains good."

You have ridiculed yourself by attempting to justify this comment made by the beurocrat Stalin. Did the German people love their fuher? certainly not a huge majority of them!

Again you bring up old Lenin and Trotsky quotes, and continue to ignore the FACTS that before Lenin's death, he was close to Trotsky and strongly disliked Stalin.

[Cassius Clay]

''As you can see from Lenin's attack on the nationalist Kautsky there is NO WAY he would have sided with capitalism.''

Stalin didn't side with Capatalism, the Soviet Union fought German Capatalism it just so happaned that British/American Capatalism (and at that time the far less evil of the two) also fought Nazism. What do you think Lenin would of done if he had been in the same situation? Call openly for a revolution in the only country that was prepared to ally with him when the Soviet Union was fighting a life and death struggle?

And it wasn't until 1957 that the Soviet Union officially abanoned the policy of 'Inevitability of war' between Capatalism and Socialism. And need I remind you that it was a ex-Trotskyite that abanoned that policy and came up with 'Peaceful Co-existence'.

''Lenin saw a country not as a single minded being but as an area of land containing a ruling class and a working class.''

Can't argue with that.

''What makes you think he would have sided with a countries ruling class against another?''

Perhaps the signing of a pact with Weimar Germany in 1923 and I gave you plenty of other examples in my previous post.

Let me ask you a question. Say if you woke up as Stalin in 1941 would you of seriously started to call for the overthrow of the only government that is willing to help you against Nazi Germany? I hope that with your added advantage of hignsight the answer would be no.

''Are you under the impression that Nazi Germany did not contain a working class? Or that the world should turn their back on them.''

The thing is though that Redstar2000 showed you that the KPD was the only party who didn't 'Turn their back' on the working classes of Germany. In another thread (I think on another board) I acknowledged the FACT that the Nazi-Soviet pact would of greatly demoralised the German Communists.

But this does not change the FACT that the Soviet Union had been calling for years to crush Fascism before it threatened the world, nor that the Soviet Union in the end did free the German working classes from Nazism.

''The very basics of Marxism teach us that the job of removing the ruling class (whether it Hitler, Blair, Bush, Hussain) lies with AND ONLY WITH the workers themselves. And that collaboration with the ruling classes are deadly!''

Yeah I would agree with this, but Lenin when he faced little other choice and when the circumstances dictated it was not immune to 'collaboration' with other ruling classes.

And it was Trotsky who 'Collaborated' with the ruling classes of Europe and America more than anybody else.

''I was not mocking Albania, I genuinley do not have any knowledge on the subject.''

Well I apologise for the mistake. If you have time try reading Enva Hoxha's 'Revolution and Imperialism'. I think you may find yourself agreeing with alot of what he says.

''I propose you find me a quote by Leon Trotsky that states 'late workers would be shot' ''

Have you not heard of his Labor Armies scheme, which was to put the Red Army (which was due to be demobilised) into the factories where it would work under 'Military discipline'?



''This is rather odd, you say " And once again archives do NOT lie. If they were to be mean't as a form of propaganda then they wouldn't be 'Archives', would they?"

Then why do the 'archives' say Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK when he didn't?''

I like Oliver Stone as much as the next guy but that was a rather biased account he provided in 'JFK'. Also the archive/s for that have yet to be opened.

Another thing is that (and I really DON'T want to get involved in a debate on JFK) the whole 'Theory' for believing it wasn't Oswald is based on 'Conspiracy's'.

Guess we are going to have to wait till the archive is opened.

"So how was 'Stalin's policy a complete betrayal of the elementary principles of a Leninist forgiegn policy' ?"

I dont seem to remember Lenin toasting to any blatant fascist dictators health, do you?''

No but actions speak louder than words. And Stalin's 'Actions' will show you that the Soviet Union had called for a pre-empitive strike against Hitler and 'Anti-Fascist front', for years. Not to mention that it was the Soviet Union led by Stalin who killed 80% of the Fascist soldiers.

''You have ridiculed yourself by attempting to justify this comment made by the beurocrat Stalin. Did the German people love their fuher? certainly not a huge majority of them!''

You know something, I read that part of my post and your right. About the 'comment' anyway, it was a mistake.

However it was Trotsky who talked to Hess for hours on how evil the Soviet government is and how to go about destroying it. It is also quite obvious that as of August 23rd 1939 the Soviet Union faced little other choice other than signing the pact.

But 'ridiculing' myself. How about only responding to certain parts of my posts, I mean talk about selective quoting. You have totally ignored some parts and just quote a small number of my paragraphs where you feel that I've left myself open for counter-arguments (which I have). This is perfectly okay since we are having a debate but take the rough with the smooth.

''Again you bring up old Lenin and Trotsky quotes, and continue to ignore the FACTS that before Lenin's death, he was close to Trotsky and strongly disliked Stalin.''

Not according to Lenin's sister.

[bolshevik1917]

"What do you think Lenin would of done if he had been in the same situation?"

Would Lenin have gotten involved in an imperialist war at all? Is it not more likely comrade, that Lenin would have ensured the fascists were crushed before they had the chance to rise up and grow to such heights. The stupidity, the blatant ignorance of Stalin is all too evident when he said "the fascists are not asleep, but it is to our interests that they attack first: that will rally the whole working class around the communists, Germany is not Bulgaria, besides, according to all the information the fascist are weak in Germany! In my opinion, the Germans must be curbed, and not spurred on."

Stalin, no matter what you say about the situation in Germany, clearly encourages that the working class must be HELD BACK from taking power!

Would Lenin have? I dont think so.

The signing of a 'pact' with Weimar was not to build relations with this rather undesirable man, Lenin had correctly predicted the revolutionary stirring in the German working class and would not have 'curbed' them like Stalin did.

" Let me ask you a question. Say if you woke up as Stalin in 1941 would you of seriously started to call for the overthrow of the only government that is willing to help you against Nazi Germany? I hope that with your added advantage of hignsight the answer would be no."

I would have shot myself in disguist at my unbeleivable ignorance and naivety which lead to the German fascist uprising!

"But this does not change the FACT that the Soviet Union had been calling for years to crush Fascism before it threatened the world, nor that the Soviet Union in the end did free the German working classes from Nazism"

Pity Stalin never considered the 'prevention is better than cure' theory.

And do you know anything about the 'military discipline' Trotsky put forward. Im still waiting on that quote...

"No but actions speak louder than words. And Stalin's 'Actions' will show you that the Soviet Union had called for a pre-empitive strike against Hitler and 'Anti-Fascist front', for years. Not to mention that it was the Soviet Union led by Stalin who killed 80% of the Fascist soldiers."

Again Stalin was still to blame for allowing it to happen in the first place!

And Lenin's sister was not Lenin. Lenin wrote his 'testament' and not his sister!

[Cassius Clay]

''Would Lenin have gotten involved in an imperialist war at all?''

Are you aware of how stupid this sounds? Basically what your saying here is that Stalin should of simply NOT resisted because doing so would be getting involved in a Imperialist war.

''Is it not more likely comrade, that Lenin would have ensured the fascists were crushed before they had the chance to rise up and grow to such heights.''

How many times, the Soviet Union had called for united anti-Fascist front ever since Hitler came to power.

''The stupidity, the blatant ignorance of Stalin is all too evident when he said "the fascists are not asleep, but it is to our interests that they attack first: that will rally the whole working class around the communists,''

And History has proved this correct.

''Germany is not Bulgaria, besides, according to all the information the fascist are weak in Germany! In my opinion, the Germans must be curbed, and not spurred on."

So what's your point here? What Stalin is basically saying is that the Soviet Union is not ready for a war and as such the Germans must not be 'Spurred on' into attacking.

''Stalin, no matter what you say about the situation in Germany, clearly encourages that the working class must be HELD BACK from taking power!''

Ofcourse he does. Rolls eyes...

''The signing of a 'pact' with Weimar was not to build relations with this rather undesirable man, Lenin had correctly predicted the revolutionary stirring in the German working class and would not have 'curbed' them like Stalin did.''

It appears that your still trying to cling to this idea that it was all Stalin's fault that the Nazis came to power. I and more so Redstar2000 (who's no fan of Stalin) have proven that article to be totally wrong.

''I would have shot myself in disguist at my unbeleivable ignorance and naivety which lead to the German fascist uprising!''

Sigh.

''Pity Stalin never considered the 'prevention is better than cure' theory.''

Once again it was the KPD who were the only ones to fight the Nazis right from the Beer Hall Putch to May 1945. It was the Soviet Union that had called for a united Anti-Fascist front ever since Hilter took over the Rhineland.

And while the KPD is fighting the Nazis in the streets what was Trotsky doing? Oh yeah enjoying a fine discussion on life with Rudolph Hess, who at that time was Hitler's right hand man.

''And do you know anything about the 'military discipline' Trotsky put forward. Im still waiting on that quote...''

Did I ever claim that he said that? It should be quite obvious to anyone what 'Military discipline' in factories meant. But since I appear to be ignorant on this subject why don't you exolain what the 'Democratic' and freedom loving Trotsky meant with his Labor Armies scheme.

''Again Stalin was still to blame for allowing it to happen in the first place!''

Now this is getting boring. For example even a person who takes the most anti-appeasment line in regards to Chamberlin will not solely blame poor old Nevill not only for the Second World War but the actual rise of the Nazis in the first place.

''And Lenin's sister was not Lenin. Lenin wrote his 'testament' and not his sister!''

You alledge that Trotsky had the full backing of Lenin against Stalin. Yet the testament of Lenin's sister clearly proves this (among other things) wrong.

[bolshevik1917]

“Are you aware of how stupid this sounds? Basically what your saying here is that Stalin should of simply NOT resisted because doing so would be getting involved in a Imperialist war.”

But Stalin played a part in allowing the fascists to get into power, surely he could have just maintained his friendship with Hitler…drink toasts to his health and suchlike.

“How many times, the Soviet Union had called for united anti-Fascist front ever since Hitler came to power.”

Ah yes, how anti-fascist of Stalin to help Hitler get in, then toast to his health. Such an anti-fascist indeed!

“So what's your point here? What Stalin is basically saying is that the Soviet Union is not ready for a war and as such the Germans must not be 'Spurred on' into attacking.”

My point is the fascists were not ‘weak’ as such, but at that point strong enough for the working class to destroy. ‘curbing’ them helped Hitler to take power ‘without breaking a window’ as he often boasted.

“It appears that your still trying to cling to this idea that it was all Stalin's fault that the Nazis came to power.”

Stalin played a major part in it!

“It was the Soviet Union that had called for a united Anti-Fascist front ever since Hilter took over the Rhineland.”

How quickly old Joe forgot about it when he was toasting to Adolfs health.

“Did I ever claim that he said that?”

Yeah

“It should be quite obvious to anyone what 'Military discipline' in factories meant. But since I appear to be ignorant on this subject why don't you exolain what the 'Democratic' and freedom loving Trotsky meant with his Labor Armies scheme.”

It is available for all to read in various works of Trotsky. The transitional program is good…it doesn’t have any ‘shoot late workers’ comments right enough..i’ll keep looking though.

“You alledge that Trotsky had the full backing of Lenin against Stalin. Yet the testament of Lenin's sister clearly proves this (among other things) wrong.”

Again Lenin’s sister was not Lenin. What did Lenin say in his testament about Stalin and Trotsky? Who cares what his sister said when it’s there for all to see, straight from the horses mouth as to speak.

You are the one who is ‘getting boring’ comrade

[Cassius Clay]

''But Stalin played a part in allowing the fascists to get into power, surely he could have just maintained his friendship with Hitler…drink toasts to his health and suchlike.''

Okay then for a moment I'll just accept you theory that Stalin and Hitler were best friends plotting to crush the freedom loving Trotskyites who wan't genuine working class power. Doesn't change the fact that your actually criticising the Soviet Union for resisting the Nazi invasion.

I'm pretty sure this is NOT your intention so just re-read what you've written here and try and atleast word it better.

''Ah yes, how anti-fascist of Stalin to help Hitler get in, then toast to his health. Such an anti-fascist indeed!''

If you wish to ingore the fact that the Soviets were the only ones in the world to aid the Spanish workers and peasants in their fight against Franco then that's fine. But if you wish to be blind to the fact that the Soviet Union was prepared to supply 100,000 men and women of the Red Army to help the Czechs in their fight against Hitler or that the Soviet delagetes to the League of Nations routinly called for the crushing of Hitler for years, then you are simply a fanatic in your hatred for Stalin that you remain blind to the FACTS.

''My point is the fascists were not ‘weak’ as such, but at that point strong enough for the working class to destroy. ‘curbing’ them helped Hitler to take power ‘without breaking a window’ as he often boasted.''

If I'm not mistaken Stalin was saying this in 1940/41, not in terms of thinking of policy in 1933. Shame that nobody bothered to support the KPD's call for a general strike (something which you have a strange habbit of ignoring), wasn't it. I mean if that wasn't fighting the Nazis then I'm not sure what is.

But let me guess it was all part of a master plan for Stalin to crush the workers and impose his evil beurcracy on everybody.

''Stalin played a major part in it!''

Yeah that's right the Communists never fought the Nazis in the streets while Trotsky was having tea with Hess. Neither did they call for a general strike when Hitler came to power.

''How quickly old Joe forgot about it when he was toasting to Adolfs health.''

Once again actions speak louder than words and if you chose to ignore the Soviet Union's actions in fighting and beating Nazism from it's rise in the early 1920's to Hitler suicide, then that's your choice.

''Yeah''

Much like I called Trotsky a Nazi I suppose. I'll admit I may of been over simplistic but I never said that Trotsky said 'Shoot workers who turn up late'.

''It is available for all to read in various works of Trotsky. The transitional program is good…it doesn’t have any ‘shoot late workers’ comments right enough..i’ll keep looking though.''

Really from my understanding it was a plan to demobilise the Red Army, put it's troops into factories to rebuild society where it would work under 'Military Discipline'. What's not clear about that?

I guess it was those sought of policy's that meant Trotsky only got 6,000 votes.

''Again Lenin’s sister was not Lenin. What did Lenin say in his testament about Stalin and Trotsky? Who cares what his sister said when it’s there for all to see, straight from the horses mouth as to speak.''

Any student of history should care because it clearly proves the Capatalist/Trotskyite version of history wrong. You though will likely ignore this just like you've ignored Trotskyites collaborating with the Japanese in slaughtering China's peasants, Trotsky's cup of tea with Hess, the opposition's lack of support in the party, the fact that Lenin valued Stalin above any other Comrade, that Lenin described Trotsky as 'Judas' and 'Scroundrel' (in the days of Revolution and Civil War not as you try to claim in some cafe in London ten years eariler) and that Trotsky was prepared to become a FBI informant.

What have you got against Stalin? That Lenin calls him rude and think's he may not be up to the job as General Secretary and that Stalin proposed a toast to Hitler's health, while completly forgetting that it was Stalin who had wanted to fight Hitler right from the start.

''You are the one who is ‘getting boring’ comrade.''

Indeed repeating myself over and over again is getting boring. Shame really since I thought we might be able to get a debate going on here, oh well.

[bolshevik1917]

“Okay then for a moment I'll just accept you theory that Stalin and Hitler were best friends plotting to crush the freedom loving Trotskyites who wan't genuine working class power. Doesn't change the fact that your actually criticising the Soviet Union for resisting the Nazi invasion.”

For resisting it no, for helping to cause it yes! And what about stalins ‘anti-nazi’ tactics in the CPGB? Many shipyard and factory workers went on strike during the war, the Kremlin ordered them to be sacked for ‘aiding the nazi’s’ and blamed ‘trotskyist fascists’ for ‘provoking strikes’.


“If you wish to ingore the fact that the Soviets were the only ones in the world to aid the Spanish workers and peasants in their fight against Franco then that's fine. But if you wish to be blind to the fact that the Soviet Union was prepared to supply 100,000 men and women of the Red Army to help the Czechs in their fight against Hitler or that the Soviet delagetes to the League of Nations routinly called for the crushing of Hitler for years, then you are simply a fanatic in your hatred for Stalin that you remain blind to the FACTS.”

Blind to the facts that Stalin helped Hitler to power, or that the Soviet Union was not as kind and gentle as you make it out to be which I will go into detail below.


“If I'm not mistaken Stalin was saying this in 1940/41, not in terms of thinking of policy in 1933. Shame that nobody bothered to support the KPD's call for a general strike (something which you have a strange habbit of ignoring), wasn't it. I mean if that wasn't fighting the Nazis then I'm not sure what is.”

Maybe that was Stalin’s fault for ‘curbing’ them?

“Yeah that's right the Communists never fought the Nazis in the streets while Trotsky was having tea with Hess. Neither did they call for a general strike when Hitler came to power.”

They fought, but they were curbed by Stalin as I keep having to repeat!

And have you any idea why Trotsky ‘had tea’ with Hess?



“Once again actions speak louder than words and if you chose to ignore the Soviet Union's actions in fighting and beating Nazism from it's rise in the early 1920's to Hitler suicide, then that's your choice.”

I don’t ignore the fight put up by the workers against Hitler, but why do Stalin and his beurocrats deserve any credit, soldiers were under fed and treated badly anyway!



“Really from my understanding it was a plan to demobilise the Red Army, put it's troops into factories to rebuild society where it would work under 'Military Discipline'. What's not clear about that?”

The ‘shooting late workers’ bit

“I guess it was those sought of policy's that meant Trotsky only got 6,000 votes.”

In a stalinist undemocratic fixed parliament yes!


“What have you got against Stalin? That Lenin calls him rude and think's he may not be up to the job as General Secretary and that Stalin proposed a toast to Hitler's health, while completly forgetting that it was Stalin who had wanted to fight Hitler right from the start.”

Which brings me onto the question of ‘Was the USSR socialist?’

If we were to accept every single one of the exaggerated figures on industrialization in Russia, how would that prove that there was socialism in Russia? At the end of the 19th century, Russia in six years more than doubled her production of cast iron and steel, almost doubled her production of coal, naphtha. Lenin wrote at that time "The progress in the mining industry is more rapid in Russia than in Western Europe and even in North America.... In the last few years the production of cast metal has tripled." And so on and so forth. Russian industrial output under the Czar doubled between the Russo-Japanese War and the beginning of the World War. The Czar built the Trans-Siberian, for example, the longest railway in the world. But that didn't show that Russia was a "socialist community" -- it was what it was, Czarist autocracy.

Between 1932 and 1937, according to the official Stalinist statistics, the total value of the Russian heavy-industry products increased 238 per cent. That's impressive. But in the very same period, 1932-1937, heavy-industry production in Japan, a country far less endowed with population and natural resources, increased by 176 per cent. That, too, is impressive. But nobody thought of saying that this proved the existence of socialism, or, to be statistically exact, three-fourths socialism in Japan.


The Communist Manifesto over a hundred years ago went out of its way to pay tribute to the bourgeoisie which, as it said, "has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts and Gothic cathedrals, "but Marx and Engels didn't, therefore, call capitalist society a socialist community.


Labor productivity, in industry and agriculture, to this hour was much lower in Russia than it was in the United States, the outstanding capitalist country in the world, which, from the socialist standpoint, i.e., this capitalism of ours, is exceedingly backward. According, to Planned Economy for December, 1940, the Russian miner, in spite of the vicious speed-up system of Stakhanovism, produced less than half the tonnage of the American (370 tons as against 844). What's more, while production in an American mine was three times as large as in a comparable Russian mine, the latter uses eleven times as many technicians, twice as many miners, three times as many office workers, and twelve times as large a supervisory staff. Twelve times as large a supervisory staff! wherever you went, the dead hand of bureaucratism was all too apparent in Stalinist Russia!


According to another journal, Problems of Economy for January, 1941, agricultural labor in America exceeded the productivity of the Russian kolkhoznik: 6.7 times in the production of wheat, 7.7 times in oats, 8.1 times in sugar beets, 3.1 times in milk and 20.1 times in wool. Now, the function of technique is what? It's to economize human labor, and nothing else. Socialism must guarantee society a higher economy of time than is guaranteed by capitalism, but by capitalism at its best! Otherwise socialism represents no advance. What kind of socialism is it where the productivity of labor is so inferior to that which prevails in an advanced capitalist state?



I want to emphasize first of all that I'll not refer to Russia during or since the devastation of the country by the war. I will refer to 1939 and the years before it. It makes no difference really. As early as 1935 the Stalinists officially announced that socialism had already been established in Russia, and irrevocably at that!
At the end of the Second Five Year Plan, in 1937, the output of steel was four times as great as in 1913, the last pre-World War I year in Russia -- dairy products lower than 1913; petroleum products three times higher than 1913 -- tea was available only to one-third the extent of 1913. There was a big airplane industry non-existent in Czarist Russia, absolutely. But in 1912, Russia had 1,166,000 department stores, wholesale units and retail shops, which the consumer depends upon, while on October 1, 1937, according to Planned Economy of 1938, issue No. 2, with a population far greater, no less than 160,000,000, there were only 228,000 distribution stores and 98,000 warehouses. The plan for rolled steel was completed almost 100 per cent; they now have a big chemical industry; but the plan for the production of soap was not even 40 per cent completed.

Tea, we're talking about, not television sets! Soap! The production of machines was twenty times as high as in 1918, at the end of the Second Five-Year Plan. But wages were lower than in pre-war Russia!

Was Russia under Stalin socialist? What happened to wages, what happened to real wages -- under Stalinist rule? In other words, what was the real standard of living for the masses under Stalinism, not in terms of television sets, not in terms of radios, refrigerators, and cars. No, we're talking about ordinary standard of living. Did real wages keep pace with the growth of industrialization, which was great, with the growth of production, which had been great, with the growth of the national income, which had been great?

By Stalin's official figures or any official figures? No, they had declined! The real facts are hard to find in the official Stalinist press, which did everything to conceal and twist them out of shape. The Stalinist press for years had not published one single line officially about prices of commodities. Although hard to find though it wasn’t impossible.

According to Pravda, May 14, 1988, the average wage of workers in 1938 was 259 rubles a month. Bear that figure in mind. That's Pravda. What could the Russian worker buy with this wage? What could he do with it? Inadvertently Pravda itself told us. On April 8, 1938, it reports that food for a patient in a Moscow hospital costed 7 rubles a day, that is, 210 rubles a month. On May 17th of the same year, it says "The fee for a child in a Pioneer camp should not be more than the cost of maintenance, 250 to 350 rubles a month." Now everybody knows that hospitals and children's camps did not provide the richest variety of food, the best food. Not at all. Everybody knows that hospitals purchased in large quantities; they purchase collectively, they prepare collectively. Things were cheaper. If a hospital patient required for food 210 rubles a month, if a kid in a Pioneer camp required from 250 to 350 rubles a month for food, what could the Russian worker buy with an average wage of 259 rubles a month? That's not after the Hitler invasion; that's in 1938, after socialism had irrevocably been established in Russia.

What about inequality? At hat time there was no country in the world, bar none, were inequality was as great, as deep, as extensive as it was in Stalinist Russia. In the United States, the spread between the poorest-paid and the best-paid worker was three to one, four to one, and, in extreme cases, five to one

In Russia, according to a very objective and fair economist and statistician, Dr. Abram Bergson, in his book on The Structure of Russian Wages, in October 1934 "the earnings of the highest paid Soviet worker were more than 28.3 times the earnings of the lowest paid worker at that time." And it became much worse! In 1947, average annual wage: 7100 rubles. The Stalinist press reported all the time earnings of some workers between 10 and 15 thousand rubles a month, that is, 120 to 180 thousand a year, when the average is 7100. Typical report is in Trud, the labor paper, so-called, for January 1, 1949, which reported that three Donbas miners averaged 60 to 75 thousand rubles for the three years 1946-1948. Now if with the lowest paid the average was 7100, is it an exaggeration to assume that the lowest paid do not go over 3000?

That makes a ratio of what between the lowest paid and the highest paid? anywhere from 50 or 60 to 1! Find me a working class anywhere in the world that shows that disparity. Now if that's how it is among workers, imagine the gap between workers and the ruling class, the factory directors, the managers, the army and navy officers, the brass, the millionaire kolkhozhiks, as they called them in the Stalinist press, the bureaucrats of all varieties, Stripes, ranks, sizes and weights!

[Cassius Clay]

''For resisting it no, for helping to cause it yes! And what about stalins ‘anti-nazi’ tactics in the CPGB? Many shipyard and factory workers went on strike during the war, the Kremlin ordered them to be sacked for ‘aiding the nazi’s’ and blamed ‘trotskyist fascists’ for ‘provoking strikes’.''

And they probably would of been right, afterall Trotskyites collaborated with the Japanese in China why would they not act as fifth colluminists in a Liverpool factory? Neither does this change the fact that when a leading CP member suggested a policy which was outright pro-bosses he was 'purged' on orders from Moscow.

''Blind to the facts that Stalin helped Hitler to power, or that the Soviet Union was not as kind and gentle as you make it out to be which I will go into detail below.''

Once again you've completly ingnored what I've written and just go on with this 'Stalin completly responsible for rise of Hitler'.

With the image you paint of Stalin he practically ran the KPD, so presumably if Stalin didn't want the KPD do call for a general strike they wouldn't have. Also how is the calling for a general strike part of Stalin's plan to 'Curb' the German workers?

Comeon this is basic stuff.

''Maybe that was Stalin’s fault for ‘curbing’ them?''

Sigh, bit of a fanatic this lad, so what's the headline on next weeks Trotskyite newspaper's front page? 'Stalin responsible for rise of Islamic Fundamentalism'.

''They fought, but they were curbed by Stalin as I keep having to repeat!''

And the more you keep discrediting yourself everytime you repeat this stupid claim. I admitted a few reply's back that with the benefit of hignsight perhaps the KPD made a mistake when it called the SPD 'Social Fascists' instead of putting even more effort into fighting Nazism (silly me thought we could have a debate so I try to see different perspective).

But this is getting really stupid now. Stop reading your Trotskyite bible of history (which as Redstar 2000 said has a very strange warped view of history) and do just a bit of research.

''And have you any idea why Trotsky ‘had tea’ with Hess?''

Enlighten me.

''I don’t ignore the fight put up by the workers against Hitler, but why do Stalin and his beurocrats deserve any credit, soldiers were under fed and treated badly anyway!''

Because Stalin despite making some military mistakes early in the war played a key role both military and politically in crushing Nazism. Soldiers are treated badly in every army, especially in the 1940's. But compare this to the Red Army of 1919 which one British officer remarked when he dined with one of Trotsky's 'Military specialists'. 'There is no difference between the old Imperial Army and the new Red Army', hmm doesn't sound like a prolerteriat army to me. Good thing that Trotsky was replaced wasn't it.

''The ‘shooting late workers’ bit''

Once again I was being over-simplistic, if this caused any offense I apologise. But this doesn't change the fact that Trotsky wanted 'Military Discipline' in the workplace.

''In a stalinist undemocratic fixed parliament yes!''

That's some fixed parliament when Trotsky and his opposition are allowed to stand and voice their policy's and views when the previous month they and their supporters and attempted to ransack party buildings the previous month.

FACT, Trotsky lost a perfectly fair election and afterwards called 'For the overthrow of Soviet Authority'.

''Which brings me onto the question of ‘Was the USSR socialist?’''

Erm you've just ignored everything that clearly indicates that Trotsky was a traitor and a sell out and the fact that you've got nothing against Stalin other than Lenin called him 'Rude' and thinking that he may not be up to the job as General Secretary.

I'll reply to the article you posted later (maybe a few days) when I've done some digging and research and when I have a spare hour or so to reply. Why I should I don't know since you've totally bypassed 'Stalin's Contribution to Marxism-Leninsim', 'Trotskyism Revisted' and Lenin's sister on the relationship between Joe and Vladmirir.

[bolshevik1917]

Im back, ive been extremely ill with some flu virusy thing.

In my spare time ive been searching every archive I can find, im yet to find even one suggestion that Trotsky ever 'had tea with Hess'

You could name your source, but even on the most stalinist anti trotsky sites there is nothing to suggest this!

I have been gathering up some very good anti stalin evidence from the book '1937: Stalin's year of terror' by V.Rogovin. I will start a new thread on this topic when i am on regularly again (probibly a few days)

[Cassius Clay]

Welcome back Comrade (you dam Trotskyite, LOL).

Erm shall we just leave this thread be? I cant be bothered to respond to your article and you haven't responded to any of mine, and we will just be repeating ourselves. I know that for the time being anyway your not going to convince me and I doubt I'm going to convince you so let's call this one a draw and continue the argument (I mean rigourious debate) in another thread.

About the Trotsky-Hess thing, I may be completly wrong but I've heard that they met several times (heard that is they only met once) as FACT, from about the most unbiased sources around. I believe there's a book entitled 'THe Assaination of Trotsky' (which is pro-Trotsky) which mentions it somewhere, also there is the mini-Hess biography from your local waterstones.

[bolshevik1917]

Well we were getting nowhere so yeah.

I think the moderators should organise all the 'trotskyists' and all the stalinists and give eachother the chance to put all their evidence together, both in defence of their chosen revolutionary and in attack of the other.

After a few days we could put or cases to eachother. Im not sure if this would influence eachother at all, but it would be strangely satisfying to let it all out.

just a though