Stalin Fucked it up for the rest of us - Directed Especially

[Lardlad95]

I've noticed recently how anti socialist people are..."Pinko Commie Bastard "It's like communism, your opressed"

And who can we thank for people being so anti Marxist....Stalin.

He single hadnidly ruined any chance the rest of us have in the west


now everyone thinks Socialism/communism is totalitarianism.

They confuse tyranny for socialism. and I'm like, no not all socialists want to censor stuff

but they wont listen.

Mazdak, becuase of your greast leader the rest of us are ostracized

[Cassius Clay]

Quite why we needed another thread on Stalin I don't know.

Mazdak pay attention, Stalin is responsible for every evil in the world from the Holocaust to Sept 11th. To deny that would be to deny the Earth is flat (no that wasn't a typo).

[Lardlad95]

I never said he was responsible for every tragedy in the world however it is his fault that people don't trust Socialists and Communists

and i want to know why anyone would defend him or deny that it's his fault.

[Mazdak]

lol, cassius.

Lardlad, the same could be said for Castro, or Ho Chi Minh. It wasn't stalin, but what they turned stalin into. (They being western propogandists)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 4:41 pm on Nov. 16, 2002
lol, cassius.

Lardlad, the same could be said for Castro, or Ho Chi Minh. It wasn't stalin, but what they turned stalin into. (They being western propogandists)

Did stalin or did stalin not purge his own people?

The thing though is no one connects Communism or Socialism with Castro or Ho Chi Minh

sure an educated person would bring them up.

However the majority of the people are satisfied with their simple stereotypes.

[Lardlad95]

Wether or not propagandists spin doctored everything isn't relevent because we know they obivously di.

However they must have based it on something.

What I'm trying to say is that Stalin ruined any hope of converting America and the west.

The US must turn before the world can...had Stalin not killed so many people our chances would be better

[Cassius Clay]

How is it Stalin's fault that he is/was the victim of everything from Nazi, Trotskyite and U$ propaganda? These come from the same people who told me that the Jews plan to rule the world, that Stalin had Lenin killed and that Saddam Huissein was doing wonderful things in the Middle East.

If you ever needed to discredit what western history books tell you then you couldn't wish for a more accurate list than I've just given you to discredit what these people say as 'Truth'.

You do realise that if Lenin had lived another 30 years then so called 'Historians' would be writing precisly the same right now?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 4:47 pm on Nov. 16, 2002
How is it Stalin's fault that he is/was the victim of everything from Nazi, Trotskyite and U$ propaganda? These come from the same people who told me that the Jews plan to rule the world, that Stalin had Lenin killed and that Saddam Huissein was doing wonderful things in the Middle East.

If you ever needed to discredit what western history books tell you then you couldn't wish for a more accurate list than I've just given you to discredit what these people say as 'Truth'.

You do realise that if Lenin had lived another 30 years then so called 'Historians' would be writing precisly the same right now?

So Stalin was a wonderful leader then? He was fair and he didn't try and kill people?

Please tell me what really did go on.

I'm not saying everything the History books says is true but it's foolish to say that Stalin wasn't an opressive leader

[Mazdak]

Stalin did not purge his own people. He purged counterrevolutionaries and enemies of his people. I don't consider a nazi/ kulak to be one of his people. I consider them enemies. Sure others were EXECUTED.

and not, that purge doesn't always go hand in hand with execution. It might mean a prison sentence or labor camp treatment.

As Clay said, if Lenin had lived another 30 years, it would be lenin we would be criticizing, and if trotsky had taken control, it would be trotsky.

I have said numerous times already, the masses are ignorant and willing to swallow all kinds of propoganda . What one million ignorant people believe isn't worth what one intelligent person believes.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 5:04 pm on Nov. 16, 2002
Stalin did not purge his own people. He purged counterrevolutionaries and enemies of his people. I don't consider a nazi/ kulak to be one of his people. I consider them enemies. Sure others were EXECUTED.

and not, that purge doesn't always go hand in hand with execution. It might mean a prison sentence or labor camp treatment.

As Clay said, if Lenin had lived another 30 years, it would be lenin we would be criticizing, and if trotsky had taken control, it would be trotsky.

I have said numerous times already, the masses are ignorant and willing to swallow all kinds of propoganda . What one million ignorant people believe isn't worth what one intelligent person believes.

but if said ignorant people were the ones who could help turn the US socialist then are they worth more than A Cappie who knows alot of what was said about Stalin was Propaganda?

I doubt Lenin was as Paranoid as Stalin and not necassarily as inclined to opress people.

People with an opinion arent always dangerous...unless you think people thinking is dangerous...

but didn't you just say that a person who is intellegent is worth more than an ignorant person?

Doesn't that contradict it's self?

[Cassius Clay]

''So Stalin was a wonderful leader then?''

In some peoples opinion yes he was. Ofcourse he wasn't perfect and the man made mistakes and these mistakes sometimes cost innocent people there lifes. But if you go and check out page 6 of the thread 'We shall Not allow criticism of Stalin' in the History forum then that will atleast show you that to some people he was a good leader. Not to mention the fact that the a large majority of those who vote for the Communists in present day Russia happaned to of grown up in the 1930's, 40's and 50's.

''He was fair and he didn't try and kill people?''

On the whole yes.

''Please tell me what really did go on.''

Very few people can really tell you what really went on. None of us on this board grew up under Stalin. Some people who did say it was a living hell (although with rather questionable motive) but ten times more say it wasn't.

Compare this to the Germans who grew up under Hitler. They are the first to warn against the extreme far-right saying that 'They don't realise what it was like'. I don't see any German pensioners carrying Hitler portraits every April 20th, do you?

You may find the Redcomrades website of interest. Mazdak I'm sure will provide you with a link.

''I'm not saying everything the History books says is true but it's foolish to say that Stalin wasn't an opressive leader.''

During the 1930's in a musuem of Russian history in one of the Soviet Union's cities there was a part which concentrated on those leaders who had invaded Russia. There were Ghengis Khan, Napolean and other Tyrants throughout history. However at the top of the list was one Woodrow Wilson who was compared (if not deemed worse) to the others in launching a brutal invasion of Russia.

Now even I, a very strong supporter of Stalin am not going to try and tell you that this is a accurate portrayal of what happaned in 1918-21.

Get my point.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 5:10 pm on Nov. 16, 2002
''So Stalin was a wonderful leader then?''

In some peoples opinion yes he was. Ofcourse he wasn't perfect and the man made mistakes and these mistakes sometimes cost innocent people there lifes. But if you go and check out page 6 of the thread 'We shall Not allow criticism of Stalin' in the History forum then that will atleast show you that to some people he was a good leader. Not to mention the fact that the a large majority of those who vote for the Communists in present day Russia happaned to of grown up in the 1930's, 40's and 50's.

''He was fair and he didn't try and kill people?''

On the whole yes.

''Please tell me what really did go on.''

Very few people can really tell you what really went on. None of us on this board grew up under Stalin. Some people who did say it was a living hell (although with rather questionable motive) but ten times more say it wasn't.

Compare this to the Germans who grew up under Hitler. They are the first to warn against the extreme far-right saying that 'They don't realise what it was like'. I don't see any German pensioners carrying Hitler portraits every April 20th, do you?

You may find the Redcomrades website of interest. Mazdak I'm sure will provide you with a link.

''I'm not saying everything the History books says is true but it's foolish to say that Stalin wasn't an opressive leader.''

During the 1930's in a musuem of Russian history in one of the Soviet Union's cities there was a part which concentrated on those leaders who had invaded Russia. There were Ghengis Khan, Napolean and other Tyrants throughout history. However at the top of the list was one Woodrow Wilson who was compared (if not deemed worse) to the others in launching a brutal invasion of Russia.

Now even I, a very strong supporter of Stalin am not going to try and tell you that this is a accurate portrayal of what happaned in 1918-21.

Get my point.

maybe it's just me but I wouldn't agre with a person who would kill me for thinking differently and speaking about it.

It only seems fair to oyu because you agree with him.

as far as people still voting for the party.

You do realize of course that Collectivism is veiwed more popularly in Europe and other countries east of the US?

Individualism is something that is pretty much exclusive to teh US...so I wouldn't be suprised that they vote communist.

Stalin's mentality and the fear that he used to rule has ruined my chances and others like me of reaching the people of the US simple as that

[Mazdak]

An intelligent person's opinion is worth more. AS long as capitalism exists, this will always be the case. But once education is stressed(as all socialist countries tend to do), the distinction between the ignorant and intelligent slowly disappears.

(Edited by Mazdak at 5:21 pm on Nov. 16, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 5:19 pm on Nov. 16, 2002
An intelligent person's opinion is worth more. AS long as capitalism exists, this will always be the case. But once education is stressed(as all socialist countries tend to do), the distinction between the ignorant and intelligent slowly disappears.

(Edited by Mazdak at 5:21 pm on Nov. 16, 2002)


answer this though you said you valued an intellegent opinion over an ignorant one

wht if it was a cappie who was intellegetn and he kept proving your policies wrong and embarissing you in public debate

would you have him killed?

[Mazdak]

He wouldnt be given the chance to debate me in public.

A die hard capitalist wouldn't get such a chance. An intelligent opinion, as in someone who isnt blinded. Someone who actually knows the truth. A leftist. That is the kind of intellectual i am talking about, not a capitalist.

[Revolution Hero]

Looks like another war. Great!

Western anti-communists parazitizes on the stalinism, deforms the true meaning of the events, which happened during Stalin's time and exaggerate Stalin's mistakes.
I am not Stalinist, not really, but I respect him, keeping in mind his slips at the same time.
Western media choosed the exact figure and asscoiate it with communism, they make good anti-communist propaganda and successfully spread it. The results are apparent, the world thinks that Stalin was devil. I laugh at these open minded people, as these people don't even know how Stalin was loved and respected by the citizens of the USSR. When soviet soldiers attacked German fascists they yelled: " For Motherland! For Comrade Stalin!" Yes , Stalin was a great leader. When Stalin died millions of Soviet people were shocked, they couldn't believe it and cried. Yes, Stalin was a great leader. And it is not about the cult of his person, but about his strong person.
Of course, there were minuses, just like there were pluses. But you all have to try to be more objective, try to see pluses together with the minuses.


I don't get you Lardad, you said the following :"They confuse tyranny for socialism. and I'm like, no not all socialists want to censor stuff but they won't listen"

I see that you are too smart to debate with leftists here, but what about serious debate with those bastards , who "won't listen". If they don't listen, then you should make them listen, maybe you are not too good in explaining your thoughts, then you should work at yourself. I mean , that it all depends on how you talk to the people. Ask yourself the question: "Why do they listen to the Media , but not to me?" I hope , that you'll come to the right answer.

[Kehoe]

My mother told me that when Comrade Stalin died that it seemed as if it were a month before his body was entombed and that the people mourned his passing with the deepest sense of somberness.Does this sound like the reaction of an oppressed people who at last had been liberated from a ruthless tyrant?On his 1960 visit to the USSR Che insisted on placing a floral tribute on Comrade Stalins tomb,and this was four years after Krushchev had exposed the crimes of Comrade Stalin.I see no purpose in debating the life and contributions of Comrade Stalin with petty people who wish only to view him as a one-dimensional personality.

[Revolution Hero]

Comrade Kehoe says truth.
Che respected Stalin. Then I would like to ask all of you a question:
" Is it CHE-lives.com or anti-communist.com?"

All of you , who claim to be leftists, agree with the bourgeois bastards, therefore spread anti- communist propaganda and split the revolutionary leftist movement.
All of you have to come to the reason..... think about it, be objective.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Revolution Hero on 9:12 pm on Nov. 16, 2002
Looks like another war. Great!

Western anti-communists parazitizes on the stalinism, deforms the true meaning of the events, which happened during Stalin's time and exaggerate Stalin's mistakes.
I am not Stalinist, not really, but I respect him, keeping in mind his slips at the same time.
Western media choosed the exact figure and asscoiate it with communism, they make good anti-communist propaganda and successfully spread it. The results are apparent, the world thinks that Stalin was devil. I laugh at these open minded people, as these people don't even know how Stalin was loved and respected by the citizens of the USSR. When soviet soldiers attacked German fascists they yelled: " For Motherland! For Comrade Stalin!" Yes , Stalin was a great leader. When Stalin died millions of Soviet people were shocked, they couldn't believe it and cried. Yes, Stalin was a great leader. And it is not about the cult of his person, but about his strong person.
Of course, there were minuses, just like there were pluses. But you all have to try to be more objective, try to see pluses together with the minuses.


I don't get you Lardad, you said the following :"They confuse tyranny for socialism. and I'm like, no not all socialists want to censor stuff but they won't listen"

I see that you are too smart to debate with leftists here, but what about serious debate with those bastards , who "won't listen". If they don't listen, then you should make them listen, maybe you are not too good in explaining your thoughts, then you should work at yourself. I mean , that it all depends on how you talk to the people. Ask yourself the question: "Why do they listen to the Media , but not to me?" I hope , that you'll come to the right answer.


I find it amazing that you would resort to insulting me to get your point across.

Just because you have never seen me debate anyone here doesn't mean I don't, don't assume things about people you don't know.

And while I realize my last statement contradicts my anti stalin veiw point remember, Stalin was historical figure i'm not.

The reason that they listen to the media over me is two reasons.

They grew up listening to porpaganda they just met me

Second the media is larger than me.

You know why it seems like I "spread anti commie veiws"?

Because I'm not a communist I think it's wrong, a little lesss wrong than capitalism.

Both are evil and opress freedom

You have Mazdak thinking that people should be shot to death for disagreeing with him

then you have CI thinking that the corparations should run everything

both of whicha re exaggerations but I guess you see my point

I do not veiw stalin as one dimensional. I have repeatedly said I realize that people have twisted his image.

Yet none of you can defend what he did, except for mazdak and he's a fanatic.

Stalin helped Russia become more powerful but he still commited genocide.

Progress doesn't outweigh death simple as that.

Split the revolutionary movement? Because I don't believe in senseless death and labor camps?

Get this through your heads people, if the US doesn't become socialist no other country that is already will survive.

There is no way unless every country on teh earth turns on teh US will it fall by violent means.

Death isn't the answer to everything.

I'm not ruininf the revolutionary movement I'm stating what is fact.

If you even want a revolution you have to atleast educate enough people for it to happen.

And the point right now is that people in teh US are scared of socialism.

Why are tehy scared? Because they still have images of cold war propaganda.

You say we must veiw the pluses with teh minuses...the minuses out way the pluses.

This is were communism loses it's good qualities. The cult mentality has become to great.

People become expendable just as Stalin veiwed them

Stalin embodied everything that was wrong with communism as well as some things that were good about it....however the good things are few and far between.

I don't want to say that Stalin was the horrible monster that people say

but his crimes were horrific and evil.

Even if he was the ssecond fuckin coming I don't think he could ahve redeemed himself.

His crimes set the image for teh rest of history.

It is because of those crimes that he is veiweed the way he is.

Did he progress russia, did he make russia strong, the answer of course is HELL YES

but his crimes over shadow this.

The title of this is that stalin ruined it for teh rest of us.

and I don't see anyone argueing against this

you guys are argueing that he was a good leader...

While he was a strong leader this isn't the case.

The case is his crimes, did they or did they not ruin revolution or in my case democratic socialst reformation for the rest of us?

[redstar2000]

You're right, lardlad95, the other folks are evading the issue...not intentionally, but they did miss the point of your question.

The real answer is no, not really. That is, if the USSR had NEVER existed, communists would be accused of PLANNING a reign of terror. If the USSR had REALLY been a "workers' paradise" (which we know it wasn't), the capitalist media would simply have made up a "reign of terror" out of whole cloth. The "mythology" of Stalin proved useful in their opposition to communism...but it wasn't really necessary.

We communists have had a tough time in ALL of the advanced capitalist countries and would have had a tough time if the USSR had NEVER existed. Why? Because for the first three-quarters of the 20th century, the advanced capitalist countries were able to RAISE the standard-of-living of their respective working classes by exploiting colonial labor and the labor of domestic (and unpopular) minorities.

There's even, I believe, a fragment from Marx in the last years of his life, wondering if the English working class was becoming "bourgeois". Well, yes, for a while.

Marx's "law" of the falling rate of profit and the immiseration of the proletariat was "temporarily suspended". Naturally, the revolutionary class consciousness of the working class suffered accordingly. That "suspension" appears to be coming to an end; in the U.S., wages for workers have been essentially stagnant since the mid-1970s. I don't know, but it seems likely that the same would be true for the E.U. If I am right about this, then we should fairly soon see a considerable upturn in trade union activity and interest in Marxist revolutionary politics. The "anti-capitalist consensus" people may be a first "straw in the wind". (Those are the people against the WTO, IMF, etc.)

So, it wasn't really Joe that "ruined it for the rest of us"; it was a temporary blip in class relations that sabotaged our efforts. If that historical "blip" is indeed coming to an end, people will forget all about Joe (and all the rest of the Leninist heroes of the 20th century) and concentrate on how to do it right this time. It will be in their class interests to do so...which, as motivation, beats preaching every time.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:44 am on Nov. 17, 2002
You're right, lardlad95, the other folks are evading the issue...not intentionally, but they did miss the point of your question.

The real answer is no, not really. That is, if the USSR had NEVER existed, communists would be accused of PLANNING a reign of terror. If the USSR had REALLY been a "workers' paradise" (which we know it wasn't), the capitalist media would simply have made up a "reign of terror" out of whole cloth. The "mythology" of Stalin proved useful in their opposition to communism...but it wasn't really necessary.

We communists have had a tough time in ALL of the advanced capitalist countries and would have had a tough time if the USSR had NEVER existed. Why? Because for the first three-quarters of the 20th century, the advanced capitalist countries were able to RAISE the standard-of-living of their respective working classes by exploiting colonial labor and the labor of domestic (and unpopular) minorities.

There's even, I believe, a fragment from Marx in the last years of his life, wondering if the English working class was becoming "bourgeois". Well, yes, for a while.

Marx's "law" of the falling rate of profit and the immiseration of the proletariat was "temporarily suspended". Naturally, the revolutionary class consciousness of the working class suffered accordingly. That "suspension" appears to be coming to an end; in the U.S., wages for workers have been essentially stagnant since the mid-1970s. I don't know, but it seems likely that the same would be true for the E.U. If I am right about this, then we should fairly soon see a considerable upturn in trade union activity and interest in Marxist revolutionary politics. The "anti-capitalist consensus" people may be a first "straw in the wind". (Those are the people against the WTO, IMF, etc.)

So, it wasn't really Joe that "ruined it for the rest of us"; it was a temporary blip in class relations that sabotaged our efforts. If that historical "blip" is indeed coming to an end, people will forget all about Joe (and all the rest of the Leninist heroes of the 20th century) and concentrate on how to do it right this time. It will be in their class interests to do so...which, as motivation, beats preaching every time.



An interesting idea. So really it wouldn't have mattered what the standard of living had been or the leader

Wether it was a good leader with a bad standardof living or a bad leader with a good standard of living the image would be skewed one way or another.

The fact that the USSR rolled snakes eyes (bad standard of living/bad leader...or rather cold hearted leader) just gave the innevitable a boost.

We were all basically screwed from the start

of course it can't be said that Stalin's crimes didn't aid the US Propaganda.

However what else could have lead to an actual fear of socialism or communism?

[kingbee]

it has happened- stalin was a murderer, rutheless dictator, and a slayer. or he was a great leader who united people in the time when unity was needed. whatever- it is part of history. theres no point arguing non relevant things- why not put arguing skills to the full to argue more needed debates? personally, i think stalin was a cock, but ive learned to leave it.

its happened, leave it alone.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from kingbee on 4:28 pm on Nov. 17, 2002
it has happened- stalin was a murderer, rutheless dictator, and a slayer. or he was a great leader who united people in the time when unity was needed. whatever- it is part of history. theres no point arguing non relevant things- why not put arguing skills to the full to argue more needed debates? personally, i think stalin was a cock, but ive learned to leave it.

its happened, leave it alone.

if you read the last two posts then you would know what we are supposed to be debating

what lead to western fear of Socialism and Communism

[Cassius Clay]

What led to the Japanese to fight so fanatically in WW2? A simple answer would be propaganda.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 4:43 pm on Nov. 17, 2002
What led to the Japanese to fight so fanatically in WW2? A simple answer would be propaganda.

Thats the question was it solely propaganda.

How can you base evreything on propaganda...as if killing people and forcing them into labor camps had nothing to do with it.

[redstar2000]

Yeah, Lardlad95, the Russians were terribly unlucky. It happens that way sometimes.

But the Cubans were lucky. In sheer results--a more humane society--Castro has outperformed ALL other Leninists combined. And how do the capitalist media respond? "Castro's Hell Hole" blah, blah, blah. If my memory doesn't betray me, there was actually a U.S. newspaper that seriously claimed that Castro has "murdered one million Cubans". If there's no real evidence of an atrocity, they'll just make it up.

(I saw some excerpts once from the New York Times reporting on Russia c.1917-1922---funniest stuff you ever read. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Zinoviev, Kamanev, etc. all murdered each other once a week; all Russian women were "nationalized" into prostitution; there was open cannibalism in the streets of Moscow and Petrograd, etc., etc. Needless to say, the NYT had not ONE reporter in the USSR at the time.)

It probably, in fact almost certainly would have been better for us in the west had there never been a USSR. Not so much because of what happened inside the USSR--good or bad--but because the very prestige of the USSR dramatically distorted the perceptions and responses of western communists. Western communists could never do anything without keeping an eye on Moscow...looking for approval and legitimization. An EXTREMELY unhealthy reaction and one which made bad situations worse.

But, as kingbee says, it happened, it's over (save for those still stuck in the Leninist time warp), and the new century awaits to see what WE shall do.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 4:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2002
Yeah, Lardlad95, the Russians were terribly unlucky. It happens that way sometimes.

But the Cubans were lucky. In sheer results--a more humane society--Castro has outperformed ALL other Leninists combined. And how do the capitalist media respond? "Castro's Hell Hole" blah, blah, blah. If my memory doesn't betray me, there was actually a U.S. newspaper that seriously claimed that Castro has "murdered one million Cubans". If there's no real evidence of an atrocity, they'll just make it up.

(I saw some excerpts once from the New York Times reporting on Russia c.1917-1922---funniest stuff you ever read. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Zinoviev, Kamanev, etc. all murdered each other once a week; all Russian women were "nationalized" into prostitution; there was open cannibalism in the streets of Moscow and Petrograd, etc., etc. Needless to say, the NYT had not ONE reporter in the USSR at the time.)

It probably, in fact almost certainly would have been better for us in the west had there never been a USSR. Not so much because of what happened inside the USSR--good or bad--but because the very prestige of the USSR dramatically distorted the perceptions and responses of western communists. Western communists could never do anything without keeping an eye on Moscow...looking for approval and legitimization. An EXTREMELY unhealthy reaction and one which made bad situations worse.

But, as kingbee says, it happened, it's over (save for those still stuck in the Leninist time warp), and the new century awaits to see what WE shall do.

king bee is right that its over however what has happened ahs put us in a defeciet making our jobs all the harder

how do we go about educating the people to the truth

[sibling]

The one thing that people are missing out on is that Stalin wasn't communist.

The dictionary made a new word for his method of government---- Stalinism.

If you ever tried to explain to people who are simply 'trained' or 'brainwashed', hiss or jump back at the sight or thought of communism. Beacuse they are so dependant on the thought that communism and nazi(ism) are so bad that they are almost the same. Most people (at least where I live) are very ignorant about politics, many think that communism and nazi(ism) are both distant right wing of methods government, sadly these closed-minded people are unable to be swayed.

P.S.
I do not believe, in fact I hate the Nazi way of government. I simply used it as an example to explain how idiotic many people are and how people cannot be swayed to understand that the communist belief is a beutiful concept. (I believe, as Trotsky does, that the human race is too underdeveloped and corupt for Communism to work....... untill evolution rolls around in the very, very distant future.)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from sibling on 2:46 am on Nov. 18, 2002
The one thing that people are missing out on is that Stalin wasn't communist.

The dictionary made a new word for his method of government---- Stalinism.

If you ever tried to explain to people who are simply 'trained' or 'brainwashed', hiss or jump back at the sight or thought of communism. Beacuse they are so dependant on the thought that communism and nazi(ism) are so bad that they are almost the same. Most people (at least where I live) are very ignorant about politics, many think that communism and nazi(ism) are both distant right wing of methods government, sadly these closed-minded people are unable to be swayed.

P.S.
I do not believe, in fact I hate the Nazi way of government. I simply used it as an example to explain how idiotic many people are and how people cannot be swayed to understand that the communist belief is a beutiful concept. (I believe, as Trotsky does, that the human race is too underdeveloped and corupt for Communism to work....... untill evolution rolls around in the very, very distant future.)

You agree with Nazis? So do you believe that teh Aryian race is supreme...do you hate me and my family for being black...or is that just ignorant

As far as being ignorant as politics while this is genreally true they must have something to base this on

[thursday]

You agree with Nazis? So do you believe that teh Aryian race is supreme...do you hate me and my family for being black...or is that just ignorant

Where in his post did he state he supports Nazism/fascism?

I think that putting so much blame on Comrade Stalin is a mistake. We cannot blame the failure of the Soviet Union squarely on Stalin's shoulders, nor can we blame the failure of the first-world socialist movement on him. One man, and we decide to blame so much on him? As Fidel said, blaming mistakes of the past on a single man is a historical foolishness.

Was Stalin a socialist? Yes. Was he the prime example of a socialist leader? Certainly not. Stalin made many mistakes and did many things that are simply completely un-Marxist. We all know what these are so there is no need to repeat them. But he turned a giant nation filled with ignorant peasants into a major industrial and military power (what was the only tank that could match the Panzer tank? The Red Army's TK-3). He was indeed a leader for the Red Army during the Second World War. Who did the hopeless soldierly have to die for in battle? Comrade Stalin.


Because I'm not a communist I think it's wrong, a little lesss wrong than capitalism.

You do realize this is Che-lives.com, right? Che himself admired Stalin, he even signed his letters to his aunt as Stalin II during his more youthful days.

So indeed: Onward for the Motherland! Onward for Comrade Stalin!

[vox]

You know, I think I'm just going to post this in every thread about Stalin that starts from now on. Anyone thinking that Stalin did anything good for socialism is simply a fool with no clue as to what socialism actually means. The idea that industrializing a country regardless of the human cost isn't socialism at all, just more class warfare.

Without further ado, from The Twilight of Capitalism by Harrington:

I will not attempt to make a documented analysis of Stalinism here. I have already done so in Socialism, and in any case I only raise the issue in terms of the Marxist misunderstanding of Marx. Let me simply summarize from my earlier study. Communism in all its existing forms (and there are obviously differences of a considerable, and even murderously antagonistic, significance among them) is a system of bureaucratic collectivism in which the state owns the means of production and a party bureaucracy owns the state by means of a totalitarian monopoly of political power. It is exploitative in the exact sense that Marx gave that term--the workers and peasants are forced to surrender a surplus to the bureaucracy; a portion of their working day is a "free" gift to the rulers.

Within this context, Marxism functions as an ideology--that is, as the very opposite of the revolutionary theory that Marx intended--as a tool for mystifying the relations of power in the minds of the masses. Marx had talked of a society in which the means of production are in the hands of the producers. For him, socialized property was the means whereby the true end of socialism, the domination of the masses over the social conditions of their existence, could be achieved. Stalinism took the form of socialized property, but filled it with a new, totalitarian content. It then stressed the formal similarity of its institutions to those proposed by Marx and cited this as the living proof that Soviet (or Chinese or whatever) Communist practice was the incarnation of Marxism.

So a doctrine that seemed quite similar to the vulgar Marxism of the Second International became functional under Communism. Stalin was the supreme scientist who deciphered the inexorable laws of history. Therefore, what he decided to do for the masses was right, even if he did it literally over their dead bodies. A typical example of this kind of thinking is found in Stalin's last essay, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR.

First, there is the general statement of an all-embracing dialectic to be found throughout reality: "Marxism regards laws of science--whether they be laws of natural science or of political economy--as the reflection of objective processes which take place independently of the will of man." Then comes a deduction in a characteristically nonempirical and catechetical style:

"[The Soviet government] relied on the economic laws that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces. The productive forces of our country, especially in industry, were social in character, the form of ownership, on the other hand was private, capitalistic. Relying on the economic law that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces, the Soviet government socialized the means of production, made them the property of the whole people, and thereby abolished the exploiting system and created socialist forms of economy."

There are a number of revealing aspects to this quotation. First of all, it implies that the Soviets made history in an utterly rational fashion. They surveyed reality, noted the appropriate law (which is supposed to operate independently of human will) and they enacted it (that is, they willed it). For a Marxist to suggest such a picture of the revolutionary process is preposterous on the face of it. Secondly, it is the Soviet government that is the agency of this transformation. The working class is not mentioned. Thirdly, Stalin does not determine that Soviet policy is socialist by examining the actual, existential conditions of the people. That, among other things, would prove to be embarrassing. Instead, he makes a scientific syllogism based on a sham law: Where the means of production are socialized, there is socialism, and the people rule; but in the Soviet Union the means of production are socialized; therefore in the Soviet Union there is socialism and the people rule. With such a methodology Stalin did not have to bother about facts or 180 degree turns in the party line. A law could be found, or invented, to justify anything the master scientist did.

Now the Stalinist idiots can deftly avoid the clear anti-Marxism of their bastard hero, like they always do, and instead rant about how great oppression is.

vox

[redstar2000]

Harsh words...but, sadly, all too true.

I say "sadly" because as far as I can tell, Stalin genuinely thought he was doing the right thing. He really thought he was a Marxist and the Soviet Union was really a socialist country. Those who grew up under Stalin, advanced themselves in the party & state apparatus had a clearer vision: THEY knew that a new class society was emerging and they made damn sure that they would be part of that new capitalist class.

Like I say, a sad story.

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

"Che was a youthful admirer of Stalin"--so was I. So are many of the comrades on this board. I know it's trite but...we really do live and learn.

[sibling]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 4:21 am on Nov. 19, 2002

Quote: from sibling on 2:46 am on Nov. 18, 2002
The one thing that people are missing out on is that Stalin wasn't communist.

The dictionary made a new word for his method of government---- Stalinism.

If you ever tried to explain to people who are simply 'trained' or 'brainwashed', hiss or jump back at the sight or thought of communism. Beacuse they are so dependant on the thought that communism and nazi(ism) are so bad that they are almost the same. Most people (at least where I live) are very ignorant about politics, many think that communism and nazi(ism) are both distant right wing of methods government, sadly these closed-minded people are unable to be swayed.

P.S.
I do not believe, in fact I hate the Nazi way of government. I simply used it as an example to explain how idiotic many people are and how people cannot be swayed to understand that the communist belief is a beutiful concept. (I believe, as Trotsky does, that the human race is too underdeveloped and corupt for Communism to work....... untill evolution rolls around in the very, very distant future.)

You agree with Nazis? So do you believe that teh Aryian race is supreme...do you hate me and my family for being black...or is that just ignorant

As far as being ignorant as politics while this is genreally true they must have something to base this on


Where did I say that I supported the nazi party?
Where on my post did I state that I supported facism?

Please, don't put words in my mouth.

I said I did not agree with the Nazi method of government.

I guess I must be ignorant... because i don't see where you draw the conclusion that I am nazi....... I'm not... I have many black and Jewish friends... I do nnot believe that there is a perfect race.. i believe that all races are equal

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from sibling on 11:54 pm on Nov. 19, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 4:21 am on Nov. 19, 2002

Quote: from sibling on 2:46 am on Nov. 18, 2002
The one thing that people are missing out on is that Stalin wasn't communist.

The dictionary made a new word for his method of government---- Stalinism.

If you ever tried to explain to people who are simply 'trained' or 'brainwashed', hiss or jump back at the sight or thought of communism. Beacuse they are so dependant on the thought that communism and nazi(ism) are so bad that they are almost the same. Most people (at least where I live) are very ignorant about politics, many think that communism and nazi(ism) are both distant right wing of methods government, sadly these closed-minded people are unable to be swayed.

P.S.
I do not believe, in fact I hate the Nazi way of government. I simply used it as an example to explain how idiotic many people are and how people cannot be swayed to understand that the communist belief is a beutiful concept. (I believe, as Trotsky does, that the human race is too underdeveloped and corupt for Communism to work....... untill evolution rolls around in the very, very distant future.)

You agree with Nazis? So do you believe that teh Aryian race is supreme...do you hate me and my family for being black...or is that just ignorant

As far as being ignorant as politics while this is genreally true they must have something to base this on


Where did I say that I supported the nazi party?
Where on my post did I state that I supported facism?

Please, don't put words in my mouth.

I said I did not agree with the Nazi method of government.

I guess I must be ignorant... because i don't see where you draw the conclusion that I am nazi....... I'm not... I have many black and Jewish friends... I do nnot believe that there is a perfect race.. i believe that all races are equal

mypost was made in disregard to teh "PS"

I was just trying to make a point, just because someone doesn't understand everything about a form of government doesn'tmean they are necassarily ignorant. They may justknow basic facts or what they were told.

I'm sorry I should have made myself clearer

[thursday]

Anyone thinking that Stalin did anything good for socialism is simply a fool with no clue as to what socialism actually means. The idea that industrializing a country regardless of the human cost isn't socialism at all, just more class warfare.

I think general thinking like this is quite dangerous. The whole idea that a socialist nation can only be built by strictly building their system word for word with the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital is wrong. Marxism is a political theory. It is impossible to build a socialist country without adapting Marxism to fit your country. How far would a totally theoritically based nation trudge along (that is a nation totally built on books without any changes)? Not very far.

I'm not a die hard fan of Stalin, and I wouldn't and don't consider myself a Stalinist. But I think the left is all too quick to just put so much blame on his shoulders. Stalin did industralize the Soviet Union in the (probably) only way possible. What was he suppose to do? Go to every single peasant village and ask them nicely to form into collectives are go work in factories? You really have to put yourself in his shoes and see what kind of job he had to do.

Regarding the issue of authoritarianism, you have to realize that the Soviet Union was born a babe with a bunch of people stabbing it with knives. The 'allies' (that is the USA, England, France, Japan and a few other smaller countries) immediatly invaded and fought alongside the White Army after Soviet Russia was born. In fact, Georgia was completely controled by the British military for a time. All of these outside threats needed to be replied to, and the only alternative was to watch the USSR die after it's creation. Who knows what would have happened if the Soviet Union would have been allowed to grow on it's own without an immediate invasion? Perhaps it would not have turned out to be nearly as authoritarian?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from thursday on 4:11 am on Nov. 20, 2002

Anyone thinking that Stalin did anything good for socialism is simply a fool with no clue as to what socialism actually means. The idea that industrializing a country regardless of the human cost isn't socialism at all, just more class warfare.

I think general thinking like this is quite dangerous. The whole idea that a socialist nation can only be built by strictly building their system word for word with the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital is wrong. Marxism is a political theory. It is impossible to build a socialist country without adapting Marxism to fit your country. How far would a totally theoritically based nation trudge along (that is a nation totally built on books without any changes)? Not very far.

I'm not a die hard fan of Stalin, and I wouldn't and don't consider myself a Stalinist. But I think the left is all too quick to just put so much blame on his shoulders. Stalin did industralize the Soviet Union in the (probably) only way possible. What was he suppose to do? Go to every single peasant village and ask them nicely to form into collectives are go work in factories? You really have to put yourself in his shoes and see what kind of job he had to do.

Regarding the issue of authoritarianism, you have to realize that the Soviet Union was born a babe with a bunch of people stabbing it with knives. The 'allies' (that is the USA, England, France, Japan and a few other smaller countries) immediatly invaded and fought alongside the White Army after Soviet Russia was born. In fact, Georgia was completely controled by the British military for a time. All of these outside threats needed to be replied to, and the only alternative was to watch the USSR die after it's creation. Who knows what would have happened if the Soviet Union would have been allowed to grow on it's own without an immediate invasion? Perhaps it would not have turned out to be nearly as authoritarian?


Stalin had it hard...lets cut him a break.

Straight bullshit. Necassity doesn't justify what happened.

You always have a choice, and while ideology has to be adapted to a certain country, Stalin took the easy way out.

He's a leader he needs to consider every possible answer. Violence is the last resort, not the first

[thursday]

Stalin had it hard...lets cut him a break.

Where did I ever state we should cut Stalin a break? I don't believe I did. What I said is that Stalin didn't wake up one morning and seemingly at random think: "Today I will start my career as a mass murdering socialist leader!"

There are reasons that the Soviet Union became so authoritarian and I have given most of these in brief. Thus, what I'm saying is not that we should "give Stalin a break," but simply that we have to understand why he committed the objectionable actions he did.

[Cassius Clay]

Vox, that article is flawed for a number of reasons. First it sticks to this view that somehow Stalin was 'Authoritarian' or whatever ('Literally over their dead bodies', funny I've never seen photo's of dead workers while the local NKVD Colonel looks on with satisfaction.). Second of all it merely quotes one passage from Stalin's 'Economic problems facing the USSR' article from 1952. Get that one passage, one quote and because it doesn't mention the 'working class' suddenly Mr Harrington claims Stalin was never a Communist. Thirdly Marx wasn't a fucking prophet, it's a well known fact that Marx suspected that Russia would be the last place in the world a revolution would occur, but it did and new policies had to be used to adapt to the circumstances. Finally if your going to post that article in every 'Stalin thread' then go to the 'We shall not allow criticism of Stalin' thread in the history forum. Oh but let me guess all those workers protesting in his name were infact all beuracrates.

It seems also fasionable to attack Stalin 'From the left' for 'Betraying the Revolution' afterall the newspaper tycoon Radolph Hearst did it, and he was best friends with Hitler.

Stalin was a faithful marxist-leninist.

Stalin remained true to the Marxist ideal of a classless and stateless society until his death in 1953. This is the conclusion of researchers at Amsterdam University (UvA) who studied Stalin's annotations in books by Marx, Engels, and Lenin in his private library. The research was carried out in the form of a project funded by the Dutch research organisation NWO. Many people have viewed Stalin - who always considered himself Lenin's most faithful disciple - as having betrayed Marxist principles from the moment he came to power. Howerver, the researchers say that Stalin's words and deeds are in fact reconcilable.

The notes originate from the period between 1917 and 1953 and show that the dictator continued to adhere to such Marxist goals as the abolition of the state and the creation of classless society. Moreover, Stalin's correspondence and discussions with such Communist leaders as Mao Zedong and Palmiro Togliatti show a continuing faith in the spread of communism and "world revolution."

Stalin has often been accused of betraying Marxism because of the way he built up a centralised state and because of his principle of "socialism in one country." These political aims are supposed to have undermined the Marxist doctrines of a classless society and world revolution. Stalin's patriotism is also supposed not to fit in with the Marxist world view but to represent a return to ancient Russian traditions.

The Amsterdam historians say that Stalin was not in fact the originator of the idea of "socialism in one country." This principle states that an internationally isolated socialist state has long-term viability and constitutes an intervening phase on the way to the ultimate classless and stateless world society. The idea in fact originated with the German Social Democrat Georg Vollmar, and the orthodox Marxist Karl Kautsky also propounded the idea of an autarkic socialist state when explaining his Erfurt Programme. His comments on the Erfurt Programme were virtually the bible for Marxists in the early twentieth century. Thus the idea of socialism in one country was originally developed within the Socialist Second International, which the Russian Bolshevik party originally belonged to.

According to the researchers, Stalin's patriotism has a Jacobin origin. The Jacobins were a left-wing French political movement in the eighteenth century who aimed to use revolution to revive their fatherland. Stalin, too, saw this as his main aim, believinv that it could only be brought about through a revolutionary transformation. He considered the Tsarist-capitalist system as responsible for weakening the Russian state.

The political works in Stalin's private library are almost all by Marxist authors. Books by non-revolutionary Russian political thinkers are not included. The library consisted originally of some 19,500 titles, 5000 of them on political and related topics.

[kingbee]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 4:34 pm on Nov. 17, 2002

Quote: from kingbee on 4:28 pm on Nov. 17, 2002
it has happened- stalin was a murderer, rutheless dictator, and a slayer. or he was a great leader who united people in the time when unity was needed. whatever- it is part of history. theres no point arguing non relevant things- why not put arguing skills to the full to argue more needed debates? personally, i think stalin was a cock, but ive learned to leave it.

its happened, leave it alone.

if you read the last two posts then you would know what we are supposed to be debating

what lead to western fear of Socialism and Communism


ok sorry. but i read the title of the topic and thought id post my view on what the title looked like.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from thursday on 7:00 pm on Nov. 20, 2002

Stalin had it hard...lets cut him a break.

Where did I ever state we should cut Stalin a break? I don't believe I did. What I said is that Stalin didn't wake up one morning and seemingly at random think: "Today I will start my career as a mass murdering socialist leader!"

There are reasons that the Soviet Union became so authoritarian and I have given most of these in brief. Thus, what I'm saying is not that we should "give Stalin a break," but simply that we have to understand why he committed the objectionable actions he did.


ANd I'm saying there is no excuse for what he did. The fact that he was a leader made what he did all the worse

As a leader he should work in the nations best interest but he only though in the physical...he never considered other countries reactions

When you play chess you don't just make your own moves you look at your opponents moves and how they react to your moves, obviously stalin never played chess.

And to KingBee

The Title "Star Wars" would imply that giant balls of extremely hot plasma (yes to those who don't know stars are plasma not gas) would be fighting one another, but that isn't what happened.

Titles aren't always directly linked

[thursday]

As a leader he should work in the nations best interest but he only though in the physical...he never considered other countries reactions

When you play chess you don't just make your own moves you look at your opponents moves and how they react to your moves, obviously stalin never played chess.

Umm. If anybody understands this rambling please explain it to me.

[sibling]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 3:43 am on Nov. 20, 2002

Quote: from sibling on 11:54 pm on Nov. 19, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 4:21 am on Nov. 19, 2002

Quote: from sibling on 2:46 am on Nov. 18, 2002
The one thing that people are missing out on is that Stalin wasn't communist.

The dictionary made a new word for his method of government---- Stalinism.

If you ever tried to explain to people who are simply 'trained' or 'brainwashed', hiss or jump back at the sight or thought of communism. Beacuse they are so dependant on the thought that communism and nazi(ism) are so bad that they are almost the same. Most people (at least where I live) are very ignorant about politics, many think that communism and nazi(ism) are both distant right wing of methods government, sadly these closed-minded people are unable to be swayed.

P.S.
I do not believe, in fact I hate the Nazi way of government. I simply used it as an example to explain how idiotic many people are and how people cannot be swayed to understand that the communist belief is a beutiful concept. (I believe, as Trotsky does, that the human race is too underdeveloped and corupt for Communism to work....... untill evolution rolls around in the very, very distant future.)

You agree with Nazis? So do you believe that teh Aryian race is supreme...do you hate me and my family for being black...or is that just ignorant

As far as being ignorant as politics while this is genreally true they must have something to base this on


Where did I say that I supported the nazi party?
Where on my post did I state that I supported facism?

Please, don't put words in my mouth.

I said I did not agree with the Nazi method of government.

I guess I must be ignorant... because i don't see where you draw the conclusion that I am nazi....... I'm not... I have many black and Jewish friends... I do nnot believe that there is a perfect race.. i believe that all races are equal

mypost was made in disregard to teh "PS"

I was just trying to make a point, just because someone doesn't understand everything about a form of government doesn'tmean they are necassarily ignorant. They may justknow basic facts or what they were told.

I'm sorry I should have made myself clearer



Ok... but you still did not tell me where I refered to myself as a nazi.... maybe i didn't see it (i sometimes rush over things) please point it out to me.


thanks

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from sibling on 12:31 am on Nov. 21, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 3:43 am on Nov. 20, 2002

Quote: from sibling on 11:54 pm on Nov. 19, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 4:21 am on Nov. 19, 2002

Quote: from sibling on 2:46 am on Nov. 18, 2002
The one thing that people are missing out on is that Stalin wasn't communist.

The dictionary made a new word for his method of government---- Stalinism.

If you ever tried to explain to people who are simply 'trained' or 'brainwashed', hiss or jump back at the sight or thought of communism. Beacuse they are so dependant on the thought that communism and nazi(ism) are so bad that they are almost the same. Most people (at least where I live) are very ignorant about politics, many think that communism and nazi(ism) are both distant right wing of methods government, sadly these closed-minded people are unable to be swayed.

P.S.
I do not believe, in fact I hate the Nazi way of government. I simply used it as an example to explain how idiotic many people are and how people cannot be swayed to understand that the communist belief is a beutiful concept. (I believe, as Trotsky does, that the human race is too underdeveloped and corupt for Communism to work....... untill evolution rolls around in the very, very distant future.)

You agree with Nazis? So do you believe that teh Aryian race is supreme...do you hate me and my family for being black...or is that just ignorant

As far as being ignorant as politics while this is genreally true they must have something to base this on


Where did I say that I supported the nazi party?
Where on my post did I state that I supported facism?

Please, don't put words in my mouth.

I said I did not agree with the Nazi method of government.

I guess I must be ignorant... because i don't see where you draw the conclusion that I am nazi....... I'm not... I have many black and Jewish friends... I do nnot believe that there is a perfect race.. i believe that all races are equal

mypost was made in disregard to teh "PS"

I was just trying to make a point, just because someone doesn't understand everything about a form of government doesn'tmean they are necassarily ignorant. They may justknow basic facts or what they were told.

I'm sorry I should have made myself clearer



Ok... but you still did not tell me where I refered to myself as a nazi.... maybe i didn't see it (i sometimes rush over things) please point it out to me.


thanks

I meant in your post about how people don't udnerstand certain types of government...you included nazi but never said you were one

and thursday it isn't rambling...its ranting

[Mazdak]

What is this nonesense about Stalin not being socialist? Just because his system was called Stalinism makes him not socialist?

Then the same could be said for Trotsky and his Trotskiysm, Mao and Maosim, Castro and "castroism" and such. Socialism isnt one rigid movement, but it adapts to whatever the conditions of the country that embraces it are.

[thursday]

Socialism isnt one rigid movement, but it adapts to whatever the conditions of the country that embraces it are.

Exactly! I couldn't have said it better myself.

[new democracy]

i must say that as much as i hate stalinists, i do not respect this thread. there are too many threads with "stalin is a *****" "stalinists are assholes" "fuck stalin"(though i have to admit that i did make some idiotic thread like this in chit chat few months ago)and do not really argue against stalinism. the only members here that actually challenge stalinists and give proper arguments are redstar2000, redjordi, bolshevik1,917, and i think none of the other members is giving a proper argument. now i have to ask mazdak a question with a honest reply, how do you justify his theory of popular democracy (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm#peoples-republic)? the link explain what it is. read it and say what justify the idea of cooperation between the working class and the capitalist classes in state level?

[Mazdak]

Nice Trotskyist source. I have read up on that wesbite before. They are anti stalinist/pro trotsky. What do you expect?

[Xvall]

1) Do not put Stalin and Ho Chi Minh in the same thread. Regardless of weather or not Stalin killed people, they are COMPLETELY DIFFIRENT.

2) Nazism is NOTHING like Communism. In fact, if you paid any attention to anything that happened during the Nazi-Era, you would know that Hitler told his people that Communism was an 'evil jewish theory', implemented to 'destroy the aryan race'.

[Mazdak]

Thats right, they were different, as ho chi minh put nationalism ahead of marxism.

[thursday]

Nice Trotskyist source.

Marxists.org is one of the biggest Trotskyite websites on the internet. It is extremely anti-socialist, anti-Soviet, anti-democratic and just about anything else that is true to socialism.

[redstar2000]

thursday, why didn't you just say: marxists.org overlooks Stalin, Mao, and other anti-trotskyist writers? THAT would have been a fair and reasonable comment.

Your "rant" on the other hand is totally unfounded and completely unjustified. That site is the BEST one I have yet found on the net!

[new democracy]

Quote: from Mazdak on 2:04 am on Nov. 22, 2002
Nice Trotskyist source.
Mazdak, i am getting tired of arguing with you, since stalinists have a very bad habit of distorting other people words and thoughts, and blame everything on "counterrevolutionaries"[the trotskists, "zinovievists"(like that is not a word invented by stalinists), "bukharinists"(another stalinist made up word), the mensheviks, anarchists etc]. so it is trotskist. that means everything there is "counterrevolutionary propaganda"? i give you a challenge to prove me that popular democracy was not an idea invented by stalin but just a trotskist lie. i doubt that you will. and if you are discussing stalin, the interview with my grandmother on her time under stalin will be posted next friday. i did interviewed her but it didn't go so well.

(Edited by new democracy at 8:42 pm on Nov. 22, 2002)

[Mazdak]

ND, we never made up the "zinovievites." Why would we want to honor Grigori Zinoviev with a group fabricated just to honor him if we had him executed?

We never made it up. And your trotskyist friends have a habit of calling all our sources "stalinist", so we call yours(which are so obviously trotskyist its unbelievable) trotskyist. It's like asking Hitler to give an unbiased report on jews.

We don't need to distort anything, we leave the distortion to the Trotskyists.

[new democracy]

fine, prove me that stalin never inventer the theory of popular democracy, or that he did invented it but the trotskists distorted his works.

[thursday]

since stalinists have a very bad habit of distorting other people words and thoughts, and blame everything on "counterrevolutionaries"[the trotskists, "zinovievists"(like that is not a word invented by stalinists), "bukharinists"(another stalinist made up word), the mensheviks, anarchists etc].

And you Trotskyites have a terrible habit of screaming that every single socialist experiment on the face of the Earth was 'Stalinist' and 'untrue' and all that garbage (with the maybe exception of the Paris Commune). Why can't you Trotskyites realize that no socialist nation is or will be perfect? Comrade Stalin industrialized a nation filled with millions of ignorant peasants, played a key role in the defeat of the Nazis, defended and aided socialism in Eastern Europe and Korea as well as kept the Soviet Union alive. If it wasn't for his crimes the Soviet Republics would have collapsed. The entire capitalist/imperialist/fascist world wanted the end of socialism's first country. No counterrevolutionary activites could be permitted. It was that simple. What did Trotsky do for the Marxist movement? Write a few books? Yell at Stalin a few times? That's amazing! Stalin kept the largest socialist country ever alive.

That said, am I a die hard fan of Stalin? No. But do I realize that Stalin must be defended? Certainly I do.

[new democracy]

i am not a trotskist. i actually laughed about their sectarianism(not all of them, just some)on another board. and just because some source is trotskist doesn't mean everything in it is a lie. now answer me, what was his justification of trying unite workers with the capitalist classes? read the link i gave to understand what i mean.

[Mazdak]

Thursday, one should not deny Trotsky's role during the Civil War, he may have not been the most admirable of politicians, but he did wonders for the Revolution.

Politically, he was a failure. If he was such a great man, then how come he was so disliked. How come Zinoviev and Kamenev were so quick to ally with Stalin?

[thursday]

You are correct. Trotsky was quite respectable during the Civil War, and his devices were indeed quite influential in defeating the White Army and the Allied forces.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 3:24 am on Nov. 22, 2002
Thats right, they were different, as ho chi minh put nationalism ahead of marxism.


Wow one aspect that disagrees with marxism. The man was looking to help his own people. thats just human nature

[Mazdak]

Exactly, one aspect. On the other hand, Stalin remained a faithful marxist-leninist his whole life.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 1:16 am on Nov. 24, 2002
Exactly, one aspect. On the other hand, Stalin remained a faithful marxist-leninist his whole life.

Well Lenin didn't exactley follow Marx's work to the T so really he was more of a Lenist

and I'm not so sure Lenin would have killed so many people he would have killed some but not that many.

and Lenin was a hypocrite, he wanted to execute those who were against teh Bolsheviks yet his own brother was killed for doing the same thing to the Czar

[Mazdak]

How dare you say such things of lenin. Unlike the czars, lenin wasnt a money loving piece of shit who cared little for the people. He was trying to help the people, and as was his brother. What kind of nonsense is this, trying to compare lenin to Alexander III?

[Umoja]

Wow,

You hard lining Communist scare me. I've been trying to think of something to post and I came to this conclusion. Socialism, and Communism to an extent is supposed to be economic democracy, to suplement Political Democracy. One man industrializing his nation, using numerous Soviets and all sorts of other Russian words I can no longer remember to create a successful economy isn't Socialism. Workers determine their wealth in Socialism, and that never happened in the Soviet Union.

To say Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, and even Castro are Socialist or even Communist is wrong. They were/are Dictators that tried to Socialize the country by themselves because they thought they had the best idea of how to go along with it. Sometimes this worked, sometimes it didn't but if my opinion was wrong under Stalin, that would only mean it was wrong to him, and his perception of the consesus of the people. That's not Communism, it's a Dictatorship with a well planned economy.

[Kehoe]

Stalin fucked it up for the rest of us ... how so?Did you attempt the overthrow of capitalism only for Comrade Stalin to expose your plans and thus render your efforts senseless and in vain?For one to blame another is to hide behind the accused and in this you are smaller than the one you hide behind.One can argue that Comrade Stalin used socialism as a means to gain and hold personal power,that he caused unnecessary suffering and death,but in these things he only fucked up the form of socialism that Comrade Lenin introduced into the Soviet Republic and that Comrade Stalin himself had set about at first to implement until around 1930 when he gave way to flatterers and his own egotistical promotion brought on by the cult of personality and the mania it inspires.Comrade Lardlad95 says,"
Well Lenin didn't exactley follow Marx's work to the T so really he was more of a Lenist" ... no man truly follows another completely,we gather from each those ideas which we deem most worthy so that no man can be categorized as strictly a Marxist,Leninist,etc.I myself do not agree entirely with all of Comrade Lenins ideas,nor
those of Comrade Stalin and others,still,there is no reason for me to criticize them above measure for possessing flaws and weaknesses that are the common characteristics of all men.Its strange how some comrades will grab Marx and run either to the left or to the right screaming,We re not Leninists",or will take hold of Comrade Lenin and call Comrade Stalin a betrayer of socialism,while others wish to disassociate themselves altogether from Marx and those who followed by claiming a completely different route to their socialist thought.Well comrades ... I ve studied the thoughts of Comte Saint Simon,Robert Owen,Carlyle,Proudhon,Gandhi and others concerning socialism but ultimately it was that much trodden path through Marx,Engels,Lenin,Stalin and Mao that brought me to the socialist destination wherein I reside and of course Che himself has acted as a well-informed guide along the way.No one has fucked it up for us ... we must first try and were we to fail in our endeavor,then and only then can we say someone fucked it up for us ... however,in generations to come the people will look back at such a blunder and say,"Those idiots sure fucked up things didnt they!"Perhaps those who wish to continuously criticize and vilify past socialist comrades should consider capitalism as their socio-political ideology ... besides,you d be among sympathizers and they may even promote you as a political candidate. - Karo

[redstar2000]

I think, comrade Kehoe, that you should keep in mind the intellectual climate in which we live today. If we were truly "starting fresh", then perhaps a more detached and balanced evaluation of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao et.al. would be possible and even inevitable.

But that is, unfortunately, NOT the case (though some of us ARE trying). You've been reading this board for a while. You know there are PASSIONATE adherents of all the above figures who post frequently to this board...sometimes at enormous length. New ideas do not just sweep to victory; when they emerge, they must struggle vigorously to be even heard, much less triumph.

Marx himself commented on this problem when he remarked that he and Engels had to pound away especially hard at the ECONOMIC aspects of their theory simply because the intellectual climate of their period was so hostile to materialism.

It is wrong, of course, and I have argued against it, to "demonize" the figures of 20th century communism. The question of this thread--"Did Stalin Fuck It Up For The Rest Of Us?"--is one I answered in the negative. I think it highly unlikely that we would be happily enjoying life in communist society if only all those "bastards" had never lived. History, as you know, is not a matter of "great men" or "evil men"--other and much more profound factors are at work.

But it is in periods of reaction--like this one--that the rubble of failure SHOULD be cleared away, that a fresh beginning in the struggle may ensue. It is, in a word, a TIME for criticism. After the failure of European revolutions in 1848-49, Marx and Engels both drew the same conclusion...that it was necessary to do theoritical criticism in preparation for the NEXT WAVE of uprisings.

You are right to deplore the fact that in periods like ours, some, perhaps many, will assume that "communism has failed" and, putting their tails between their legs, will crawl back to their masters begging forgiveness and promising eternal loyality to capitalism. It is not given to us to see inside people's heads and we do not know what combination of fear, uncertainty, servility and greed produces such wretched behavior.

The road from feudalism to capitalism was enormously complicated; it took something like 400 years (!) for the capitalist class to finally begin ruling in its own name, with many detours along the way. I hope it will not take us as long...but it could. In the sweep of history, our lives are too short; we almost never get to see "how it all turns out".

But a new beginning, if it is truly new, is ALWAYS in order. Win or lose, it is always "worth it" to struggle against our self-proclaimed masters. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize prior rebellions and rebels in the harshest possible terms...PROVIDED that such criticism lays the foundation for a new rebellion, and is not simply a cover or excuse for submission to the existing rulers.

It may not always be easy to tell the difference, but, to coin a phrase, time will tell.

[Man of the Cause]

There was a nasty and a stupid message in this place which I had cut & pasted to some threads. Please ignore them.


(Edited by Man of the Cause at 4:50 pm on Nov. 28, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 4:22 am on Nov. 24, 2002
How dare you say such things of lenin. Unlike the czars, lenin wasnt a money loving piece of shit who cared little for the people. He was trying to help the people, and as was his brother. What kind of nonsense is this, trying to compare lenin to Alexander III?



Doesn't matter. It's the same end just different means

If you kill a guy trying to break into your house and stab your family

And I kill some guy cuz I need money

we both killed someone...one doesn't outweight the other

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Kehoe on 6:56 am on Nov. 24, 2002
Stalin fucked it up for the rest of us ... how so?Did you attempt the overthrow of capitalism only for Comrade Stalin to expose your plans and thus render your efforts senseless and in vain?For one to blame another is to hide behind the accused and in this you are smaller than the one you hide behind.One can argue that Comrade Stalin used socialism as a means to gain and hold personal power,that he caused unnecessary suffering and death,but in these things he only fucked up the form of socialism that Comrade Lenin introduced into the Soviet Republic and that Comrade Stalin himself had set about at first to implement until around 1930 when he gave way to flatterers and his own egotistical promotion brought on by the cult of personality and the mania it inspires.Comrade Lardlad95 says,"
Well Lenin didn't exactley follow Marx's work to the T so really he was more of a Lenist" ... no man truly follows another completely,we gather from each those ideas which we deem most worthy so that no man can be categorized as strictly a Marxist,Leninist,etc.I myself do not agree entirely with all of Comrade Lenins ideas,nor
those of Comrade Stalin and others,still,there is no reason for me to criticize them above measure for possessing flaws and weaknesses that are the common characteristics of all men.Its strange how some comrades will grab Marx and run either to the left or to the right screaming,We re not Leninists",or will take hold of Comrade Lenin and call Comrade Stalin a betrayer of socialism,while others wish to disassociate themselves altogether from Marx and those who followed by claiming a completely different route to their socialist thought.Well comrades ... I ve studied the thoughts of Comte Saint Simon,Robert Owen,Carlyle,Proudhon,Gandhi and others concerning socialism but ultimately it was that much trodden path through Marx,Engels,Lenin,Stalin and Mao that brought me to the socialist destination wherein I reside and of course Che himself has acted as a well-informed guide along the way.No one has fucked it up for us ... we must first try and were we to fail in our endeavor,then and only then can we say someone fucked it up for us ... however,in generations to come the people will look back at such a blunder and say,"Those idiots sure fucked up things didnt they!"Perhaps those who wish to continuously criticize and vilify past socialist comrades should consider capitalism as their socio-political ideology ... besides,you d be among sympathizers and they may even promote you as a political candidate. - Karo


The difference is that when you are in a position of Authority your flaws are magnified

You are teh head of your family

If your son steals you can reprimand him

If you are the father and you are a theif you set teh example for your family you are their leaders.

When you are a leader you have more responsibility on your shoulders

Stalin is allowed to make mistakes but he was in a position of Authority

and what he did gave everyone else the impression that all communist, socialists, and leftists act in that manner

[Kehoe]

Comrades redstar2000 and Lardlad95 ... your sensible points have been noted and do understand that I by no means wish to gloss over the mistakes made and setbacks caused by ruthless dictators who appear to be moreso the students of Machiavelli than Marx.However,the attacks against such men have long been and continue to be the tactics of capitalists in their campaign against socialism.Comrades ... all the past errors are themselves self-evident and no amount of debate upon this issue will ever change the facts ... hardline Stalinists simply cannot rewrite history ... for reason will not permit this.I myself do not look at those whom have gone before as fathers but as teachers and oftentime a teacher may be gifted in a certain field and quite ignorant in others;moreover,a teacher may be talented in the art of literary transmission of knowledge while possessing absolutely no ability in practical application of such knowledge.At this moment as I type I am reminded of my school days and of those teachers which lacked the basic academic fundamentals in the art of educating others ... these appear to have been the more authoritarian of the lot,they employed power as a means to disguise the fact that they lacked knowledge.Most socialists recognize the extreme intelligence of men such as Comrades Trotsky(left arm of the socialist revolution)and Bukharin(right arm of the socialist revolution)and realize that their personal intelligence played a strong role in their elimination by someone who himself felt somewhat inferior.We must always bear these facts in mind and operate in a manner so as not to repeat past mistakes, - Karo

[Umoja]

I really fail to see why Socialist can't accept that people were set-backs and call them such. Stalin helped Russia, but he was selfish, because any true leader wouldn't sit back in a chair while his people die, but go out and fight directly, himself.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Kehoe on 8:38 pm on Nov. 24, 2002
Comrades redstar2000 and Lardlad95 ... your sensible points have been noted and do understand that I by no means wish to gloss over the mistakes made and setbacks caused by ruthless dictators who appear to be moreso the students of Machiavelli than Marx.However,the attacks against such men have long been and continue to be the tactics of capitalists in their campaign against socialism.Comrades ... all the past errors are themselves self-evident and no amount of debate upon this issue will ever change the facts ... hardline Stalinists simply cannot rewrite history ... for reason will not permit this.I myself do not look at those whom have gone before as fathers but as teachers and oftentime a teacher may be gifted in a certain field and quite ignorant in others;moreover,a teacher may be talented in the art of literary transmission of knowledge while possessing absolutely no ability in practical application of such knowledge.At this moment as I type I am reminded of my school days and of those teachers which lacked the basic academic fundamentals in the art of educating others ... these appear to have been the more authoritarian of the lot,they employed power as a means to disguise the fact that they lacked knowledge.Most socialists recognize the extreme intelligence of men such as Comrades Trotsky(left arm of the socialist revolution)and Bukharin(right arm of the socialist revolution)and realize that their personal intelligence played a strong role in their elimination by someone who himself felt somewhat inferior.We must always bear these facts in mind and operate in a manner so as not to repeat past mistakes, - Karo


I will not debate the fact that it is used as a cappie tactic I simply wanted to debate whether or not this was the key component to Western hatred of Socialism