Stalin [Archive]

Panda Tse Tung

25th July 2007, 19:54

He purged the leadership of some of the greatest and keenest minds of communism (Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin)

These we're justifiably purged. Because of their lack of mass-support they eventually had to resort into terrorism and they we're thus justifiably trialled for it.
http://art-bin.com/art/omoscowtoc.html
http://neworleans.media.indypgh.org/upload...ial_15feb07.pdf (http://neworleans.media.indypgh.org/uploads/2007/02/the_terrorists___trial_15feb07.pdf)
http://neworleans.media.indypgh.org/upload...many_others.pdf (http://neworleans.media.indypgh.org/uploads/2007/02/how_trotsky_murdered_maxim_gorky_and_many_others.p df)
http://neworleans.media.indypgh.org/upload...7.pdf1xudb8.pdf (http://neworleans.media.indypgh.org/uploads/2007/02/the.treason.case.18feb07.pdf1xudb8.pdf)
(i don't know much about the last 2, but they seem to add valuable information. I will certainly read them myself soon obviously.)

he pursued his aims without a single consideration for human life (some estimates place the death toll of forced collectivisation and industrialisation at between 20 and 30 million)

Your correct, they are estimates. In reality (out of the top of my head) 800.000 we're justfully executed over a period of 40 years and 500.000 died in the gulags because of conditions that are not the direct result of failing party-politics.
http://www.mltranslations.org/Russia/aucpb.htm provides some information.

My sources for this fact are not that easily found on the net (I've searched for some 10 minutes, so it was no extensive research. But still). You could read the book 'another view of Stalin' by Ludo Martens (i tried to find a source, this quick. But I'm too lazy to continue searching :P). Here's an on-line version (i don't know if it's as complete as the paper version, but o.k.): http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html .

he ruthlessly persecuted ethnic minorities resulting in millions of deaths (think of Ukraine),

The so-called 'Ukrainian holocaust' was made up by an escaped criminal who worked for a Nazi-newspaper on a false alias. He hadn't even traveled through the Ukraine when he made the whole story up. He took pictures from the Russian famine during the civil war and of Austrian soldiers during the first world war. Later when the police caught him again he told the court he made it all up, jet the capitalists seem to ignore this tiny detail.

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node68.htm...000000000000000 (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node68.html#SECTION00800000000000000000)
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm

he completely mismanaged the country during the war (it was the genius of generals like Zhukov and the remarkable fighting spirit of the great Russian people that won the conflict),

This critique is quite vague. Would you like to make it more concrete please so that it is possible to factually respond to it?

and his own paranoid-slash-psychopathic nature resulted in countless unneeded cruelties and deaths (think of the gulags and the Doctor's Plot).

This is mere speculation (calling him paranoid). The doctors plot is one of the phew things i think was not right. But Stalin was getting old, and he was in a surrounding that was very hostile towards him (and Marxism-Leninism in general) which explains that for the most part.

Quite a disappointing response, especially from a self-proclaimed communist. I would have expected some more back-up on information and details in stead of vague criticism such as these.

Edit:

I found the following table somewhere on the net (Rebel Alliance to be exact):

Table - The American Historical Review USSR Custodial Population 1934-1953

1934
510,307 -Gulag Working Camps
135,190 - Counter revolutionaries
26.5 - Counter revolutionary %
26,295 - Died
5.2 - Died %
147,272 - Freed
83,490 - Escaped
510,307 - Total

1935
725,438 -Gulag Working Camps
118,256 -Counter revolutionaries
16.3 -Counter revolutionary %
28,328-Died
3.9-Died %
211,035-Freed
67,493-Escaped
240,259 -Gulag Labor Colonies
965,697-Total

1936
839,406 -Gulag Working Camps
105,849 -Counter revolutionaries
12.6-Counter revolutionary %
20,595 -Died
2.5-Died %
369,544-Freed
58,313-Escaped
457,088-Gulag Labor Colonies
1,296,494-Total

1937
820,881 -Gulag Working Camps
104,826 -Counter revolutionaries
12.8-Counter revolutionary %
25,376-Died
3.1-Died %
364,437-Freed
58,264-Escaped
375,488-Gulag Labor Colonies
1,196,369-Total

1938
996,367 -Gulag Working Camps
185,324 -Counter revolutionaries
18.6-Counter revolutionary %
90,546-Died
9.1-Died %
279,966-Freed
32,033-Escaped
885,203-Gulag Labor Colonies
1,881,570-Total

1939
1,317,195 - Gulag Working Camps
454,432 - Counter revolutionaries
34.5-Counter revolutionary %
50,502-Died
3.8-Died %
223,622-Freed
12,333-Escaped
355,243-Gulag Labor Colonies
350,538-Prisons
2,022,976-Total

1940
1,344,408 - Gulag Working Camps
444,999 -Counter revolutionaries
33.1-Counter revolutionary %
46,665-Died
3.5-Died %
316,825-Freed
11,813-Escaped
315,584-Gulag Labor Colonies
190,266-Prisons
1,850,258-Total

1941
1,500,524 -Gulag Working Camps
420,293 -Counter revolutionaries
28.7-Counter revolutionary %
100,997-Died
6.7-Died %
624,276-Freed
10,592-Escaped
429,205-Gulag Labor Colonies
487,739-Prisons
2,417,468-Total

1942
1,415,596 - Gulag Working Camps
407,988 -Counter revolutionaries
29.6-Counter revolutionary %
248,877-Died
18-Died %
509,538-Freed
11,822-Escaped
360,447-Gulag Labor Colonies
277,992-Prisons
2,054,035-Total

1943
983,974 -Gulag Working Camps
345,397-Counter revolutionaries
35.6-Counter revolutionary %
166,967-Died
17.0-Died %
336,135-Freed
6,242-Escaped
500,208-Gulag Labor Colonies
235,313-Prisons
1,719,495-Total

1944
663,594 -Gulag Working Camps
268,861-Counter revolutionaries
40.7-Counter revolutionary %
60,948-Died
9.2-Died %
152,113-Freed
3,586-Escaped
516,225-Gulag Labor Colonies
155,213-Prisons
1,335,032-Total

1945
715,506 -Gulag Working Camps
283,351 -Counter revolutionaries
41.2-Counter revolutionary %
43,848-Died
6.1-Died %
336,750-Freed
2,196-Escaped
745,171-Gulag Labor Colonies
279,969-Prisons
1,740,646-Total

1946
600,897-Gulag Working Camps
333,833 -Counter revolutionaries
59.2-Counter revolutionary %
18,154-Died
3.0-Died %
115,700-Freed
2,642-Escaped
956,224-Gulag Labor Colonies
261,500-Prisons
1,818,621-Total

1947
808,839 -Gulag Working Camps
427,653-Counter revolutionaries
54.3-Counter revolutionary %
35,668-Died
4.4-Died %
194,886-Freed
3,779-Escaped
912,794-Gulag Labor Colonies
306,163-Prisons
2,027,796-Total

1948
1,108,057 -Gulag Working Camps
416,156-Counter revolutionaries
38.0-Counter revolutionary %
27,605-Died
2.5-Died %
261,148-Freed
4,261-Escaped
1,091,478-Gulag Labor Colonies
275,850-Prisons
2,475,385-Total

1949
1,216,361 - Gulag Working Camps
420,696-Counter revolutionaries
34.9-Counter revolutionary %
15,739-Died
1.3-Died %
178,449-Freed
2,583-Escaped
1,140,324-Gulag Labor Colonies
2,356,685-Total

1950
1,416,300 -Gulag Working Camps
578,912-Counter revolutionaries
22.7-Counter revolutionary %
14,703-Died
1.0-Died %
216,210-Freed
2,577-Escaped
1,145,051-Gulag Labor Colonies
2,561,351-Total

1951
1,533,767 -Gulag Working Camps
475,976-Counter revolutionaries
31.0-Counter revolutionary %
15,587-Died
1.0-Died %
254,269-Freed
2,318-Escaped
994,379-Gulag Labor Colonies
2,528,146-Total

1952
1,711,202 -Gulag Working Camps
480,766-Counter revolutionaries
28.1-Counter revolutionary %
10,604-Died
0.6-Died %
329,446-Freed
1,253-Escaped
793,312-Gulag Labor Colonies
2,504,514-Total

1953
1,727,970-Gulag Working Camps
465,256-Counter revolutionaries
26.9-Counter revolutionary %
5,825-Died
0.3-Died %
937,352-Freed
785-Escaped
740,554-Gulag Labor Colonies
2,468,524-Total

Led Zeppelin

25th July 2007, 20:01

The only reason one could give for supporting Stalin in any way shape or form was for his economic policy of industrialization. Of course, the left opposition had that plan first and Stalin stole it from them, by first opposing it when they proposed it, and then later implementing it in a hurriedly fashion which caused the deaths of a great many of people in the peasantry class.

I'm not going to debate any Stalinist so don't bother replying to me. I've debated with Stalinists countless times and we will never agree on this issue, so it's pointless.

Just putting in my two cents. And also if you want to read a good book about Stalinism I suggest The Revolution Betrayed.

Leo

25th July 2007, 20:26

These we're justifiably purged.

So this is how the Stalinists justify the counter-revolution.

Stalin was a representative of the bureaucratic state bourgeoisie which had risen in Russia, a representative of the bourgeoisie who took back the political power from the proletariat and restored capitalism. Stalin was a counter-revolutionary and an imperialist. Stalin was not a product of the revolution: he was the gravedigger of the revolution.

The only reason one could give for supporting Stalin in any way shape or form was for his economic policy of industrialization.

Excuse me but still the same old bullshit. Will you people never learn? This was exactly what caused the bureaucracy to grow as big as it did.

Of course, the left opposition had that plan first

Exactly the reason they were contradicting themselves.

Led Zeppelin

25th July 2007, 20:34

Yeah, you should read my posts in their entirety before you reply to them.

Panda Tse Tung

25th July 2007, 20:36

Stalin was a representative of the bureaucratic state bourgeoisie which had risen in Russia, a representative of the bourgeoisie who took back the political power from the proletariat and restored capitalism. Stalin was a counter-revolutionary and an imperialist. Stalin was not a product of the revolution: he was the gravedigger of the revolution.

I don't see any scientific back-up for this information, please provide some.

Exactly the reason they were contradicting themselves.

I'd have to agree on that one. Stalin changed his point of view, as every person does when he recognizes his errors. Jet, the left opposition keeps opposing the same policies the Soviet-Union puts into practice. While they advocated it before. Then, when Stalin puts it into practice it's a 'failing policy'. Almost literally every time he did that, which smells like opportunism to me (maybe also partly from Stalin, jet he didn't do it to discredit a socialist state. But to help build one).

Leo

25th July 2007, 20:37

Yeah, you should read my posts in their entirety before you reply to them.

Are you sure you understand what my point it?

The Author

25th July 2007, 20:38

Originally posted by [email protected] July 25, 2007, 3:30 p.m.
The only reason one could give for supporting Stalin in any way shape or form was for his economic policy of industrialization. Of course, the left opposition had that plan first and Stalin stole it from them, by first opposing it when they proposed it, and then later implementing it in a hurriedly fashion which caused the deaths of a great many of people in the peasantry class.

He "stole" it from them? First of all, did Stalin supposedly do this all by himself? This is what I find so funny about some of the "communists" who complain about the personality cult around here. They correctly denounce it, but then they make the stupid mistake of blaming the problems occurring in a country on one man. One man does not run an entire country. One man does not make history. Blaming one man for everything is just as bad as praising him for everything.

Second, how do you know the industrialization plans were "stolen"? Weren't such plans in the works ever since the first days of the October Revolution? What about the material conditions in Soviet society in the early 1920s as opposed to the later 1920s? Did you stop to think that perhaps the Soviet Union was not ready for industrialization in the early 1920s (a period of immediate recovery from World War and Civil War where the new union-state had few funds or resources to engage such plans) as opposed to the later 1920s (when it had gained enough capital to launch such plans)? All you have to go by is the word of another man.

Third, "hurried fashion"? It's better to liquidate the material basis that would cause a cancerous growth of capitalism quickly rather than to let it grow because one did not act soon enough. This is the excuse made by bourgeois economists: "you're collectivizing and industrializing too quickly! Slow down! Let the markets live!" That way capitalism can find a material basis to grow. Sure, some officials used methods of forced collectivization, but this was not a method endorsed by the Soviet government as a whole. So there was no "revolutionary treachery" for the large part. No consideration is taken into the conditions of the weather at the time, or reports of the "famine" being over for the most part after 1932, that scores of millions did not die out because of a "manmade catastrophe" as some would have us believe.

Leo

25th July 2007, 21:21

I don't see any scientific back-up for this information, please provide some.

Stalin himself admits that it was the "middle cadres", the bureaucracy which supported him. "Why did we win over Trotsky and others? It is well known that, after Lenin, Trotsky was the most popular in our land. But we had the support of the middle cadres. Trotsky did not pay any attention to these cadres."* Those middle men were nominated by Comrade Card-Index himself, obviously, and they owed their rise to Stalin and Stalin represented their interests. They murdered all the old Bolshevik militants who had worked for the revolution for good reason: they were destroying the revolution itself, it was in their class interests, bourgeois interests.

Lets now quote Lenin who has spent the last chapter of his political life trying to take Stalin down: "Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. (...) Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc."** Of course Lenin didn't just talk; he also tried to take steps (although they obviously weren't enough) against the rising bureaucracy: "Our Central Committee has grown into a strictly centralised and highly authoritative group, but the conditions under which this group is working are not concurrent with its authority. The reform I recommend should help to remove this defect, and the members of the Central Control Commission, whose duty it will be to attend all meetings of the Political Bureau in a definite number, will have to form a compact group which should not allow anybody's authority without exception, neither that of the General Secretary [Stalin] nor of any other member of the Central Committee, to prevent them from putting questions, verifying documents, and, in general, from keeping themselves fully informed of all things and from exercising the strictest control over the proper conduct of affairs.***" He also adds: "Let us hope that our new Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection will abandon what the French call pruderie, which we may call ridiculous primness, or ridiculous swank, and which plays entirely into the hands of our Soviet and Party bureaucracy. Let it be said in parentheses that we have bureaucrats in our Party offices as well as in Soviet offices."****

There is also the great lie of "socialism in one country". This political position, which was against everything communism actually was about, and mixed with the ultra-industrialization policy which the Stalinist "center" did actually take from the program of the Trotskyist "left" (although this is something which Trotskyists should actually be ashamed of instead of being proud of). The mixture of two actually turned Russia into a fully capitalist state, with an industrial bureaucratic bourgeoisie. Now you will say "but there wasn't private property in Russia". However the bourgeois regime in Russia wasn't different from other bourgeois regimes on the level of the basic relations of production, but only on the level of the juridical forms of property. The means of production were "private" property as far as the workers are concerned; the workers were deprived of any control over the means of production. The means of production were only "collectivized" for the bureaucracy which owned and managed them in a collective manner. Back to "socialism in one country" being against everything communism actually was about, lets first see what Engels has to say about it: "Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone? No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany. It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace. It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range."***** The thing is that the proletariat is capable of taking political power, establishing it's dictatorship and attacking capitalism in one part of the world, however it is necessary for it to be the ruling class in the whole world to be able to establish the socialist mode of production.

Now, what would this mean? It would mean that the economy of the proletarian dictatorship, like everything else, is determined by the interests of the world proletarian movement, in other words by the political tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat in one part of the world: giving full help to other revolutionary movements, maintaining the independent organs of the proletariat (that is workers' councils) and so forth. What did Stalin and more importantly the class he represented do? They, by proletarianizing the agriculture and ultra-industrialization, conveniently worked for the development of Russian capitalism. What did they politically do? Their foreign policy was determined by their imperialist ambitions: first they cooperated with the German imperialism in order to pursue their imperialist interests in Poland, then they cooperated with the American and British imperialism against the German imperialism not only in order to "defend the homeland" but also to pursue imperialist interests in the rest of Eastern Europe.

So I repeat: Stalin was a representative of the bureaucratic state bourgeoisie which had risen in Russia, a representative of the bourgeoisie who took back the political power from the proletariat and restored capitalism. Stalin was a counter-revolutionary and an imperialist. Stalin was not a product of the revolution: he was the gravedigger of the revolution.

*Georgi Dimitroff, Tagebuecher 1933-1943, Berlin: Aufbau Verlag 2000. 7.11.37
**http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm
***http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/23.htm
****http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/02.htm
*****http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

LuÃs Henrique

25th July 2007, 21:31

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 25, 2007 06:54 pm

He purged the leadership of some of the greatest and keenest minds of communism (Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin)

These we're justifiably purged. Because of their lack of mass-support they eventually had to resort into terrorism and they we're thus justifiably trialled for it.
It always baffle me how the Bolsheviks could be at the head of a revolution, when the majority of their direction was counter-revolutionary.

The slanderous accusations of terrorism against these men have long been discredited. They were all murdered by Stalin, who was, plainly and simply, an anti-communist criminal.

Luís Henrique

PRC-UTE

25th July 2007, 21:36

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+July 25, 2007 07:38 pm--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways @ July 25, 2007 07:38 pm)
[email protected] July 25, 2007, 3:30 p.m.
The only reason one could give for supporting Stalin in any way shape or form was for his economic policy of industrialization. Of course, the left opposition had that plan first and Stalin stole it from them, by first opposing it when they proposed it, and then later implementing it in a hurriedly fashion which caused the deaths of a great many of people in the peasantry class.

He "stole" it from them? First of all, did Stalin supposedly do this all by himself? This is what I find so funny about some of the "communists" who complain about the personality cult around here. They correctly denounce it, but then they make the stupid mistake of blaming the problems occurring in a country on one man. One man does not run an entire country. One man does not make history. Blaming one man for everything is just as bad as praising him for everything. [/b]
In this instance at least, Stalin wasn't being solely blamed. He was described as the representative of an entire subclass.

Leo:

Stalin was a representative of the bureaucratic state bourgeoisie which had risen in Russia, a representative of the bourgeoisie who took back the political power from the proletariat and restored capitalism. Stalin was a counter-revolutionary and an imperialist. Stalin was not a product of the revolution: he was the gravedigger of the revolution.

Labor Shall Rule

25th July 2007, 21:36

Even if allegations of cruelty and suppression towards ethnic groups under Stalin are historically inaccurate; even if those tens of millions of real people were nothing but actual 'war casualties' or 'fabricated statistics', this does not discredit the fact that over a million of political partisans of the October Revolution were unmercifully slaughtered - that economists, trade unionists, agitators, writers, teachers, workers, and intellectuals; from all different ages and cultural backgrounds, met their death through lies, forced confessions, fire squads, and deportations. This does not separate us from the fact that he killed the revolution.

Leo Uilleann basically covered it all.

Kilroy Was Here

25th July 2007, 22:24

So I repeat: Stalin was a representative of the bureaucratic state bourgeoisie which had risen in Russia, a representative of the bourgeoisie who took back the political power from the proletariat and restored capitalism. Stalin was a counter-revolutionary and an imperialist. Stalin was not a product of the revolution: he was the gravedigger of the revolution.

Interesting post. I must say, in essence I agree with most of your points, however there are some ideas that are a little far-fetched, especially that of Stalin 'restoring capitalism' - this is a little brash don't you think? No-one in a sane state of mind would go so far as to call Stalin's Russia 'capitalist'. It was 'Stalinist', neither Communist nor Capitalist; a system based purely on the whims of the leader and his cronies. In short, a tyrannical, self-serving, uncompromising, megalomaniacal dictatorship. Certainly not capitalist though. I agree there was a bureaucratic bourgeoisie in place - but certainly nothing resembling what I at least would define as capitalism, a system of private property and markets.

As for you Stalinist posters (you know who you are), if you have not already done so I suggest you read Solzhenitsyn and other accounts of life in the gulags before you prattle on about the virtues of Stalin's regime. It is difficult to feel affection for someone who condemns people to a life sentence of hard labour for the 'crime' of being captured in war or daring to mildly criticise the regime when situations are so hard it would be idiotic not to. I find it highly amusing that one such Stalinist has CriticizeEverythingAlways as their screen-name. With such an attitude one wouldn't last half a minute under a Stalinist regime!

I can understand if you are going through some kind of rebellious phase, but if you are truly a Stalinist I find this highly worrying and I seriously question your state of mind.

bezdomni

25th July 2007, 23:26

Of course, the left opposition had that plan first and Stalin stole it from them, by first opposing it when they proposed it, and then later implementing it in a hurriedly fashion which caused the deaths of a great many of people in the peasantry class.

lol, so the left opposition first came up with a plan that would kill a lot of people? Is that something trots want to publicize?

Anyway...how exactly does one go about "stealing plans" in a democratic centralist organization?

That sentence is riddled with logical fallacies.

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

I am ultimately pro-Stalin, but I recognize that he made many mistakes and maintain (as all marxian materialists should) that we ought to learn from these mistakes instead of dismissing them.

The RCP has a great source on Stalin (and lots of other parts of communist history that are marred in bourgeois and anti-communist lies).

It's called Set the Record Straight (http://rwor.org/strs/index.htm). Check it out.

Tower of Bebel

25th July 2007, 23:38

The problem is: people can over or underestimate how many people were killed under Stalins regime, but for one thing I'm sure and that is that killing is not the only solution to personal beliefs, neither is the gulag.

gilhyle

26th July 2007, 00:21

It seems to me there are two ways to answer the question:

1. Stalin was so awful that if that is socialism....you dont want it !

2. Stalin's approach didnt work

I dont take the former view. If building a socialist society necessarily involves the decimation of the ranks of the revolutionary party and the (temporary) terrorisation of the whole population, if it requires slave labour, the frustration of foreign revolutionary movements, systematic lies and corruption well then bring it on...IF IT WORKS.

I take the second view. His approach did not and could not work. Stalin fundamentally misunderstood how a revolution needed to be built. His industrialization policy was not stolen from the Left Opposition, it was radically different from their program because it was based on forced expropriations and forced labour. It involved the destruction of the revolutionary party, the revolutionary State and the Revolutionary International and the replacement of the party by bureaucratic yes-men, the replacement of the revlutionary State by machine incapable of democracy in any form and comfortable only with the use of force and the replacement of the international by reformist parties around the world which were mere tools of soviet foreign policy.

It took a long time for what Stalin built to fall....but it was always going to fall. What he built was incapable of organising revolutions or of builidng participative planned economies.

Stalin gutted the international and Russian revolutionary movement created by the Russian Revolution to keep the USSR in place. Only the military fvictory in WW II delayed the fall of the USSR and made it unclear how chaotic and self-defeating this was...but in the end restoration happened and the whole cause of socialism was set back almost to where it had been in 1850, but now discredited as well as weak.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating...Stalin tastes rotten.

RGacky3

26th July 2007, 00:43

If Industrialization and speeding up the Economy makes for a good system, then Capialism works fine, Sure Stalin industrialized fast and got the economy Rolling, but so did Americans after world war 2, they turned themselves into an Empire, does'nt mean anything.

Saying that killing 800,000 is justifiable (Although I believe the figure is way way more), is absurd, how you can you justify it. Also if the Bolshevics were the minority, ie. they did'nt have support of the masses they should'nt have been in power. There is no way you can justify the Mass killings and the Gulags, if you can justify that, then Capitalism and even fascism are not hard to justify.

bloody_capitalist_sham

26th July 2007, 00:46

RGacky3

There is a difference between the Bolsheviks, and Stalin.

So please don't derail the thread.

The Author

26th July 2007, 01:39

Originally posted by Kilroy Was [email protected] July 25, 2007, 5:24 p.m.

As for you Stalinist posters (you know who you are), if you have not already done so I suggest you read Solzhenitsyn and other accounts of life in the gulags before you prattle on about the virtues of Stalin's regime. It is difficult to feel affection for someone who condemns people to a life sentence of hard labour for the 'crime' of being captured in war or daring to mildly criticise the regime when situations are so hard it would be idiotic not to.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Another person who is always associated with books and articles on the supposed millions who lost their lives or liberty in the Soviet Union is the Russian author Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Solzhenitsyn became famous throughout the capitalist world towards the end of 1960 with his book, The Gulag Archipelago. He himself had been sentenced in 1946 to 8 years in a labour camp for counter-revolutionary activity in the form of distribution of anti-Soviet propaganda. According to Solzhenitsyn, the fight against Nazi Germany in the Second World War could have been avoided if the Soviet government had reached a compromise with Hitler. Solzhenitsyn also accused the Soviet government and Stalin of being even worse than Hitler from the point of view, according to him, of the dreadful effects of the war on the people of the Soviet Union. Solzhenitsyn did not hide his Nazi sympathies. He was condemned as a traitor.

Solzhenitsyn began in 1962 to publish books in the Soviet Union with the consent and help of Nikita Khrushchev. The first book he published was A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, concerning the life of a prisoner. Khrushchev used Solzhenitsyn's texts to combat Stalin's socialist heritage. In 1970 Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Prize for literature with his book The Gulag Archipelago. His books then began to be published in large quantities in capitalist countries, their author having become one of the most valuable instruments of imperialism in combating the socialism of the Soviet Union. His texts on the labour camps were added to the propaganda on the millions who were supposed to have died in the Soviet Union and were presented by the capitalist mass media as though they were true. In 1974, Solzhenitsyn renounced his Soviet citizenship and emigrated to Switzerland and then the US. At that time he was considered by the capitalist press to be the greatest fighter for freedom and democracy. His Nazi sympathies were buried so as not to interfere with the propaganda war against socialism.

In the US, Solzhenitsyn was frequently invited to speak at important meetings. He was, for example, the main speaker at the AFL-CIO union congress in 1975, and on 15 July 1975 he was invited to give a lecture on the world situation to the US Senate! His lectures amount to violent and provocative agitation, arguing and propagandising for the most reactionary positions. Among other things he agitated for Vietnam to be attacked again after its victory over the US. And more: after 40 years of fascism in Portugal, when left-wing army officers took power in the people's revolution of 1974, Solzhenitsyn began to propagandise in favour of US military intervention in Portugal which, according to him, would join the Warsaw Pact if the US did not intervene! In his lectures, Solzhenitsyn always bemoaned the liberation of Portugal's African colonies.

But it is clear that the main thrust of Solzhenitsyn's speeches was always the dirty war against socialism - from the alleged execution of several million people in the Soviet Union to the tens of thousands of Americans supposedly imprisoned and enslaved, according to Solzhenitsyn, in North Vietnam! This idea of Solzhenitsyn's of Americans being used as slave labour in North Vietnam gave rise to the Rambo films on the Vietnam war. American journalists who dared write in favour of peace between the US and the Soviet Union were accused by Solzhenitsyn in his speeches of being potential traitors. Solzhenitsyn also propagandised in favour of increasing US military capacity against the Soviet Union, which he claimed was more powerful in 'tanks and aeroplanes, by five to seven times, than the US' as well as in atomic weapons which 'in short' he alleged were 'two, three or even five times' more powerful in the Soviet Union than those held by the US. Solzhenitsyn's lectures on the Soviet Union represented the voice of the extreme right. But he himself went even further to the right in his public support of fascism.

Support for Franco's fascism

After Franco died in 1975, the Spanish fascist regime began to lose control of the political situation and at the beginning of 1976, events in Spain captured world public opinion. There were strikes and demonstrations to demand democracy and freedom, and Franco's heir, King Juan Carlos, was obliged very cautiously to introduce some liberalisation in order to calm down the social agitation.

At this most important moment in Spanish political history, Alexander Solzhenitsyn appears in Madrid and gives an interview to the programme Directisimo one Saturday night, the 20th of March, at peak viewing time (see the Spanish newspapers, ABC and Ya of 21 March 1976). Solzhenitsyn, who had been provided with the questions in advance, used the occasion to make all kinds of reactionary statements. His intention was not to support the King's so-called liberalisation measures. On the contrary, Solzhenitsyn warned against democratic reform. In his television interview he declared that 110 million Russians had died the victims of socialism, and he compared 'the slavery to which Soviet people were subjected to the freedom enjoyed in Spain'. Solzhenitsyn also accused 'progressive circles' of 'Utopians' of considering Spain to be a dictatorship. By 'progressive', he meant anyone in the democratic opposition - were they liberals, social-democrats or communists. 'Last autumn,' said Solzhenitsyn, 'world public opinion was worried about the fate of Spanish terrorists . All the time progressive public opinion demands democratic political reform while supporting acts of terrorism'. 'Those who seek rapid democratic reform, do they realise what will happen tomorrow or the day after? In Spain there may be democracy tomorrow, but after tomorrow will it be able to avoid falling from democracy into totalitarianism?' To cautious inquiries by the journalists as to whether such statements could not be seen as support for regimes in countries where there was no liberty, Solzhenitsyn replied: 'I only know one place where there is no liberty and that is Russia.' Solzhenitsyn's statements on Spanish television were a direct support to Spanish fascism, an ideology he supports to this day. This is one of the reasons why Solzhenitsyn began to disappear from public view in his 18 years of exile in the US, and one of the reasons he began to get less than total support from capitalist governments. For the capitalists it was a gift from heaven to be able to use a man like Solzhenitsyn in their dirty war against socialism, but everything has its limits. In the new capitalist Russia, what determines the support of the west for political groups is purely and simply the ability of doing good business with high profits under the wing of such groups. Fascism as an alternative political regime for Russia is not considered to be good for business. For this reason Solzhenitsyn's political plans for Russia are a dead letter as far as Western support is concerned. What Solzhenitsyn wants for Russia's political future is a return to the authoritarian regime of the Tsars, hand-in-hand with the traditional Russian Orthodox Church! Even the most arrogant imperialists are not interested in supporting political stupidity of this magnitude. To find anyone who supports Solzhenitsyn in the West one has to search among the dumbheads of the extreme right.

Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union (http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm)

I find it highly amusing that one such Stalinist has [i]CriticizeEverythingAlways as their screen-name. With such an attitude one wouldn't last half a minute under a Stalinist regime!

Oh, my feelings are hurt... I'm only "delusional," right? :lol:

It's not like I haven't heard these claims before. I'm not a utopian, and I don't believe the USSR was complete paradise (no country going through the transition from capitalism to communism via socialism is or was paradise, only the higher stage of communism is paradise), but I sure as hell would prefer a "Stalinist" atmosphere over to a life on the verge of poverty and homelessness in this capitalist atmosphere any day.

Led Zeppelin

26th July 2007, 01:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 10:26 pm
lol, so the left opposition first came up with a plan that would kill a lot of people? Is that something trots want to publicize?

Anyway...how exactly does one go about "stealing plans" in a democratic centralist organization?

That sentence is riddled with logical fallacies.
lol no. Stop misrepresenting my posts. If you read them before you reply them, it usually helps.

The plan for industrialization didn't kill people, the hurried implementation of the plan by Stalin killed people, and that was what I was criticizing.

And how do you steal a plan in a democratic centralist organization? What kindof stupid question is that?

A democratic centralist organization is not one body with one shared program or belief. The left-opposition had a different platform than for example the right-section of the party which was composed of Stalin and a few others.

Trotsky and the left-opposition called for the industrialization plan as early as 1926. At that time Stalin opposed it, saying that it was "too optimistic"! A few years later he would take on that same plan and implement it not only as the left-opposition intended, but even faster! That's what I mean by him stealing it and implementing it in a hurriedly fashion.

Stalin's political history is filled with zig-zags. He decided what was best based on what was best for him to support in the circumstances (for his own benefit), an oppertunist to the greatest extent. If you say Bush is a flip-flop, you don't know about Stalin's political career.

Anyway, read Revolution Betrayed, it's all in there.

Led Zeppelin

26th July 2007, 01:48

Stop quoting Stalinist bullshit articles at great length, or others will start quoting stuff to counter that, and we're not interested in yet another quote war.

The Author

26th July 2007, 01:54

Originally posted by [email protected] July 25, 2007, 8:50 p.m.
A democratic centralist organization is not one body with one shared program or belief.

Interesting you say this. Because the last time I checked, a democratic centralist organization votes on a program or set of views. Wherever the majority rules, the decision made by the majority is binding on all members affiliated with the organization. Hence they're sharing a program. Those who don't subscribe to the rule of the majority, that is, the "left opposition," are opposing the vote of the majority.

Or has your engagement in polemical dogma advanced to the point where you are totally clueless on the definition of "democratic centralism"?

Stop quoting Stalinist bullshit articles at great length, or others will start quoting stuff to counter that, and we're not interested in yet another quote war.

Let them quote away. Isn't that the point of "debating"?

Or is someone too afraid to confront opposing views?

chimx

26th July 2007, 02:00

Let them quote away. Isn't that the point of "debating"?

There is a manner in which debate is held. Be concise and try to summarize points of other authors rather than paste endless paragraphs that will not be read due to length.

Nothing you quoted has anything to do with the content of the author's work. It is just character assassination of the man years after the work was written. It isn't relevant--its spam.

The Author

26th July 2007, 02:13

No it isn't. In order to understand where an author is coming from, it's necessary to understand his political and class background. Plus, my quotation is followed by a link to an article which counters Solzhenitsyn's "claims" with factual statistics from the Soviet archives and a differing interpretation of the historical event in question. Next time, take the opportunity to read the material before dismissing it as "spam"- a habit many suffer from on these boards. And if you call that "lengthy," you must be joking. Reading a few paragraphs is not asking someone to read 700 pages. But it's symptomatic of a reading-aversive society not to be able to even glance at a few quoted paragraphs from an article.

RGacky3

26th July 2007, 03:50

Quotes are really pointless because when it comes to history what was done is what counts, not what was said, and what was done under stalin, and lenin were horrid.

chimx

26th July 2007, 03:50

Next time, take the opportunity to read the material before dismissing it as "spam"

I did read it, which is how I know it does not deal with content of the book in question, but on the political activity of the man years and years after he wrote the book. It is a very beautiful show you are providing readers here, but you don't address the actual points. You just discredit him with matters that are unrelated.

Reading a few paragraphs is not asking someone to read 700 pages.

After making over 200 posts here, I would have hoped you figured out how discussion here generally works. Perhaps your slowness is just symptomatic of the comprehensive-aversive society.

Random Precision

26th July 2007, 04:57

These we're justifiably purged. Because of their lack of mass-support they eventually had to resort into terrorism and they we're thus justifiably trialled for it.

I have a question: does being a Stalinist make one automatically unintelligent? Here you've cited the Moscow show trial transcript to prove the guilt of those concerned, and just for fun thrown in a couple of articles from the Stalinist/Maoist press whose only proof for their ridiculous claims happens to be, once again, the "confessions" obtained during the Moscow show trials. Un-fucking-believable.

(i don't know much about the last 2, but they seem to add valuable information. I will certainly read them myself soon obviously.)

They most certainly do not, and please don't waste your time.

Panda Tse Tung

26th July 2007, 13:10

Edit: WTF happened to the quotes?
Edit2: Solved in a nice way :)
Edit3: i said 'all other capitalist industrializations instead of 'all capitalist industrializations. My bad :P

"Why did we win over Trotsky and others? It is well known that, after Lenin, Trotsky was the most popular in our land. But we had the support of the middle cadres. Trotsky did not pay any attention to these cadres."

What is the source of this quote. And i don't mean the book, but the cited source in the book.

"Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. (...) Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc."

Ah, the famous 'testament'. Lenin wrote this testament where he calls Stalin 'rude' after Stalin 'insulted' Lenin's wife. This is thus more of a personal issue, and not a real 'testament' of a man that is a 100% aware of what he's doing (since only a quarter of this brain was still functioning at the time).

"Let us hope that our new Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection will abandon what the French call pruderie, which we may call ridiculous primness, or ridiculous swank, and which plays entirely into the hands of our Soviet and Party bureaucracy. Let it be said in parentheses that we have bureaucrats in our Party offices as well as in Soviet offices."

Thats funny, cause he labels Trotsky a bureaucrat in his so-called 'testament' and not Stalin.

The mixture of two actually turned Russia into a fully capitalist state, with an industrial bureaucratic bourgeoisie. Now you will say "but there wasn't private property in Russia". However the bourgeois regime in Russia wasn't different from other bourgeois regimes on the level of the basic relations of production, but only on the level of the juridical forms of property. The means of production were "private" property as far as the workers are concerned; the workers were deprived of any control over the means of production. The means of production were only "collectivized" for the bureaucracy which owned and managed them in a collective manner.

This makes no sense at all. First of all your confusing collectivization with nationalization. Collectivization means the property gets into the hands of a couple of people that maintain some private property. Nationalization in the USSR did mean that there was a state-appointed manager (purely from a pragmatic point of view, i have a management diploma and know how hard it is), but that did not mean the workers had no say in it. They discussed the 5-year plans, they discussed how to implement them, they discussed everything that was necessary. I don't see any other 'basis' for capitalism, or do you want to claim that the 5-year plans are the basis of this exploitation because the workers couldn't plan the economy themselves?
Cause in that case i can just start ignoring you, because your utopianism and ideological dogmatism would then be so irrelevant that it is not even worth debating.

"Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone? No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, (...)It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace. It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range."

First of all thats fucking Friedrich Engels! That man died thirty years before the whole October-revolution even seemed to start occurring!
Why are you quoting a man that has never seen the real implementation of his own idea's and could thus not adjust it to the material conditions of that time and place?
Your ridiculously laughable...
Second of all, the thing that he is suggesting and that is that the revolution does spread and does not stick to one country. Is something not denied by the proponents of 'Socialism in one country'. Though, we recognize the fact that it is possible for a country to develop Socialism without starting wars everywhere like a raging lunatic.

is determined by the interests of the world proletarian movement

I disagree, maintaining Socialism in the already Socialist states is more important.

giving full help to other revolutionary movements

That happened during 'Stalins reign'.

maintaining the independent organs of the proletariat (that is workers' councils) and so forth.

Check.

What did Stalin and more importantly the class he represented do? They, by proletarianizing the agriculture and ultra-industrialization, conveniently worked for the development of Russian capitalism.

That totally made no sense...

What did they politically do? Their foreign policy was determined by their imperialist ambitions: first they cooperated with the German imperialism in order to pursue their imperialist interests in Poland,

Hahaha, look at this in the broader perspective. The Soviet-Union already determined Nazi-Germany was a danger, not just to the Communist movement but also to them directly. They signed this treaty to gain a buffer when the Nazi's would attack and to save a whole year in preventing a Nazi attack. In the mean-while they started building up their defenses, moved their industry to the east, etc... etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_Line
http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weapons/lines1941.htm
On the pact itself i had a good dutch source, but you wont be able to read it. For the dutchies here i will provide it though:
http://www.katardat.org/4pact/index.html

then they cooperated with the American and British imperialism against the German imperialism not only in order to "defend the homeland" but also to pursue imperialist interests in the rest of Eastern Europe.

Yes, they should have let Eastern Europe loose, to freely jump into the hands of Western Imperialism. Now that would have solved the problem, wouldn't it?

The slanderous accusations of terrorism against these men have long been discredited. They were all murdered by Stalin, who was, plainly and simply, an anti-communist criminal.

Well then, show me how it is discredited. All I've seen this far is Bukharin's word to his wife (I've seen images of a murderer proclaiming that he would keep on claiming he was innocent because his family supported him and invested so much in the trial. So thats not much a reliable source) and Trotsky's word.

Even if allegations of cruelty and suppression towards ethnic groups under Stalin are historically inaccurate; even if those tens of millions of real people were nothing but actual 'war casualties' or 'fabricated statistics', this does not discredit the fact that over a million of political partisans of the October Revolution were unmercifully slaughtered - that economists, trade unionists, agitators, writers, teachers, workers, and intellectuals; from all different ages and cultural backgrounds, met their death through lies, forced confessions, fire squads, and deportations. This does not separate us from the fact that he killed the revolution.

I've never said nobody was executed and that it we're all 'war casualties' though many are 'fabricated statistics'. Your pulling things out of your ass here, keep them there please and actually contribute something to the discussion instead of trolling.
If it we're fabricated statistics that would mean that no 'economists, trade unionists, agitators, writers, teachers, workers, and intellectuals; from all different ages and cultural backgrounds, met their death through lies, forced confessions, fire squads, and deportations. So your sentence doesn't make sense anyway. '
Your reference is probably to the great purges. A purge within the party, that only in very rare circumstances harmed individuals outside of the party. They we're bureaucrats, capitalists, mensheviks, and others that did not belong in the party. Ironic that when the bureaucracy is fought by Stalin and co his opponents call it 'destroying the opposition', while this opposition consists of the 'bureaucracy'.
It's probably true that some innocent people we're purged. To quote Molotov:

To stage a purge of the party is very dangerous. The best people are the first purged. Many people who are honest and speak frankly are expelled while those who keep everything in the dark and are eager to curry favor with the party chiefs retain their positions.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/molotov/19...members-abs.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/molotov/1991/remembers-abs.htm)
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node79.htm...000000000000000 (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node79.html#SECTION00900000000000000000)
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node86.htm...000000000000000 (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node86.html#SECTION001000000000000000000)

As for you Stalinist posters (you know who you are), if you have not already done so I suggest you read Solzhenitsyn and other accounts of life in the gulags before you prattle on about the virtues of Stalin's regime.

I have already done so, to quote Ludo Martens:

This man became the official voice for the five per cent of Tsarists, bourgeois, speculators, kulaks, pimps, maffiosi and Vlasovites, all justifiably repressed by the socialist state.

It is difficult to feel affection for someone who condemns people to a life sentence of hard labour for the 'crime' of being captured in war or daring to mildly criticise the regime when situations are so hard it would be idiotic not to.

Look, the party tried to solve the problem of lack of boiling water etc... in the camps. The guidelines provided by the party we're far different then those implemented in practice. For example the amount of people transported at a time we're twice as much as we're allowed by the party. The hate and enthusiasm of the masses usually made it really hard for the party to function properly.
You people are pretending like the party had everything under control and was a totalitarian regime that could do everything because it is so vast and huge!
The truth is that the weakness of the regime was the sole reason errors such as those in the gulags we're made (and the obvious fact that it was a 3rd world country).

I take the second view. His approach did not and could not work. Stalin fundamentally misunderstood how a revolution needed to be built. His industrialization policy was not stolen from the Left Opposition, it was radically different from their program because it was based on forced expropriations and forced labour.

False, though the part of 'forced labor' is true to the extend of the 1st Soviet Constitution (a part that was also adopted in later constitutions): "he who does not work, does not eat" it reads. And justly so.

It involved the destruction of the revolutionary party, the revolutionary State and the Revolutionary International and the replacement of the party by bureaucratic yes-men,

Thats not true, i can provide you with several occasions where this did not happen (the 'bureaucracy' nodding yes). This is clear anti-communist bull-shit. Maybe you don't really understand the principle of Democratic Centralism.

the replacement of the revlutionary State by machine incapable of democracy in any form and comfortable only with the use of force and the replacement of the international by reformist parties around the world which were mere tools of soviet foreign policy.

HAHAHAHA! Reformist? Ohw really?
You haven't studied any of these parties, have you?
I'm not even going to further respond on this one, until you give a more concrete example. And no, an example of reformism versus revolutionism where the material conditions we're not right does not count.

It took a long time for what Stalin built to fall....but it was always going to fall. What he built was incapable of organising revolutions or of builidng participative planned economies.

Ironically it only started to show signs of decay after the 'anti-Stalinists' took over. Thus going away from what Stalin build. And the further they got away, the closer they got to Capitalism. The funny thing is the 'anti-Stalinists' took over, the bureaucracy started to grow, no elections we're held anymore and economic reforms towards the 'liberalization' of the economy we're implemented. How ironic...

If Industrialization and speeding up the Economy makes for a good system, then Capialism works fine, Sure Stalin industrialized fast and got the economy Rolling, but so did Americans after world war 2, they turned themselves into an Empire, does'nt mean anything.

Not that i agree with the provided point that only "industrialization and speeding up the Economy makes for a good system". But i would like to point out the fact that what the Soviet-Union did in 30 years, is what the 'Capitalists' did in 100, maybe even 200 years. The small economic growth of the U.S. after the Second World War is still nothing compared to the enormous industrial output of the Soviet Union during it's industrialization.

Saying that killing 800,000 is justifiable (Although I believe the figure is way way more), is absurd, how you can you justify it.

Simple, take the following into account: De-Kulakization, angry Mensheviks, World War Two, angry other Cappie's and economic hardship.

Also if the Bolshevics were the minority, ie. they did'nt have support of the masses they should'nt have been in power.

I didn't say the Bolsheviks we're, i said Bukharin, Zinoviev, Trotsky, etc... we're.

There is no way you can justify the Mass killings and the Gulags, if you can justify that, then Capitalism and even fascism are not hard to justify.

Well, it's not like the KGB (or whatever it's name was back in the day) pulled people out of their homes to randomly execute them. And just pile the body's and hang them on poles to let everyone show that this is what happens to 'capitalist traitors'. Gulags we're a temporary solution because the prisons we're too full (and the Tsars never left behind a vast enough system of prisons because they themselves used Gulags). Stalin has been in a Gulag himself, so he damn well knows what it's like.

The plan for industrialization didn't kill people, the hurried implementation of the plan by Stalin killed people, and that was what I was criticizing.

How did it do so?
Please be more concrete.

A democratic centralist organization is not one body with one shared program or belief. The left-opposition had a different platform than for example the right-section of the party which was composed of Stalin and a few others.

Funny, most trots count him to the center. But o.k., continue.

Trotsky and the left-opposition called for the industrialization plan as early as 1926. At that time Stalin opposed it, saying that it was "too optimistic"! A few years later he would take on that same plan and implement it not only as the left-opposition intended, but even faster! That's what I mean by him stealing it and implementing it in a hurriedly fashion.

It was a necessity at the time, the NEP started failing because of the conditions. The rich peasants started undermining the NEP by selling their own crops outside of the plan for a way higher price. And all these kind of things occurred, which made it necessary for the state to react. Call it opportunism, i don't care. But at least it has good reasoning. And i cant recall 'thousands dying' because of the 'forced industrialization'. In fact the Soviet industrialization made far less casualties then all capitalist industrializations.

Quotes are really pointless because when it comes to history what was done is what counts, not what was said, and what was done under stalin, and lenin were horrid.

You base that on what people told you, so it is important.

I have a question: does being a Stalinist make one automatically unintelligent?

Counter-question: does being a Trotskyite make one automatically arrogant?

Here you've cited the Moscow show trial transcript to prove the guilt of those concerned, and just for fun thrown in a couple of articles from the Stalinist/Maoist press whose only proof for their ridiculous claims happens to be, once again, the "confessions" obtained during the Moscow show trials. Un-fucking-believable.

Here, and extra read for you i forgot to add:
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node93.htm...000000000000000 (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node93.html#SECTION001030000000000000000)
And whats wrong with the confessions? There is no evidence or even a suggestion that they made it up. To add something Molotov said:

I would even say that their confessions contained only 10 percent absurdities, perhaps less. They confessed to certain things on purpose in order to show how preposterous the whole trial was. That was a struggle against the party.... The confessions seemed artificial and exaggerated. I consider it inconceivable that Rykov, Bukharin, and even Trotsky agreed to cede the Soviet Far East, the Ukraine, and even the Caucausus to a foreign power. I rule that out.

Led Zeppelin

26th July 2007, 13:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 12:54 am
Interesting you say this. Because the last time I checked, a democratic centralist organization votes on a program or set of views. Wherever the majority rules, the decision made by the majority is binding on all members affiliated with the organization. Hence they're sharing a program. Those who don't subscribe to the rule of the majority, that is, the "left opposition," are opposing the vote of the majority.

Or has your engagement in polemical dogma advanced to the point where you are totally clueless on the definition of "democratic centralism"?
They're not sharing a program, disagreements remain disagreements, and the minority has the chance to put forth their point of view, of course they shouldn't oppose the majority rule, but they are still allowed to propogate their own point of view in the process.

This was the case many times throughout the history of the Bolshevik party. There were times that the majority voted against Lenin's point of view on a certain manner, did he just submit? Should he have just submitted? No, he continued to put forth his own point of view and most of the time he was able to get the majority on his side by doing just that.

Each faction in the Central Committee had its own program on how to advance socialism in the USSR. Stalin and the right-wing had their program, Trotsky and the left-wing had theirs. Yes, eventually the right-wing was able to attain the majority in the party, but after having gained that they refused to give the left-opposition the right to spread their ideas, eventually ending in the banning of that faction and the hunting down of its members.

Imagine Lenin being hunted down by the majority for his views.

Crazy huh?

And that story about them sabotaging is historically not true. The left-opposition, especially Trotsky, instead of sabotaging and advocating sabotage did the opposite by defending the USSR any way they could. Trotsky was asked by several high-ranking military leaders (with whom he had worked closely during the civil war, as he was the founder of the Red Army) if he was interested in a plot to overthrow the right-wing and specifically Stalin from his position of power. He refused saying that such an action was undemocratic!

That's how the real history was of the events.

Panda Tse Tung

26th July 2007, 14:55

They're not sharing a program, disagreements remain disagreements, and the minority has the chance to put forth their point of view, of course they shouldn't oppose the majority rule, but they are still allowed to propogate their own point of view in the process.

Not outside the party (since the post is aimed at CAA i wont go into the rest of the post, just felt i needed to add this).

Edit: i found the following to be at least partly aimed at me:

And that story about them sabotaging is historically not true. The left-opposition, especially Trotsky, instead of sabotaging and advocating sabotage did the opposite by defending the USSR any way they could.

They didn't 'defend the USSR in any way they could'. Would someone that did that write the following books:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/19...4/ussrconst.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/04/ussrconst.htm)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/19...8/stalinism.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/08/stalinism.htm)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/19...x/stalinism.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/xx/stalinism.htm)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/05/workers.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/19...evbet/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm)

Here will be some excerpts from the books:

"The old Bolshevik party is dead and no force will resurrect it."
"the Soviet bureaucracy is similar to every other bureaucracy, especially the fascist. "
"The Soviet population cannot rise to a higher level of culture without freeing itself from this humiliating subjection to a caste of usurpers."
"No devil ever yet voluntarily cut off his own claws. The Soviet bureaucracy will not give up its positions without a fight. The development leads obviously to the road of revolution."
"The present war will spread more and more, piling ruins on ruins, breeding more and more sorrow, despair and protest, driving the whole world toward new revolutionary explosions. The world revolution shall reinvigorate the Soviet working masses with new courage and resoluteness and shall undermine the bureaucratic props of Stalin’s caste. It is necessary to prepare for this hour by stubborn systematic revolutionary work. The fate of our country, the future of our people, the destiny of our children and grandchildren are at stake."

Well, i guess I'll quit now before this ends up in a huge quote-war :P (just thought, I'd add some quotes because 90% of the people here don't seem to read provided sources).

Rawthentic

26th July 2007, 17:13

Why haven't any of the Stalinists tried to respond to Leo's posts?

Panda Tse Tung

26th July 2007, 17:27

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 26, 2007 04:13 pm
Why haven't any of the Stalinists tried to respond to Leo's posts?
I did, read.

gilhyle

26th July 2007, 19:57

If you desperately want to ignore the catastrophic consequences of Stalin's policies, no one can stop you or persuade you out of it. But if this argument really matters to you, I recommend you put in the effort to read two well sourced works of history (of course there are many more):

Industry State and Society in Stalin's Russia 1926-1934, David R Shearer, Cornell University Press, 1996 this work shows very clearly the manner in which substituting violence for economic organisation was critical to Stalin's regime (and thus differed fundamentally from what Trotsky argued for)

and

1937: Stalin's Year of Terror: Vadim Z. Rogovin, Mehring Books, Michigan, 1998 which traces in detail the events that led the Stalin clique to turn on the party (not on the Trotskyists, but on the whole party)

It is true that the USSR fell only long after the 'ant-stalinists took power but history is not always a matter of each event being caused by the one immediately preceeding it. We must analyse the underlying causes of events.

As to democratic centralism, except for Stalinist parties which have generalised the exceptional regime introduced in the 1921 period, it involves as an essential element the facilitation of disciplined dissent.

Panda Tse Tung

26th July 2007, 20:20

I do not have the money to buy those books, nor do i have the time to read them. But if you really mean that what is in those books is so good, you can probably win any argument with a 'Stalinist'.

It is true that the USSR fell only long after the 'ant-stalinists took power but history is not always a matter of each event being caused by the one immediately preceeding it. We must analyse the underlying causes of events.

I, and many others did. The conclusion is generally that the introduction of revisionism. And the following lack of class struggle (both nationally and internationally) are the reasons behind it's collapse.

As to democratic centralism, except for Stalinist parties which have generalised the exceptional regime introduced in the 1921 period, it involves as an essential element the facilitation of disciplined dissent.

My English is not good enough to understand this last sentence, please elaborate.

gilhyle

27th July 2007, 00:23

I agree with you that the strategic defeat of the working class in much of Western Europe and North America in the 1980s contributed to the fall of the USSR (if that is what you are saying).

But you have to ask how the working class movement got so weakened that that happenend inthe 1980s and the 'union of the left' politics of the USSR-guided communist parties in the 190s and 1970s was part of that.

So where did that strategy come from ? You cant ignore the fact that the foreign policies pursued by Brezhnev etc. were merely variations on the approach built by Stalin when he established the 'peoples democracy' buffer zone and set out to build a balance of power with the U.S. under the doctrine of the 'peasseful road to socialism'.

Even on your own logic, the main success of Stalin was the building of the economy. The real problem was that the bureaucratic planning process that he built was a slowly degenerative process whose structural design meant that it built up inefficiences over time, which only violence could temporarily ameliorate.

This was not a problem for Stalin cos he was always happy to apply that violence. But what he failed to understand was that the bureaucratic party he had put in place beneath him would be incapable of applying that violence (because it necessarily involved the application of violence against the bureacratic party itself). Thus he failed to see that he had built an economic planning process that the party he had built could not repair.

[On the question of democratic centralism, my point is this: prior to 1921, the operation of democratic centralism in the Bolshevik party - and after 1929 in Trotskyist parties - operated democratic centralism as a method which allowed organised dissent within internal debates and - where open fractions were established - allowed dissenting groupings to organise over time to advocate dissident views. Stalin continued a temporary suspension of this (brought in by Lenin in 1921) beyond when it was necessary in order to suppress the opposition.]

Tower of Bebel

27th July 2007, 00:29

I like the way you discribed it gilhyle.

It's not about causes and consequences, but material conditions and like the Ancient Regime (1500-1789) it can take years before a society finally takes a major turn.

Labor Shall Rule

27th July 2007, 02:38

To No. 2

Lenin also accused Stalin, along with Dzerzhinsky and Ordzhonikidze, of Great Russian Chauvinism in his Testament. This was far more than a 'personal issue', considering that the General Secretary had control of all intertwining bureaucracies, "notes" from unpublished minutes of meetings, and so on. His leadership, which included his relationship with his fellow peers, were an essential part to ensure a functioning party democracy. It's no suprise that he used the bureaucracy against party democracy, using Trotsky and the Opposition as a scapegoat for breaking 'party discipline' simply because they criticized the Troika. As for 'only a quarter of his brain' working: I have heard many arguments by Stalinists, but that is by fair the most ridiculous.

The Great Purge was directed against that 1% of the party that survived the Civil War; it was directed specifically towards "Trotzkyist-Zinovievite" sections of the party, in other words, it was directed around the Joint Opposition.

Just looking over a few statistics here on the composition of the party: in 1923, a mere 29% of the factory directors were in the party. Whereas in 1925 (you know, after that small victory for Stalin), 73.7% of the members of the members of the managing boards of trusts, 81.5% of those on the boards of syndicates, and 95% of the directors of large enterprises were party members(!). (See A.S. Bubnov and others, The All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) (Russian), Moscow-Leningrad 1931, page 626)

Well, let's look a little later in time. In 1937 managerial personnel numbered 1,751,000 (USSR, The Land of Socialism, Moscow 1936, p.148). At least nine tenths were in the party (and this is low balling the estimate), or more precisely 1,575,900 were in the party. There is no exact figure available for 1937, but the figures for 1934 and 1939 were 2,807,000 and 2,477,000. So taking the average of these two (which is 2,642,000 members), there are 1,066,100 non-factory manager party members. Mind you this is only the factory managers, I'm not even including those on the board of syndicates or directors of large enterprises or any other traditionally bourgeois position.

And he went on to say, "this would mean that 50% of the party were capitalists" [!], a startling revelation if you ask me; this means that, even after the Great Terror, Stalin's bureaucracy ensured the restoration of capitalist relations in production, and finally the legal and political restoration of capitalism later on.

bezdomni

27th July 2007, 02:39

My English is not good enough to understand this last sentence, please elaborate.

English is my first language, and it doesn't make sense to me either. :P

Die Neue Zeit

27th July 2007, 02:48

Why isn't there a sticky thread on this board regarding Stalin? His legacy or lack thereof will be talked to death. :(

Random Precision

27th July 2007, 04:11

And whats wrong with the confessions? There is no evidence or even a suggestion that they made it up.

Considering the utter lack of evidence that the accused were guilty aside from the confessions, plus the fact that they were living as imprisoned enemies of a police state regime, it is almost certain that they were forced to confess to these ridiculous crimes.

Oh, and Bukharin (and there may be others, I will do some research) renounced his confession in a letter to his wife which she released during his rehabilitation proceedings. Also, here is Bukharin's last letter to Stalin before he was shot:

http://www.yale.edu/annals/Reviews/review_...s_10.22.99.html (http://www.yale.edu/annals/Reviews/review_texts/Walden_on_Getty_Ass._Newspapers_10.22.99.html)

(Before you say anything, I know that the commentary on the letter is anti-communist in nature. But I believe for our purposes, the letter stands for itself)

For those unwilling to read the entirety, here are some extracts:

Originally posted by Nikolai Bukharin
I cannot leave this life without writing to you these last lines because I am in the grip of torments which you should know about.

1) Standing on the edge of a precipice, from which there is no return, I tell you on my word of honour, as I await my death, that I am innocent of those crimes to which I admitted...

3) I had no way out other than that of confirming the accusations and testimonies of others and of elaborating on them...

I have crossed all the t's and dotted all the i's, in spite of a headache and with tears in my eyes. My conscience is clear before you now, Koba. I ask you one final time for your forgiveness (only in your heart, not otherwise). For that reason I embrace you in my mind.

Farewell forever and remember kindly your wretched Nikolai Bukharin.
10 December 1937

To add something Molotov said:

I would even say that their confessions contained only 10 percent absurdities, perhaps less. They confessed to certain things on purpose in order to show how preposterous the whole trial was. That was a struggle against the party.... The confessions seemed artificial and exaggerated. I consider it inconceivable that Rykov, Bukharin, and even Trotsky agreed to cede the Soviet Far East, the Ukraine, and even the Caucausus to a foreign power. I rule that out.

Do you have that whole document on hand so I can see its context?

My English is not good enough to understand this last sentence, please elaborate.

I believe he is saying that one of the key components of democratic centralism is disciplined dissent from the majority's line, which was and is not allowed under Stalinist regimes.

Vargha Poralli

27th July 2007, 05:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 07:18 am
Why isn't there a sticky thread on this board regarding Stalin? His legacy or lack thereof will be talked to death. :(
There had been one Titled "Crimes of Stalin". For some reasons it was unpinned and buried to the depths of this forum.

On topic means could be justified only by Ends. Soviet Union was not an happy ending to justify the means used by Stalin.

And IMO there is nothing worthy of admiration about Stalin -

(1) the Industrialisation is bound to happen in Russia so it would have happended regeradless of Leadership.

(2) WW2 and fight against Nazis everything in Stalin's calculation went wrng from it. He was mistaken about Hitler in 1939 and again in 1941 and miscalculated Roosevelt and Churchill in Yalta and Tehran. His the orders did most damage to Red Army's war efforts more than the Wermacht did.

These two things do not justify executions of both the Old Bolsheviks and the Majority of the Red Army officer Cadre.

Stalin is an unwanted burden in the History of the Communist Movement.

Panda Tse Tung

28th July 2007, 19:47

I agree with you that the strategic defeat of the working class in much of Western Europe and North America in the 1980s contributed to the fall of the USSR (if that is what you are saying).

Thats true, only if you we're referring to the lack of class-struggle after the take-over of revisionists i mostly meant internal and external class-struggle within the USSR itself. Whereas because of this lack of class-struggle a bureaucratic caste could take over.

But you have to ask how the working class movement got so weakened that that happenend inthe 1980s and the 'union of the left' politics of the USSR-guided communist parties in the 190s and 1970s was part of that.

true...

So where did that strategy come from ? You cant ignore the fact that the foreign policies pursued by Brezhnev etc. were merely variations on the approach built by Stalin when he established the 'peoples democracy' buffer zone and set out to build a balance of power with the U.S. under the doctrine of the 'peasseful road to socialism'.

Now there i have to disagree. Socialism in one Country does not mean peacefull road to socialism nor peacefull coexistence with the west. There is even evidence that Stalin was preparing for a thirth world war, whether this would be the right strategy or not. I dont know, but it does prove Stalin was no man opposed or afraid of class-struggle.

Even on your own logic, the main success of Stalin was the building of the economy. The real problem was that the bureaucratic planning process that he built was a slowly degenerative process whose structural design meant that it built up inefficiences over time, which only violence could temporarily ameliorate.

I never said the economic succes was his main-succes. Establishing socialism in general and fighting of internal and external enemy's whilst still being able to do so is by far his greatest accomplishment (that of the state of course, but we'll just refer to the state as 'Stalin' i assume).

The inefficiencies that did exist within the economic structure could have been prevented without the 'liberalizations'of the revisionists. It's very easy to attack an economic system and it's flaws that have existed. Especially if your own system has never been implemented. The truth is that most other systems are by far more flawed (economic socialist systems that is, also capitalist ones of course but thats not the point here). The economic system of planning is maybe flawed on some behalfs, but these are no flaws that couldn't be overcome if there would have been a healtyhy party-democracy after the takeover of revisionists (which obviously didn't exist). This democracy and self-criticism did exist under Stalin, unfortunately we'll have to base ourselves on ex-party members such as Molotov for this because it was obviously a democratic centralist organization. But still you can also see it if you look very closely to the political history of the USSR (such as the speech 'dizzy with succes' by Stalin).

This was not a problem for Stalin cos he was always happy to apply that violence. But what he failed to understand was that the bureaucratic party he had put in place beneath him would be incapable of applying that violence (because it necessarily involved the application of violence against the bureacratic party itself). Thus he failed to see that he had built an economic planning process that the party he had built could not repair.

Now that's the first very strong point i have seen in this whole discussion. I have thought about this quite much, but i think that it is possible if you would have a decent democratic system of control from the masses to prevent overtly bloated bureaucracy. An example would be the cultural revolution (which is a little extreme/anarchistic in my opinion, also explaining it's eventual failure). But on other scales, in other conditions, with an other implementation it might be very possible to implement such a system.

[On the question of democratic centralism, my point is this: prior to 1921, the operation of democratic centralism in the Bolshevik party - and after 1929 in Trotskyist parties - operated democratic centralism as a method which allowed organised dissent within internal debates and - where open fractions were established - allowed dissenting groupings to organise over time to advocate dissident views. Stalin continued a temporary suspension of this (brought in by Lenin in 1921) beyond when it was necessary in order to suppress the opposition.]

Unofrtunately it was still neccesary by that time, there was a lot of internal (kulaks, etc...) and external (the imperialist world) class struggle, making open dissent against the party and a breach in the unity of the party dangerous. Maybe there wasn't enough democracy within the party, maybe there could have been more dissent. But in my opinion it is very easy to complain about these internal failures afterwards when you we're nhot there during that revolutionary period, under that situation fighting the struggle og building socialism. Under perfect conditions of building Socialism this should have been different (obviously), but unfortunately these conditions have never existed.

Why isn't there a sticky thread on this board regarding Stalin? His legacy or lack thereof will be talked to death.

I've seen a sticky about the most discussed topics, including Stalin.

Considering the utter lack of evidence that the accused were guilty aside from the confessions, plus the fact that they were living as imprisoned enemies of a police state regime, it is almost certain that they were forced to confess to these ridiculous crimes.

Your using really fancy words to cover up the fact that you do not have any proof. 'Imprisoned enemies of a police state regime' usually dont have an as open trial as they had where even the international media had to recognize the fact that it was a truthfull process. The fact is that Stalin and his 'police state regime' couldn't even afford such a thing to happen!

Oh, and Bukharin (and there may be others, I will do some research) renounced his confession in a letter to his wife which she released during his rehabilitation proceedings. Also, here is Bukharin's last letter to Stalin before he was shot:

I have already discussed this in this threath. But i will repeat my previous statement:
I have seen a documentary about the death-penalty (yes, a documentary. Dont laugh or ridicule the source, just listen) where a criminal said in a telephone-call with his lawyer that he was guilty but in front of the camera he would continue claiming he was not guilty. Because his family put so much energy in his trial, and supported him so much that he couldn't even afford claiming he was guilty towards them. There is no evidence besides this one claim of Bukharin towards his wife that the trial was flawed.

Do you have that whole document on hand so I can see its context?

Unfortunately not on-line. The source is the book: Molotov remembers. There are some excerpts (but not the full book because of copyright issues) on Marxists.org:

Do you have that whole document on hand so I can see its context?

I believe he is saying that one of the key components of democratic centralism is disciplined dissent from the majority's line, which was and is not allowed under Stalinist regimes.

Dissent in the form of opposing the state was possible within the USSR, but i have talked about this somewhere in the begining of this post. So there is no need to repeat myself :).

the provided document about Bukharin

It was a very binteresting read, unofrtunately we cant know whether Stalin forgave him (in his heart), whether he had poison instead of a gun-shot. All i do know is that he was allowed to speak with his wife (probably for the reason stated by himself, that they would commit suicide, again explaining why he would have denied it). I will assume that this is an authentic document and that it might be true that Bukharin was not guilty, perhaps. Still, if this was the case then this would not prove how the rest would not be guilty and how the trial would be falsified. For someone being trialled by a 'falsified trial' he is overtly positive about it and does not sounds like someone where the confesions we're tortured out of him.
Assuming he is not guilty, it is still not Stalins fault he was trialled. For he did not trial him, it was the court that trialled him. This document has thus not provided any evidence that it was either A. a falsified trial B. Stalins direct fault that they died, because of an odd grudge he would hold. In fact Bukharin states that he thinks Stalin thinks he might be guilty, merely showing how much Stalin himself knew about the trials (just what was told to him). To conclude i would like to state that the Soviet Union thus had a seperate judicial and political sector, making it impossible to blaim Stalin on this whole event, nor the party (even if they we're the one to appoint judges, etc...).

I noticed i forgot someone :)

Lenin also accused Stalin, along with Dzerzhinsky and Ordzhonikidze, of Great Russian Chauvinism in his Testament.

Could be, but accusing someone is not the same as it actually being true (how funny, since we just talked about the trials :), this might so be used against me... they can cause i know what i'm talking about). Next to the fact that Stalin was georgian i think it's 'silly' to assume this.

This was far more than a 'personal issue', considering that the General Secretary had control of all intertwining bureaucracies, "notes" from unpublished minutes of meetings, and so on.

The General-Secretary had less influence and power then the current U.S. president has, so thats bull-shit.

His leadership, which included his relationship with his fellow peers, were an essential part to ensure a functioning party democracy.

Your talking about his supposed 'arrogance'?
In which case all i have to say about that is that he oppenly appolagized to a couple of party-members for being too 'arrogant' towards them.

It's no suprise that he used the bureaucracy against party democracy, using Trotsky and the Opposition as a scapegoat for breaking 'party discipline' simply because they criticized the Troika.

This is speculation based on thin air.

As for 'only a quarter of his brain' working: I have heard many arguments by Stalinists, but that is by fair the most ridiculous.

It's actually from a Trotskyite biography on Lenin.

The Great Purge was directed against that 1% of the party that survived the Civil War; it was directed specifically towards "Trotzkyist-Zinovievite" sections of the party, in other words, it was directed around the Joint Opposition.

Again, mere speculation. It was mostly aimed at bureaucrats. Of course the "Trotskyite-Zinovievites" we're the ones who commited open acts of terrorism and sabotage, thus making their 'victims'a higher percentage of the actual executed individuals.

And he went on to say, "this would mean that 50% of the party were capitalists" [!], a startling revelation if you ask me; this means that, even after the Great Terror, Stalin's bureaucracy ensured the restoration of capitalist relations in production, and finally the legal and political restoration of capitalism later on.[i]

I dont get the point your trying to make with the quote...

[i]
On topic means could be justified only by Ends. Soviet Union was not an happy ending to justify the means used by Stalin.

It wasn't?
Have you ever studied the before and afters of Soviet-Industrialization, the effects on healthcare, etc...?

And IMO there is nothing worthy of admiration about Stalin -

(1) the Industrialisation is bound to happen in Russia so it would have happended regeradless of Leadership.

Obviously but we'll have to take a couple of things into account:

A. it wouldn't have been so rapid, making their defence against capitalist states weaker.
B. It had far less casualties then capitalist industrializations
C. It was a neccesity, whether it was bound to happen or not.

(2) WW2 and fight against Nazis everything in Stalin's calculation went wrng from it. He was mistaken about Hitler in 1939 and again in 1941 and miscalculated Roosevelt and Churchill in Yalta and Tehran. His the orders did most damage to Red Army's war efforts more than the Wermacht did.

Thats incorrect, but i'm currently to lazy to get that deep on this subject since it's quite broad and complicated.

These two things do not justify executions of both the Old Bolsheviks and the Majority of the Red Army officer Cadre.

No, where have i said so?

Labor Shall Rule

28th July 2007, 20:55

To No. 2

"Could be, but accusing someone is not the same as it actually being true (how funny, since we just talked about the trials , this might so be used against me... they can cause i know what i'm talking about). Next to the fact that Stalin was georgian i think it's 'silly' to assume this."

Do you even understand what occured with the 'Georgian Affair'? There were uprisings directed against the Mensheviks, which Stalin and Ordzhonikidze intervened in; this caused a controversy, simply because the revolt was simply not popular enough to expel the Mensheviks, and the Red Army's heavy casualties in Tiflis was certainly a result of this. It was disastrous, not only because of the casualties, but for the lack of support the Bolsheviks had from the local population after the invasion. Lenin had supported the intervention, but wrote cautionary letters to Stalin urging him to not come off as the "Russian bully" in the region. Lenin had, even before the Testament, wrote letters to the Congress of Soviets maintaining that the right to autonomy and political recognition for the national minorities imprisoned within the boundries of Russia was absolutely essential.

"The General-Secretary had less influence and power then the current U.S. president has, so thats bull-shit."

Stalin, in the position of the party Secretariat, planned the agenda, provided all documentation for debate, and transmitted the decisions of the Political Bureau to the party. Those are the facts, it's 'bull-shit' to suggest otherwise. Well, you tell me, what powers did he have in that position anyway?

"This is speculation based on thin air."

How was Trotsky defeated then? What mechanisms were used to oust him from his position?

"It's actually from a Trotskyite biography on Lenin."

Refer me to this.

"Again, mere speculation. It was mostly aimed at bureaucrats. Of course the "Trotskyite-Zinovievites" we're the ones who commited open acts of terrorism and sabotage, thus making their 'victims'a higher percentage of the actual executed individuals."

Through the statistics I provided, it's clear that bureaucrats actually solidified their position within the party, and that the purges had little to no effect in changing the class composition of the party and the Soviet state itself. This is not 'mere speculation', the fact is that Rykov, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Trotsky, Kamenev, Smilga, Lomov, Bubnov, Berzin, Milyutin, Krestinsky, Sokolnikov, Kiselev, and Krestinsky; fourteen of the twenty-six members of the Central Commitee, were either thrown in prison to rot or shot on Stalin's order. Most of the other members were dead by natural causes, sickness, or through combat in the Civil War.

bezdomni

28th July 2007, 21:19

enin also accused Stalin, along with Dzerzhinsky and Ordzhonikidze, of Great Russian Chauvinism in his Testament.

How could Stalin be a Russian Chauvinist when he was Georgian, and actually subjected to Russian Chavinism in his youth?

LuÃs Henrique

28th July 2007, 22:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 08:19 pm

[L]enin also accused Stalin, along with Dzerzhinsky and Ordzhonikidze, of Great Russian Chauvinism in his Testament.

How could Stalin be a Russian Chauvinist when he was Georgian, and actually subjected to Russian Chavinism in his youth?
More or less the same way George Bush the second can be a proud Texan when he is actually an Ivy League New Englander...

Or Adolph could be a German patriot albeit being, in Hindenburg's words, an "Austrian corporal".

Luís Henrique

bezdomni

28th July 2007, 22:43

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+July 28, 2007 09:07 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ July 28, 2007 09:07 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 08:19 pm

[L]enin also accused Stalin, along with Dzerzhinsky and Ordzhonikidze, of Great Russian Chauvinism in his Testament.

How could Stalin be a Russian Chauvinist when he was Georgian, and actually subjected to Russian Chavinism in his youth?
More or less the same way George Bush the second can be a proud Texan when he is actually an Ivy League New Englander...

Or Adolph could be a German patriot albeit being, in Hindenburg's words, an "Austrian corporal".

Luís Henrique [/b]
The accusation Russian Chauvinism means Stalin would place Russian interests among the interests of all others, which simply did not happen.

Bush is a "proud Texan" only as a ploy to suck southerners into liking him, and isn't like a "Texas chauvinist" (although he is a national chauvinist).

Also, Hitler sought to expand Germany into Austria (and the rest of Europe that he found to be ethnically tolerable)...so that analogy doesn't really work either. There wasn't really a difference between an "Aryan" in Germany and an Aryan in Austria.

Random Precision

29th July 2007, 03:57

Your using really fancy words to cover up the fact that you do not have any proof.

I'll repeat myself one last time:

THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED IS NOT MINE TO DISPROVE. RATHER, IT IS YOURS TO ESTABLISH.

And I must say, your efforts thus far fall far short of any sort of convincing proof.

'Imprisoned enemies of a police state regime' usually dont have an as open trial as they had

See my comments below.

where even the international media had to recognize the fact that it was a truthfull process.

The Moscow Trials recieved no shortage of criticism in the international media, I can tell you that. It was only among the Stalinist press and the Communist parties under the sway of the USSR that they were called 'truthful'.

The fact is that Stalin and his 'police state regime' couldn't even afford such a thing to happen!

Indeed? What, then, did they have to fear?

Random Precision

29th July 2007, 04:31

I have already discussed this in this threath. But i will repeat my previous statement:
I have seen a documentary about the death-penalty (yes, a documentary. Dont laugh or ridicule the source, just listen) where a criminal said in a telephone-call with his lawyer that he was guilty but in front of the camera he would continue claiming he was not guilty. Because his family put so much energy in his trial, and supported him so much that he couldn't even afford claiming he was guilty towards them.

That is the case of a different man, I'm presuming under quite different circumstances (correct me if I'm wrong), among which probably was other evidence of his guilt aside from a confession. Any reasonable person in this case would have to take Bukharin's word without that other evidence.

There is no evidence besides this one claim of Bukharin towards his wife that the trial was flawed.

There is no evidence besides the confessions of Bukharin that he was guilty (Once again, correct me if I'm wrong). What you keep refusing to understand is that a confession, even if it is not made under durress (and there was ample opportunity for all kinds of trickery of that sort in Stalin's USSR) is extremely suspect without any corroborating evidence. This problem characterized the validity of all the trials. Without the confession of the accused, the prosecution had no case.

Also, the confessions of the accused contained numerous errors even if the bulk of what they were saying was true, as you already have alluded to. For more, I refer you once again to the Dewey Commission, which happens to be quite unbiased.

Still, if this was the case then this would not prove how the rest would not be guilty and how the trial would be falsified.

One case of this casts doubt on the entire proceedings, especially as other defendants claimed they witnessed Bukharin participating in their nefarious plots during their examinations. If Bukharin was lying in his confession, that would make them liars as well and cast doubt on their entire testimony.

For someone being trialled by a 'falsified trial' he is overtly positive about it and does not sounds like someone where the confesions we're tortured out of him.

A man faced with his own mortality will say many things he does not mean to escape it.

Assuming he is not guilty, it is still not Stalins fault he was trialled. For he did not trial him, it was the court that trialled him. This document has thus not provided any evidence that it was either A. a falsified trial B. Stalins direct fault that they died, because of an odd grudge he would hold. In fact Bukharin states that he thinks Stalin thinks he might be guilty, merely showing how much Stalin himself knew about the trials (just what was told to him). To conclude i would like to state that the Soviet Union thus had a seperate judicial and political sector, making it impossible to blaim Stalin on this whole event, nor the party (even if they we're the one to appoint judges, etc...).

I do not blame Stalin as such, for he was only a represenatative (admittedly, the most important one) of the beareaucracy that I blame for the Moscow Trials.

gilhyle

29th July 2007, 19:38

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 28, 2007 06:47 pm
[I have thought about this quite much, but i think that it is possible if you would have a decent democratic system of control from the masses to prevent overtly bloated bureaucracy. An example would be the cultural revolution (which is a little extreme/anarchistic in my opinion, also explaining it's eventual failure). But on other scales, in other conditions, with an other implementation it might be very possible to implement such a system.

I draw a radical distinction between the cultural revolution,which was an entirely stalinist response to bureaucratic degeneration and - on the other hand - the use of democratic mechanisms to improve the quality of economic planning, as advicated by Lenin in his last year and as subsequently advocated by Trotsky.

WHile I think the question of the fate of Bukharin is quite irrelevant, it is worth pointing out a) that the plenum of the Central Committee sent Bukharin to the NKVD on Stalin's personal motion and b) it is not a matter of just one letter, but of Bukharin's testimony to the CC and various private comments to various persons recorded in memoirs etc. and c) the infamous letter of an old bolshevik published by Nicholaesky published in the Socialist Herald apparently recording what he learned from Bukharin, which you can believe or not and d) the intrinsic unbelievability of the charges and e) the ironies adopted by Bukharin during the trial.

I give Bukharin credit for one foolish act of bravery, namely reurning tothe the USSR when he did not need to after his last foreign trip in 1936. Generally speaking I think he was a foolish man, with bad judgement and deeply flawed character, susceptible to facile hero worship.....and a bad Marxist theoretician to boot. But all that is beside the point, as in Bukharin.

Panda Tse Tung

30th July 2007, 14:23

Do you even understand what occured with the 'Georgian Affair'? There were uprisings directed against the Mensheviks, which Stalin and Ordzhonikidze intervened in; this caused a controversy, simply because the revolt was simply not popular enough to expel the Mensheviks, and the Red Army's heavy casualties in Tiflis was certainly a result of this. It was disastrous, not only because of the casualties, but for the lack of support the Bolsheviks had from the local population after the invasion. Lenin had supported the intervention, but wrote cautionary letters to Stalin urging him to not come off as the "Russian bully" in the region. Lenin had, even before the Testament, wrote letters to the Congress of Soviets maintaining that the right to autonomy and political recognition for the national minorities imprisoned within the boundries of Russia was absolutely essential.

Yes, Stalin himself wrote about this in 'Marxism and the national question' (the rights of national minorities). Maybe it was not the correct way of handling with this contradiction, but it was a necessity back in the day to do it, maybe an unfortunate one... but it was (similar to Kronstadt).

Stalin, in the position of the party Secretariat, planned the agenda, provided all documentation for debate, and transmitted the decisions of the Political Bureau to the party. Those are the facts, it's 'bull-shit' to suggest otherwise. Well, you tell me, what powers did he have in that position anyway?

the agenda was planned by the Politburo and Central Committee, just as all documentation for debate. Stalin was merely at the head of these. His full powers can be read about in the Soviet-constitutions of 1918 and 1936.

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russia...st/1936toc.html (http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html)
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/gover.../1918/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/index.htm)

How was Trotsky defeated then? What mechanisms were used to oust him from his position?

At first he was almost kicked out of the party for factionalism (which was something that was illegal in the Soviet-Union). Stalin prevented his ousting, and Stalin was thereafter elected by an overwhelming majority whilst Trotsky was not. The exact documentation on this can be found here:
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node13.htm...400000000000000 (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node13.html#SECTION00400400000000000000)
It's quite a read but a good one.
Thereafter Trotsky kept on undermining the party-authority which led to his internal exile and him being kicked out of the party.
It was thus the mechanism of internal party-democracy which led to his 'defeat'.

Refer me to this.

It is a dutch biography, It's by Isaac Deutscher if I'm correct (not too sure though, cause it was a library-book).

Through the statistics I provided, it's clear that bureaucrats actually solidified their position within the party, and that the purges had little to no effect in changing the class composition of the party and the Soviet state itself. This is not 'mere speculation', the fact is that Rykov, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Trotsky, Kamenev, Smilga, Lomov, Bubnov, Berzin, Milyutin, Krestinsky, Sokolnikov, Kiselev, and Krestinsky; fourteen of the twenty-six members of the Central Commitee, were either thrown in prison to rot or shot on Stalin's order. Most of the other members were dead by natural causes, sickness, or through combat in the Civil War.

The statistics you provided, provided how many party-members had an important function within collectives and factory's... Not how the bureaucrats solidified their positions.

I'll repeat myself one last time:

THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED IS NOT MINE TO DISPROVE. RATHER, IT IS YOURS TO ESTABLISH.

And I must say, your efforts thus far fall far short of any sort of convincing proof.

Unfortunately most of the evidence i have is in a dutch book about the trials, the court already established on the basis of good evidence that they we're guilty. (I'm currently too lazy to translate all the information in the book, cause it is a lot of information.

The Moscow Trials recieved no shortage of criticism in the international media, I can tell you that. It was only among the Stalinist press and the Communist parties under the sway of the USSR that they were called 'truthful'.

Actually, even the American ambassador stated in a secret letter to the U.S. government (later given free) that there was no evidence the trials we're falsified.
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node93.htm...000000000000000 (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node93.html#SECTION001030000000000000000)

Indeed? What, then, did they have to fear?

Nothing, what could they fear?
The eyes of the entire world we're aimed at the trials. The Soviet-government could not justify making a mistake.

That is the case of a different man, I'm presuming under quite different circumstances (correct me if I'm wrong), among which probably was other evidence of his guilt aside from a confession. Any reasonable person in this case would have to take Bukharin's word without that other evidence.

Actually, there was evidence in the form of several letters written by Trotsky where the authenticity was verified by several sources. Not just by Trotsky, btw. But this is one of the sources of evidence. Of course it is not an entirely comparable circumstance, but as you could read from Bukharin's letter to Stalin he did want to tell his wife he was innocent to prevent her committing suicide. Which therefore made it a very valid reason to claim this.

There is no evidence besides the confessions of Bukharin that he was guilty (Once again, correct me if I'm wrong). What you keep refusing to understand is that a confession, even if it is not made under durress (and there was ample opportunity for all kinds of trickery of that sort in Stalin's USSR) is extremely suspect without any corroborating evidence. This problem characterized the validity of all the trials. Without the confession of the accused, the prosecution had no case.

Ok, in my next post (which will probably be tomorrow) i shall post some of the evidence provided by the court (i assume you merely mean the ones directed at Bukharin?). I'm not much in the mood today for doing such an enormous task (since it's already lots of difficulty's just typing all of that in dutch).

Also, the confessions of the accused contained numerous errors even if the bulk of what they were saying was true, as you already have alluded to. For more, I refer you once again to the Dewey Commission, which happens to be quite unbiased.

I have read the statements of the Dewey-Commission, and i haven't found much of an evidence that the trials we're falsified besides having to believe Trotsky's word on it (I must confess i haven't read the reports of the entire Dewey-Commission, but i have read the most important parts such as Trotsky's interrogations.

One case of this casts doubt on the entire proceedings, especially as other defendants claimed they witnessed Bukharin participating in their nefarious plots during their examinations. If Bukharin was lying in his confession, that would make them liars as well and cast doubt on their entire testimony.

Of course, but besides his letter to Stalin and his 'confession' towards his wife i haven't seen much jet... It's all his word we have to believe whilst the evidence speaks against this word.

A man faced with his own mortality will say many things he does not mean to escape it.

Well if this claim is true, then he might just as well be lying to Stalin in attempt to overcome his punishment (even though he implied this was not true)?

I draw a radical distinction between the cultural revolution,which was an entirely stalinist response to bureaucratic degeneration and - on the other hand - the use of democratic mechanisms to improve the quality of economic planning, as advicated by Lenin in his last year and as subsequently advocated by Trotsky.

As far as i studied the Cultural Revolution it was a highly democratic process, so far that it was bordering Anarchy.

WHile I think the question of the fate of Bukharin is quite irrelevant, it is worth pointing out a) that the plenum of the Central Committee sent Bukharin to the NKVD on Stalin's personal motion and

Maybe he was sent on his personal notion, but that does not mean Stalin actually pleaded he was guilty.

b) it is not a matter of just one letter, but of Bukharin's testimony to the CC and various private comments to various persons recorded in memoirs etc.

Now that makes it even more interesting, this would show that Bukharin was perhaps so desperate that he wanted a lot of people to know that he was in fact not guilty. By thus pleading guilty he could show how preposterous the trial was, if he pleaded not guilty the court would have showed him the evidence which would have led to a public defeat. This way, he could still try to get away with it (which of course failed). This is a mere theory i developed in no less then a minute, but it would explain how Bukharin was in fact the only one to make such claims after being found guilty.

and c) the infamous letter of an old bolshevik published by Nicholaesky published in the Socialist Herald apparently recording what he learned from Bukharin, which you can believe or not

I haven't heard of this one, so could you provide me with it? (If it's not too much of a problem to provide, or at least give a summary)

and d) the intrinsic unbelievability of the charges and e) the ironies adopted by Bukharin during the trial.

These points are based on speculation.

Intelligitimate

31st July 2007, 04:14

As for you Stalinist posters (you know who you are), if you have not already done so I suggest you read Solzhenitsyn and other accounts of life in the gulags before you prattle on about the virtues of Stalin's regime. It is difficult to feel affection for someone who condemns people to a life sentence of hard labour for the 'crime' of being captured in war or daring to mildly criticise the regime when situations are so hard it would be idiotic not to. I find it highly amusing that one such Stalinist has CriticizeEverythingAlways as their screen-name. With such an attitude one wouldn't last half a minute under a Stalinist regime!

To add to what CriticizeEverythingAlways has quoted, Solzhenitsyn was arrested for supporting the Nazi traitor general Vlasov. Not only did Solzhenitsyn get less time in the gulags for supporting one of the worst traitors in Soviet history than the people he writes, he actually did very little work in the gulags, and received two operations for cancer treatment.

In fact, Solzhenityn got so light treatment, there is a little known conspiracy theory surrounding his sentence. I found an article awhile back, in Pravda, which seems to suggest Solzhenitsyn ratted on a lot of his anti-Soviet buddies, and is the reason he got only 8 years when he could (should) have been shot.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/95/380...lzhenitsyn.html (http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/95/380/9803_solzhenitsyn.html)

As far as I can tell, this all rests on the authenticity of the document obtained by German journalist Frank Arnau. I found some documents, not in English, that seem to cast doubt on the authenticity of them.

http://magazines.russ.ru/voplit/2003/2/nikol.html

I can understand if you are going through some kind of rebellious phase, but if you are truly a Stalinist I find this highly worrying and I seriously question your state of mind.

In my experience, the opposite is generally true. 'Pro-Stalin' views generally come about because of a significant grasp of the methods of bourgeois propaganda and of modern Soviet scholarship. I honestly don't think anyone with Leftist tendencies, an open mind, and a general familiarity with modern Soviet scholarship could come away with views hostile to Stalin and the Stalin-era leadership.

On the other hand, the people who espouse rabidly anti-Stalin views on this forum generally show a poor understanding of Leftist political thought, have zero familiarity with modern Soviet scholarship, and generally are repulsed at the thought of learning something about history that doesn't agree with their grade-school indoctrination. These people are also usually quite a bit younger than those who espouse 'pro-Stain' views.

Intelligitimate

31st July 2007, 04:20

Oh yes, on the nature of The Gulag Archipelago itself, it's hysterical at times. Solzhenitsyn will go over some horror story, and then quote as his source the memoirs of some anonymous person. Reading it one gets the sense at times of extreme exaggeration of stories, and often probably just outright lies. Even taken at face value, I'm sure any person who has ever went through the US prison system could write much worse horror stories, especially if they gathered as many stories from fellow prisoners as they could.

Intelligitimate

31st July 2007, 04:26

Regarding the Dewey Commission, we know for a fact Trotsky lied about his relationship to the Zinoviev bloc. To quote myself from another post:

Originally posted by Intelligitimate

After Trotsky’s exile in 1929, Trotsky maintained contact with Lev Sedov in the USSR until 1938 (when Sedov was shot). These communications are known as the “Exile Correspondence” sections in the Trotsky Papers at Harvard, opened in January 1980. Trotsky lied about having contact with former followers in the USSR in his Biulleten’ oppozitsii and to the Dewey Commission, which was setup to defend Trotsky of charges against him made in the show trials.

In 1932, he sent letters to former oppositionists Radek, Sokolnikov, Preobrazhenskii, and others. These letters were removed from Trotsky’s papers by someone, but they forgot to remove the certified-mail receipts signed by Trotsky’s secretaries. In October that same year, E. S. Gol’tsman met Sedov in Berlin and gave him some internal memorandum regarding the Soviet economy. He also brought Sedov a proposal from Left Oppositionists to form a united bloc consisting of Trotskyists, Zinovievists, members of the Lominadze group, and others. The proposal came from Ivan Smirnov.

Sedov wrote back to Trotsky, who wrote “The proposition of the bloc seems to me completely acceptable,” but “it is a question of a bloc, not a merger.” “How will the bloc manifest itself? For the moment, mainly through exchanging information. Our allies will keep us up to date on that which concerns the Soviet Union, and we will do the same thing on that which concerns the Soviet Union, and we will do the same thing on that which concerns the Comintern.” Trotsky also stipulated that the opposition should sent materials to be published in Biulleten', and that capitulationists should be excluded from the bloc. Smirnov proposed that Rightists should be allowed into the bloc, which Trotsky rejected: “The allies’ opinion that one must wait until the rights can easily join does not have my approval.”

The bloc was disrupted by the arrest of Zinoviev, Smirnov, and Kamenev, but Sedov didn’t think they had found anything on them regarding the bloc (they were arrested for other matters).

This block didn’t come out till 1936, during Ezhov’s participation with the NKVD. Stalin was suspicious of the late discovery of this bloc. Yagoda’s sympathy for the defeated oppositionists was documented by Serdiuk to the Twenty-Second Congress in 1961 (Pravda, Oct. 31, 1961). But perhaps Yagoda just discovered it in 1936.

Getty: Origin of the Great Purges, pages 119-128.

Intelligitimate

31st July 2007, 04:32

Regarding Buhkarin's last letter, it was published in Getty's The Road to Terror, co-authored with that idiot Naumov (which taints the work, but anything with Getty's name on it is worth getting). In that some work, we also learn that Buhkarin knew about the existence of the Riutin Platform, and told no one. The Riutin Platform was basically a manifesto of the Right Opposition, which advocated murdering Stalin and the non-Rightist leadership.

When questioned about it, Buhkarin did not deny it. His excuse for not uttering a word? He wanted to bring his Rightist friends "back to the party." This excuse was of course laughed at. I could pull out the actual minutes of this meeting from the book, but I think they are online somewhere.

OneBrickOneVoice

31st July 2007, 04:36

I draw a radical distinction between the cultural revolution,which was an entirely stalinist response to bureaucratic degeneration and - on the other hand - the use of democratic mechanisms to improve the quality of economic planning, as advicated by Lenin in his last year and as subsequently advocated by Trotsky

Cultural revolution was in the tradition of Stalin but in contradiction to Stalin it involved reliance on the people for suppressing reactionaries rather than the DoP/state

OneBrickOneVoice

31st July 2007, 04:45

I give Bukharin credit for one foolish act of bravery, namely reurning tothe the USSR when he did not need to after his last foreign trip in 1936. Generally speaking I think he was a foolish man, with bad judgement and deeply flawed character, susceptible to facile hero worship.....and a bad Marxist theoretician to boot. But all that is beside the point, as in Bukharin.

He was a fucking capitalist traitor! He was a revisionist fuck, much like Deng Xioping of China. A motherfucker who didn't even try to cover the fact that he wanted a state capitalist economy and that he was trying to undermine Democratic Centralism

Intelligitimate

31st July 2007, 04:47

the infamous letter of an old bolshevik published by Nicholaesky published in the Socialist Herald apparently recording what he learned from Bukharin, which you can believe or not

The authenticity of this document is in serious dispute. I suggest Getty's discussion on it in his Origins.

gilhyle

31st July 2007, 18:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 03:47 am

the infamous letter of an old bolshevik published by Nicholaesky published in the Socialist Herald apparently recording what he learned from Bukharin, which you can believe or not

The authenticity of this document is in serious dispute. I suggest Getty's discussion on it in his Origins.
I agree with that which is why I wouldnt rely on it over-much.

As to cultural revolution being democratic because anarchic and involving relying on the 'people' (when it actally stirred up mob rule which terrorised the people).....well those comments only reflect on your understanding of what democracy can be.

Trotsky was correct not to reveal to the Dewey Commission the extent of his relations with dissident forces in Russia - though, in fact, those links were so weak that whole years went by without him getting any good communication from the USSR.

Bukharin had long since ceased any oppositional activity by 1936. In truth he was killed cos Stalin could kill him cos Ordzhonikidze was dead. Its as simple as that. Stalin started the process within weeks of Ordzhonikidze's "suicide".

Red Scare

31st July 2007, 18:23

just read animal farm, if you know any soviet history it explains itself

Rawthentic

31st July 2007, 18:51

He was a fucking capitalist traitor! He was a revisionist fuck, much like Deng Xioping of China. A motherfucker who didn't even try to cover the fact that he wanted a state capitalist economy and that he was trying to undermine Democratic Centralism
By 1936 I would say it already was. And by the way, Lenin advocated state-capitalism as well.

Panda Tse Tung

31st July 2007, 22:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 05:23 pm
just read animal farm, if you know any soviet history it explains itself
Lol, yeah cause Animal Farm is the greatest historical account of the Russian Revolution ever.

By 1936 I would say it already was. And by the way, Lenin advocated state-capitalism as well.

Then how was it just by 1936?

Anyways, i know i promised that in my next post I'd provide the evidence. Only I'm tired and it's late already :). Please forgive me :P.

Intelligitimate

1st August 2007, 02:37

Bukharin had long since ceased any oppositional activity by 1936. In truth he was killed cos Stalin could kill him cos Ordzhonikidze was dead. Its as simple as that. Stalin started the process within weeks of Ordzhonikidze's "suicide".

What do you mean "suicide"? We know he committed suicide because his wife was there when he shot himself. She ran into the room and then phoned Stalin, who showed up later with other members of the Politiburo and Ezhov (Medvedev).

Buhkarin was the ideological founder of the Rightist deviation and had extensive contact with these people, even admitting to not uttering a word about the Riutin platform and those who supported it. I see no reason to a priori assume he was not actually involved in this conspiracy, which most certainly did exist.

RHIZOMES

1st August 2007, 04:18

My thoughts - What makes all the suffering Stalin caused to further the USSR's economy any different from the suffering capitalists cause to further their economy?

Vargha Poralli

1st August 2007, 06:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 08:48 am
My thoughts - What makes all the suffering Stalin caused to further the USSR's economy any different from the suffering capitalists cause to further their economy?
Well means could be justified only by the Ends. And the ending of Soviet Union does not justify the means used by the Stalinist Bureaucracy.

Of course Stalinists would tell it is all because of Khrushchev,Gorbachev etc. But anyone who understands the Social dynamics would understand that Socialism's fate is not decided by Death of one man.

OneBrickOneVoice

1st August 2007, 06:15

no its not, its decided by counterrevolution, Krushchev and Gorbachev were simply leaders of it.

and "all the suffering"? For the first time in history, the working class had power, it collectivized agriculture, made all property the property of the people as a whole to be used, built communal kitchens, provided universal healthcare and education for the masses, while the west suffered a great depression where millions were without these basic human rights. Sure there were mistakes but socialism is not suffering.

The Author

1st August 2007, 06:51

Well means could be justified only by the Ends. And the ending of Soviet Union does not justify the means used by the Stalinist Bureaucracy.

The bureaucracy of the U.S.S.R. ceased to have a "Stalinist" context in the 1950s.

Of course Stalinists would tell it is all because of Khrushchev,Gorbachev etc. But anyone who understands the Social dynamics would understand that Socialism's fate is not decided by Death of one man.

We don't ascribe the Khrushchevite counter-revolution to one man. See

Class Roots of Counter-Revolution in the Soviet Union (http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0612/pg26.htm)

RHIZOMES

1st August 2007, 08:10

Originally posted by GrandMonster [email protected] 01, 2007 05:15 am
no its not, its decided by counterrevolution, Krushchev and Gorbachev were simply leaders of it.

and "all the suffering"? For the first time in history, the working class had power, it collectivized agriculture, made all property the property of the people as a whole to be used, built communal kitchens, provided universal healthcare and education for the masses, while the west suffered a great depression where millions were without these basic human rights. Sure there were mistakes but socialism is not suffering.
What about the people sent to the gulags to fulfill quotas the Stalin had imposed on the secret police, etc?

Why did he require a personality cult other than self-gratification?

Why was the only art form allowed socialist realism? Lenin allowed artists to do whatever they wanted as long as it wasn't counter-revolutionary, why did Stalin need to do that?

manic expression

1st August 2007, 14:40

To anyone who follows the economic development of the Soviet Union, the issue of Stalin is quite clear. Who instituted and gave mutual support to the nomenklatura? Stalin did, time and again. He supported the bureaucracy and the bureaucracy supported him, and that is why he was able to overcome and kill practically every major Bolshevik still alive who had a significant hand in the revolution and its defense. For your information, Stalin played no significant role in either. The Bolsheviks who made the revolution were done away with because they opposed the bureaucracy that Stalin came to represent.

That being said, it is unreasonable to deny support to the Soviet Union, as it had progressive property relations and was a worker state (albiet a deformed one). Although Stalin was working in the interests of the nomenklatura, the Soviet Union was very much a positive force in the world. Also, life in the Soviet Union was better than the alternative, that is obvious. What should ALSO be said is that it would have been much better and much more equitable had the nomenklatura and their go-to-guy, Stalin, been defeated (by those who made the revolution, no less). What Stalin created led directly to the Soviet collapse in the 90's, the nomenklatura simply recognized that capitalism was better for them than (deformed) socialism.

To be honest, these issues aren't nearly as important as they once were, and I have no problem working with anti-revisionists who support Stalin. I hope the Stalinists here share that rejection of unnecessary sectarianism.

Rawthentic

1st August 2007, 17:16

That being said, it is unreasonable to deny support to the Soviet Union, as it had progressive property relations and was a worker state (albiet a deformed one)
So, the proletariat still had their soviets as organs of state and power and controlled the means of production?

Panda Tse Tung

1st August 2007, 17:52

So, the proletariat still had their soviets as organs of state and power and controlled the means of production?

But if Lenin, who was clearly the figurehead of the revolution propagated this 'state-Capitalism' of yours. Then how comes the proletariat was in charge whilst the party where Lenin was the figurehead of was 'in charge'?

To anyone who follows the economic development of the Soviet Union, the issue of Stalin is quite clear.

Wow, that was the most Trotskyite comment I've seen on here this far (even from Trotskyite's). As if things are that easy... *sigh* i wish...
Nothing is clear in life, not even the most clearest of all things are clear.

Who instituted and gave mutual support to the nomenklatura? Stalin did, time and again.

See, here your going wrong already. Stalin did a lot of things to struggle against bureaucracy and capitalist-roaders. Wow, things start getting more vague then they we're before doesn't it?
*aaah, i cant see anymore, help, help!*
Ok, ism getting carried away here. I'll give an example:
Damn, io thought that speech would be on either Marx2Mao or Marxists, but it isn't... ohw well... I'll just be more concrete then after i provided the following
On the struggle against incorrect lines here:
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/FAD26.html
Now the biggest excesses in the Soviet-Union didn't even occur because of the bloated 'bureaucracy', no they occurred because the cadres we're too enthusiastic. An example of this here:
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/DS30.html
I'll be more concrete: the great purges in general we're aimed at the bureaucracy, and a whole set of measures for democratization we're taken before that. See, here:
http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

, and that is why he was able to overcome and kill practically every major Bolshevik still alive who had a significant hand in the revolution and its defense.

Read threads before you 'decide' to add hollow information.

For your information, Stalin played no significant role in either. The Bolsheviks who made the revolution were done away with because they opposed the bureaucracy that Stalin came to represent.

Wow, thanks for providing that information. It was so detailed and seems like a real Marxist analyses to me.

That being said, it is unreasonable to deny support to the Soviet Union, as it had progressive property relations and was a worker state (albiet a deformed one).

Do you Trotskyites just learn some standard babblings, just in case you walk into a 'Stalinist'. Cause besides all this empty and non-analytical information you don't seem to add much to the discussion...
If you read well you can see that all the points your 'bringing up', are already brought up! And are currently being debated! For God's sake add something to the discussion or just don't participate!

To be honest, these issues aren't nearly as important as they once were, and I have no problem working with anti-revisionists who support Stalin. I hope the Stalinists here share that rejection of unnecessary sectarianism.

I'm inclined to agree that i could work together with certain Trotskyites.
I am this specific because i notice that Trotskyites do have a tendency to 'hijack' other organizations and basically ruining them. They also have a tendency to split over every single issue that doesn't seem fit to them (showing a lack of discipline in my opinion). Most also seem to have tendency's of alienating themselves from the masses, but then again other Trotskyists of pretty fine in our international (International Communist Seminar). Such as the Workers World Party, well those are not really Trotskyite anymore for their rejection of the 'degenerated workers state' part. But they do seem to agree with most of Trotsky's analyses concerning the way a revolutionary state should develop
(Of course my criticism towards Trotskyites is not aimed at all of them, if you don't feel like you don't fit into that category, don't respond. Just a 'general tendency' you can see in Trotskyite groups world-wide).

What about the people sent to the gulags to fulfill quotas the Stalin had imposed on the secret police, etc?

Besides 'a book' that wrote about it, there's nowhere where this is mentioned. And there was no real source they did provide in that book. So this is still out of the question.

Why did he require a personality cult other than self-gratification?

He didn't simple.
I'm actually going to quote Wikipedia now (showing the level of discussion is rapidly degenerating, talking about degeneration...):

Comrades! I want to propose a toast to our patriarch, life and sun, liberator of nations, architect of socialism [he rattled off all the appellations applied to him in those days] – Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, and I hope this is the first and last speech made to that genius this evening.
The source Wikipedia provides is the following:
Arvo Tuominen. The Bells of the Kremlin, p. 162.

Why was the only art form allowed socialist realism? Lenin allowed artists to do whatever they wanted as long as it wasn't counter-revolutionary, why did Stalin need to do that?

I haven't really done much in-depth research on this. Good thing you remind me, cause i have a book about it i still need to read. Anyways, i don't think it shows 'Stalins repressive character'. It's no proof whatsoever that Stalin was a bureaucrat or whatnot, even if it we're an incorrect line.

Rawthentic

1st August 2007, 18:45

But if Lenin, who was clearly the figurehead of the revolution propagated this 'state-Capitalism' of yours. Then how comes the proletariat was in charge whilst the party where Lenin was the figurehead of was 'in charge'?
Dude what the fuck are you talking about?

It is no "state capitalism" of mine, Lenin saw no problem with having state capitalism as a transitional form towards socialism as long as it was controlled by the working class and was strictly transitory and allowed for the workers to gain increasing control over society.

State -Capitalism Under Worker's Control (http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/14cStateCapitalism.html)

Panda Tse Tung

1st August 2007, 19:36

Ohw, your talking NEP here!
I thought you we're talking about his preferred policies. My apologies then.

rocker935

1st August 2007, 19:57

What are you guys' opinions about Stalin. Because from what I can gather he seems like he was a major dick. I did SOME (not enough) reading on him and that was just the general feeling I got from him. He was the one who implemented the secret police which was used to silence opposing political voices which I have a problem with.

So if I am mistaken about something plz correct me, but over all I want to hear you guys' opinions.

Random Precision

1st August 2007, 20:07

I'm inclined to agree that i could work together with certain Trotskyites.
I am this specific because i notice that Trotskyites do have a tendency to 'hijack' other organizations and basically ruining them.

Examples, please? I'm not too familiar with the movement in your part of the world, but in the United States we have our own organizations.

They also have a tendency to split over every single issue that doesn't seem fit to them (showing a lack of discipline in my opinion).

That's perhaps the biggest weakness of the movement in my opinion. Of course, some of these splits are justified, but we do like our splits a bit too much. Often at demonstrations, I'll see groups of people arguing in some arcane language about a split that happened 40 years ago, that no one not from their groups would understand or even care about. Splitting goes all the way back to Trotsky, who had little patience for those who didn't agree with his line, although this impatience was for all the right reasons.

Most also seem to have tendency's of alienating themselves from the masses, but then again other Trotskyists of pretty fine in our international (International Communist Seminar).

I disagree. My own organization, the ISO for instance has a long history of involving itself directly in protests and issues of concern to the masses, for example immigration, war, and the death penalty. What originally attracted me to them is that their main focus is bringing socialist politics out of complete marginalization, although there are groups like the Spartacist League that are completely cut off from reality.

Such as the Workers World Party, well those are not really Trotskyite anymore for their rejection of the 'degenerated workers state' part. But they do seem to agree with most of Trotsky's analyses concerning the way a revolutionary state should develop

The WWP can hardly be considered Trotskyist, as it split from the SWP in 1956 over the invasion of Hungary, which they supported. Since then they have not met a repressive regime that they didn't like, and while they still in name accept Trotsky's analysis of the Soviet Union, they are for all practical purposes a Stalinist organization. Maybe "Kruschevist" is a better term. The same goes for the SWP, which adopted a pro-Castro line in the eighties and purged the supporters of the old Trotskyist line. While they accept some of Trotsky's analysis, and retained the Trotsky copyrights, they have ceased to be a Trotskyist organization.

bezdomni

1st August 2007, 20:27

There are so many threads on abortion on this forum it isn't even funny.

The Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership was a socialist state, but Stalin made many mistakes in dealing with contradictions in the party and among the masses - which led to catastrophic problems (purges, gulags, NKVD..etc).

But the Sovet Union under Stalin's leadership was still overwhelmingly the most progressive force in the world against fascism, capitalism and imperalism and was mostly positive.

Tatarin

1st August 2007, 20:38

Stalin as a leader was horrible, but I guess we must give him some bones for his war against nazism. But on the other hand, wouldn't Trotsky or another Soviet leader have done the same thing?

DiggerII

1st August 2007, 20:43

Stalin's era could be called one of the most terrifying times in human history. His policies caused the deaths of millions and left a permanent stain on communism. While I shudder at what he did, we have to look at the fact that he did get the job done. He industrialized the Soviet Union faster than any other modern nation in history and life did improve under his rule (save for those whose lives ended). I simply think that while there are definately two sides to the coin, mankind should NEVER EVER EVER have to endure another ruler like Uncle Joe. We could go on forever and ever in this discussion though.

bezdomni

1st August 2007, 20:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:38 pm
Stalin as a leader was horrible, but I guess we must give him some bones for his war against nazism. But on the other hand, wouldn't Trotsky or another Soviet leader have done the same thing?
Trotsky would have (probably) been much worse.

Stalin's era could be called one of the most terrifying times in human history.

Bullshit. The Soviet Union was the pinnacle of human liberation until the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China.

Workers, women and youth were empowered as they had never been before. Life expectancy, literacy and income all shot up and workers control over the means of production was consolidated.

Yes, there were mistakes - but the in comparison to the horrors caused by capitalist imperialism, feudalism and fascism, Stalin's mistakes are a mere grain on the beach of injustice.

I simply think that while there are definately two sides to the coin, mankind should NEVER EVER EVER have to endure another ruler like Uncle Joe

Agreed. No "stalinist" would want to re-do the Soviet Union...the goal is to improve, not to repeat.

Dr Mindbender

1st August 2007, 21:07

Stalin was a traitor to the bolshevik party and probably did more to aid the preservation of capitalism than every american president put together.

Thats my $0.02.

Dr Mindbender

1st August 2007, 21:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:38 pm
Stalin as a leader was horrible, but I guess we must give him some bones for his war against nazism. But on the other hand, wouldn't Trotsky or another Soviet leader have done the same thing?
i doubt it. Lenin and Trotsky were both in favour of expanding the revolution further, outside the existing borders. The reason stalin's model failed is because it was too brutal and insular and collapsed under foreign capitalist pressure.

rocker935

1st August 2007, 21:43

All very helpful posts, thanks comrades. But I suppose I am still stickin with the fact that he is a total duck. Because I feel that there is no excuse for killing soo many ppl.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

1st August 2007, 21:51

Any power that is not consolidated by democracy on every level of the work place and the state is contrary to socialism, in my opinion. Where Stalin brought the USSR to is an amazing feet, but eradicating millions in the name of socialism is no better than fighting wars over resources.

Our own comrades perished because of that man man. I will not defend Stalin, only the Soviet people.

gilhyle

1st August 2007, 23:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 01:37 am

What do you mean "suicide"? We know he committed suicide because his wife was there when he shot himself. She ran into the room and then phoned Stalin, who showed up later with other members of the Politiburo and Ezhov (Medvedev).

I'm shocked that you dont believe the official statement released after Ordzhinikidze's death explaining that he died from paralysis of the heart during a daytime nap. :D

Why this counterrevolutionary scepticism ?

Since you choose to believe his wife, presumably you also accept her other testimony that Ordzhonikidze had just had a huge row with Stalin on the phone, Stalin then sent over a messenger who insisted on meeting Ordzhonikidze in person and then a shot rang out and when Stalin arrived he told her "Not a single word to anyone about the details of Sergo's death. Nothing except the official announcement, for you know me."

BTW, my point about Stalin proposing to send Bukharin to the NKVD may not have been clear - BUkharin defended himself, the CC wanted to send him for trial and Stalin had to intervene personally to prevent Bukharin being sent for trial and to have him tortured instead. Once he had intervened the rest fell in line.

Rainie

2nd August 2007, 02:02

Stalin was a fool. He didn't know The Netherlands and Holland were the same country and no one in his inner circle was brave enough to set him straight.

He bungled when Hitler initially won many victories when he invaded his country because he didn't let his generals fight the war, believing himself infallible. He let anarchist Spain go fascist instead of suppoerting the anarchist! And he was aparanoid killing the old Bolsheviks and many other people.

Panda Tse Tung

2nd August 2007, 14:17

Examples, please? I'm not too familiar with the movement in your part of the world, but in the United States we have our own organizations.

Concrete or just vague?
I'll assume you mean vague (out of personal laziness :P). I mean hijacking anti-war coalitions and the like. while it is an anti-war coalition, something they don't seem to understand.

That's perhaps the biggest weakness of the movement in my opinion. Of course, some of these splits are justified, but we do like our splits a bit too much. Often at demonstrations, I'll see groups of people arguing in some arcane language about a split that happened 40 years ago, that no one not from their groups would understand or even care about. Splitting goes all the way back to Trotsky, who had little patience for those who didn't agree with his line, although this impatience was for all the right reasons.

Right, so we agree i guess :).

I disagree. My own organization, the ISO for instance has a long history of involving itself directly in protests and issues of concern to the masses, for example immigration, war, and the death penalty. What originally attracted me to them is that their main focus is bringing socialist politics out of complete marginalization, although there are groups like the Spartacist League that are completely cut off from reality.

Well, the Spartacist League is an (albeit extreme) example. But as you're saying yourself (not that i am familiar with the ISO) your organization is merely involved in protests. That is not working amongst the masses, thats just holding a sign. I'm not saying protesting is wrong, just not that it counts as mass-work. I'll give some concrete examples from my environment (The Netherlands and Belgium). In Belgium there are clinics opened by the Communist Party called 'healthcare for the people', those are doctor-clinics providing free healthcare for people who can not afford it, in the Netherlands the Communist Party is planing to set up such a project too. In the Netherlands during Christmas-time a party-member who has a council-seat in the town of Heiloo spend all of his salary (and a donation from the local supermarket) on Christmas-packets (?)(i mean like, with food etc... in them) for people on welfare who couldn't afford a decent Christmas. Thats what i mean with mass-work (just some examples of course).

The WWP can hardly be considered Trotskyist, as it split from the SWP in 1956 over the invasion of Hungary, which they supported.

Well, from a Trotskyist point of view i can still understand that. Cause it was (in my opinion, but thats another topic) a fascist counter-revolution. If a 'degenerated workers state' would be faced with such a counter-revolution it is understandable that Trotskyists don't support it (to me).

Well, not that it matters a lot to me, but i think it's logical either way.

Random Precision

2nd August 2007, 16:44

That is not working amongst the masses, thats just holding a sign. I'm not saying protesting is wrong, just not that it counts as mass-work. I'll give some concrete examples from my environment (The Netherlands and Belgium). In Belgium there are clinics opened by the Communist Party called 'healthcare for the people', those are doctor-clinics providing free healthcare for people who can not afford it, in the Netherlands the Communist Party is planing to set up such a project too. In the Netherlands during Christmas-time a party-member who has a council-seat in the town of Heiloo spend all of his salary (and a donation from the local supermarket) on Christmas-packets (?)(i mean like, with food etc... in them) for people on welfare who couldn't afford a decent Christmas. Thats what i mean with mass-work (just some examples of course).

I don't think you are aware of just how far the socialist movement has been marginalized in the United States. In fact it's mainly a movement of students rather than workers, which is why the ISO focuses on propaganda to such a large extent.

We are involved a great deal in social work, for example during strikes we have served meals to the picketers and their families. We are also involved a great deal in soup kitchens and the like, although the kind of large-scale social work that the socialist movement does in your area of the world could not be undertaken by any socialist group here, regardless of its affiliation.

Panda Tse Tung

2nd August 2007, 17:24

Well, i have personally visited the city of Atlanta for four weeks. And there i noticed a quite large presence of the RCP (which was admittedly the only notable presence). I had short contact with them too. So, from that i was inclined to believe the Socialist movement wasn't in such a bad shape in the U.S. I could be very wrong of course. But i can understand your position, even though the Dutch and Belgian Communist Party's are not that big either (looking at voting-statistics, cause membership-statistics are quite secret. The Dutch Communist party had 5000 (0,1% of the votes) votes during the last elections they participated in and 50.000 are needed for a seat (admittedly, this is also mostly because certain Communists don't feel like the Communist Party stands a change, thus they vote for the Socialists). Whereas the Belgian Communist Party got 1% of the votes during the last election.

Random Precision

2nd August 2007, 21:09

I did not mean to say that there isn't any support at all for the socialist movement, but the little that there is is concentrated in city strongholds. The RCP, which you have mentioned, is centered mainly in Atlanta and Cleveland. My own ISO has a high presence in Chicago, where our headquarters is located, and New York. The SWP is centered in San Francisco and other West Coast cities, etc. But like I said earlier, the socialist movement here is dominated by students and has little popular support outside college campuses.

The electoral support for socialist parties is probably even less here than in the Netherlands or Beligium, as most states have draconian electoral laws that keep all challengers to the two-party system from the ballot in state and federal elections. The only large-scale challenger in the presidential races has been Ralph Nader, who has run on the Green ticket and as an independent. The ISO and many other socialist organizations have supported his candidacy as a challenge to the two-party system. In fact, his vice presidential candidate in 2004 was a former member of our organization. On the other hand you have the the CPUSA, which supports free market reforms in China and the like, thus becoming a dead weight on the whole socialist movement. In 2004 they bought the "Anybody But Bush" line and supported John Kerry in all but name. Unbelievable.

bezdomni

2nd August 2007, 22:26

But I suppose I am still stickin with the fact that he is a total duck. Because I feel that there is no excuse for killing soo many ppl.

Statistics about how many people Stalin "killed" are often very misleading because they take into account WWII casualties (from both sides), people who died as the result of famines or indirectly from the war, people who died in prisons not being held for political reasons, and lots of people who didn't even die at all.

Of course, lots of political prisoners died in the gulags or were executed for poor reasons - but this is because Stalin didn't properly handle contradictions within the party and among the masses in a correct manner. Instead of unleashing the masses against Trotskyism (which is what should have been done), he dealt with the left opposition in a bureaucratic and mechanistic fashion and purged them.

Of course, many of them deserved to be expelled from the party (ie, Zinoviev)...but exile and executions are completely unnecessary and in fact anti-marxist.

These mistakes, however, are insignificant when compared to the overwhelmingly positive atmosphere of the socialist Soviet Union.

Our own comrades perished because of that man man.

Very true..but many more had access to basic human necessities (food, shelter, decent work, education, medicine...) that had previously been denied for so many centuries and were empowered as no other human society before them.

Not to mention, if it had not been for Stalin and the industrialization of the U.S.S.R., the Nazis would have very likely taken over the Soviet Union and committed even more atrocities.

He didn't know The Netherlands and Holland were the same country and no one in his inner circle was brave enough to set him straight.

lol, this is one of the stranger objections I have heard...

Would you care to prove that?

He bungled when Hitler initially won many victories when he invaded his country because he didn't let his generals fight the war, believing himself infallible.

Actually, Stalin didn't trust many of the generals at the beginning of the war because they had been trained alongside the Nazi generals (due to post-WWI treaties about the training of generals and oversight of weapons) and was worried that his own generals might have been in cahoots with the nazis.

Despite what your bourgeois historians will tell you, Stalin was not a paranoid megalomaniac.

He let anarchist Spain go fascist instead of suppoerting the anarchist!

Spain was never "anarchist" and the Soviet Union was one of the major anti-fascist forces during the Guerra Civil.

How can you, an anarchist, say that Spain was conquered by the fascists because Stalin didn't do enough? Aren't leaders the problem? Wasn't the Soviet Union just as bad as Nazi Germany? Why would you want Stalin on your side if he is so bad?

Anyway, the Soviet Union contributed a lot to the Spanish Republic..but they also had their own stuff to worry about, especially toward the end of the Guerra Civil; when the clouds of war were looming over their own homes.

And he was aparanoid killing the old Bolsheviks and many other people.

I'm glad you have the psychological credentials to diagnose a person you have never met and have obviously not even studied very much with paranoia and use this as the basis for his political mistakes.

bezdomni

2nd August 2007, 22:32

he RCP, which you have mentioned, is centered mainly in Atlanta and Cleveland.

Err...where did you hear that?

It isn't true.

Iron

3rd August 2007, 04:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 06:57 pm
What are you guys' opinions about Stalin. Because from what I can gather he seems like he was a major dick. I did SOME (not enough) reading on him and that was just the general feeling I got from him. He was the one who implemented the secret police which was used to silence opposing political voices which I have a problem with.

So if I am mistaken about something plz correct me, but over all I want to hear you guys' opinions.
stalin is a dick, just ignore the stalinist apologists

EDIT:
Spain was never "anarchist" and the Soviet Union was one of the major anti-fascist forces during the Guerra Civil.

How can you, an anarchist, say that Spain was conquered by the fascists because Stalin didn't do enough? Aren't leaders the problem? Wasn't the Soviet Union just as bad as Nazi Germany? Why would you want Stalin on your side if he is so bad?

Anyway, the Soviet Union contributed a lot to the Spanish Republic..but they also had their own stuff to worry about, especially toward the end of the Guerra Civil; when the clouds of war were looming over their own homes.

if you are denying the fact that their was anarchist movement in Spain that were later crushed by the Stalinists I suggest you read a history book on the Spanish civil war.

Intelligitimate

3rd August 2007, 04:40

Since you choose to believe his wife, presumably you also accept her other testimony that Ordzhonikidze had just had a huge row with Stalin on the phone,

That isn't her testimony. He allegedly had a fight with Stalin the day before, and was in bed all day.

Stalin then sent over a messenger who insisted on meeting Ordzhonikidze in person and then a shot rang out and when Stalin arrived he told her "Not a single word to anyone about the details of Sergo's death. Nothing except the official announcement, for you know me."

Your point?

BTW, my point about Stalin proposing to send Bukharin to the NKVD may not have been clear - BUkharin defended himself, the CC wanted to send him for trial and Stalin had to intervene personally to prevent Bukharin being sent for trial and to have him tortured instead. Once he had intervened the rest fell in line.

You have no evidence Stalin intervened to have Buhkarin tortured, or any evidence Buhkarin was tortured at all.

al-Ibadani

3rd August 2007, 04:48

Stalin the man was nothing special. He represented the counterrevolution from within that took place in Russia. He was the embodiment of the new ruling class, and he was particularly ruthless because his task was to prepare the state for a new imperialist world war.

Cheung Mo

3rd August 2007, 05:10

Stalin is the ideological forefather of the people and political organisations in Venezuela that claim to be leftist while doing everything they can to subvert the revolution on behalf of the bourgeoisie.

The Author

3rd August 2007, 05:18

Originally posted by [email protected] August 01, 2007, 11:01 pm
stalin is a dick, just ignore the stalinist apologists

Fair enough, in future perhaps the "stalinist apologists" [sic] will ignore you.

And the countless scores of other threads asking about the role of Stalin in history on these forums.

Since it always comes down to the same questions, the same talk, the same arguments we've heard for ages.

And since you seem to already "know it all," why even bother asking?

ComradeR

3rd August 2007, 09:05

Stalin did do some progressive things in Russia but he failed miserably in furthering socialism at home or abroad (it is not enough to just create a social welfare state and industrialize the nation), he sabotaged the revolutions in Spain and Greece just to placate the capitalist powers, and he ultimately set everything up so that the capitalists had everything they needed in order to take control of the SU.
I have a question for those who support Stalin, if he was truly a "Leninist" then why was it that he had parts of Lenin's writings censored?

The Author

3rd August 2007, 13:45

Prove which of Lenin's writings were supposedly censored by Stalin.

The "Testament" doesn't count, it was never censored because it was not meant to be published to the general public on Lenin's specific request. It was published for the public as a political maneuver by the Khrushchevites.

bezdomni

3rd August 2007, 16:04

stalin is a dick, just ignore the stalinist apologists

Mindless dogmatism - Always a compelling argument!

f you are denying the fact that their was anarchist movement in Spain that were later crushed by the Stalinists I suggest you read a history book on the Spanish civil war

I wasn't denying that there was a large anarchist faction in the Guerra Civil, I was saying that Spain wasn't "anarchist". How can a country be anarchist anyway? That makes no sense - it was governed by a multi-tendency constituent assembly, largely consisting of Trotskyists and (gasp) "Stalinists" along with anarchists and anti-fascist liberals.

How on Earth was the anti-fascist movement in Spain "crushed" by the Stalinists?

And why won't you answer the other questions I raised pointing out the inconsistency of anarchism and blaming Stalin for the defeat of the Spanish Republic?

He represented the counterrevolution from within that took place in Russia. He was the embodiment of the new ruling class, and he was particularly ruthless because his task was to prepare the state for a new imperialist world war.

I would agree that Stalin was the embodiment of a new ruling class - the proletariat!

Unless you think elected officials and party members in the CPSU constitute their own class? In which case...you're horribly horribly mistaken.

Wanted Man

3rd August 2007, 16:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:02 am
Stalin was a fool. He didn't know The Netherlands and Holland were the same country and no one in his inner circle was brave enough to set him straight.
I would also like to see proof of this. It seems like crap to me. It might stem from the fact that the party here went through a bit of confusion regarding the name, where it was called "Communist Party of the Netherlands", while in the Comintern it was regularly called "Communist Party of Holland". But this was in the time of Lenin, as well as the power struggle after his death, and it was mostly caused by the many splits and expulsions that were going on in the party at the time.

Of course, Netherlands/Holland is a common misconception.

Panda Tse Tung

3rd August 2007, 17:02

I've actually heard people say the Netherlands is the capital of Amsterdam, so it's not the worst I've ever heard...

bloody_capitalist_sham

3rd August 2007, 17:46

I would agree that Stalin was the embodiment of a new ruling class - the proletariat!

Unless you think elected officials and party members in the CPSU constitute their own class? In which case...you're horribly horribly mistaken.

Not really, since the party maximum was dropped, special shops opened. Whole new towns were built just for the bureaucracy to live in.

Almost no one actually believes officials were elected during the Stalin era.

alibadani probably meant a ruling caste.

Stalin introduced five year plans, with no consultation from the working class. the rate of exploitation went up massively for the working class AND their living standards dropped.

The quality of products was very low and corruption was increasingly high.

So, how could Stalin represent the working class when he had killed or exiled most of the Bolsheviks who carried out the revolution?

Random Precision

3rd August 2007, 22:43

From an RCP member who I talked with once. I apoligize for the error,

Karl Marx's Camel

3rd August 2007, 22:55

Spain was never "anarchist" and the Soviet Union was one of the major anti-fascist forces during the Guerra Civil.

The USSR crushed the local commitees, the backbone of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The USSR under Stalin also robbed the Republican zone for the only noteworthy resource they had: gold.

The Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership was a socialist state

Prove it?

Niemand

4th August 2007, 00:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:43 pm
From an RCP member who I talked with once. I apoligize for the error,
I live in Cleveland and the RCP is practically non-existent.

But, to get back on to the failure of the Soviet experience. It is of my opinion that the workers' state died after the Kronstadt sailors were betrayed by the Bolsheviks who were drunk on power.

Panda Tse Tung

4th August 2007, 02:07

But, to get back on to the failure of the Soviet experience. It is of my opinion that the workers' state died after the Kronstadt sailors were betrayed by the Bolsheviks who were drunk on power.

Ohw, just some random questions popping up in my head;
why,
how,
what?

bezdomni

4th August 2007, 04:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:43 pm
From an RCP member who I talked with once. I apoligize for the error,
If he was, in fact, a party member...he wouldn't have said so.

A party supporter, perhaps; but RCP membership is generally kept secret (although obviously you can assume that like Bob Avakian and Raymond Lotta and Sunsara Taylor are RCP members...).

bezdomni

4th August 2007, 04:06

Originally posted by Niemand+August 03, 2007 11:49 pm--> (Niemand @ August 03, 2007 11:49 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 09:43 pm
From an RCP member who I talked with once. I apoligize for the error,
I live in Cleveland and the RCP is practically non-existent.

But, to get back on to the failure of the Soviet experience. It is of my opinion that the workers' state died after the Kronstadt sailors were betrayed by the Bolsheviks who were drunk on power. [/b]
lol so krondstadt radically changed the class nature of the Soviet State?

The-Spark

4th August 2007, 05:41

Well this is a touchy subject. Ive read in this book "creators of the red revolution" that Lenin, in his final days, have specifically asked not to let Stalin gain power. But Stalin gained power and built a statue of Lenin, even though Lenin totally opposed idolism.

Is there any evidence that Stalin wasnt insanely paranoid?

That and just because the man may not have his geography straight in some areas does not make him an idiot. If you knew every capital, city, town and country in this world, well, i think you spend to much time looking at a globe.

ComradeR

4th August 2007, 08:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:45 pm
Prove which of Lenin's writings were supposedly censored by Stalin.

The "Testament" doesn't count, it was never censored because it was not meant to be published to the general public on Lenin's specific request. It was published for the public as a political maneuver by the Khrushchevites.
I wasn't talking about the testament, and i didn't say he censored Lenin's writings completely just part's of them, little bits and pieces here and there that showed that Lenin made any mistakes or contradicted what Stalin and the CC were doing. Just take a look at the publications of Lenin's writings that were printed in the SU during Stalin's time and those published during Lenin's time.

Stalin was a fool. He didn't know The Netherlands and Holland were the same country and no one in his inner circle was brave enough to set him straight.
This matters because?

stalin is a dick, just ignore the stalinist apologists
Look Stalin wasn't the devil incarnate, we just need to actually look at what he did both good and bad and learn from it, same with every other revolutionary leader and organisation. Some do more then others to advance socialism, and some fail miserably. In Stalin's case he did do some progressive things but ultimately failed to further socialism and even sabotaged it (like in Greece). His major failing was that he was a nationalist and a bureaucrat first, and a communist and internationalist second.

gilhyle

4th August 2007, 13:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:40 am

Since you choose to believe his wife, presumably you also accept her other testimony that Ordzhonikidze had just had a huge row with Stalin on the phone,

That isn't her testimony. He allegedly had a fight with Stalin the day before, and was in bed all day.

Stalin then sent over a messenger who insisted on meeting Ordzhonikidze in person and then a shot rang out and when Stalin arrived he told her "Not a single word to anyone about the details of Sergo's death. Nothing except the official announcement, for you know me."

Your point?

BTW, my point about Stalin proposing to send Bukharin to the NKVD may not have been clear - BUkharin defended himself, the CC wanted to send him for trial and Stalin had to intervene personally to prevent Bukharin being sent for trial and to have him tortured instead. Once he had intervened the rest fell in line.

You have no evidence Stalin intervened to have Buhkarin tortured, or any evidence Buhkarin was tortured at all.
The evidence of Stalin's personal intervention at the plenum is in the minutes of the plenum of the CC which quotes Stalin proposing "Not to send them to trial but to send them to the NKVD" The transcsript is available in Voprosy istorii . For this quote see Issue No. 2 (1993).

No, Ordzhonikidze had an argument with him that morning according to Ordzhonikidze's wife as she recounted the events to Ginzburg, head of the Construction Industry Section within the People's Commissariat of Heavy Industry - see Voprosy istorii KPSS No 3 (1991) pp92-93.

The point is that you claim to believe the official version of events. You believe with a purely political incredulity. Yet when it comes to Orzhonikidze's death you dont believe the official version......your position is not consistent.

For a reasonable account of Bukharin's fate look up the preface to Bukharin's novel 'How It All Began' New York Columbia University Press, 1998, by Stephen Cohen. As to direct evidence for Bukharin's torture, dont be silly. What kind of evidence do you want - blood still on the wall seventy years later that we can do DNA tests on ?? A confession from Kogon, his interrogator. No. These things must be deduced the way all such historical matters are deduced. There is wide-ranging testimony in many sources that persons held in NKVD custody in the 1930s were subject to torture. In Bukharin's case he repeatedly insisted that he had not engaged in any counter-revolutionary activity...he said this again and again in public and private and said he would not lie about the matter and then, in court, he comes up with the following idiotic nonsense as a supposed 'confession':

"I plead guilty to... the sum total of crimes committed by this counter-revolutionary organization, irrespective of whether or not I knew of, whther on not I took a direct part in, any particular act."

The most reasonable interpretations of this volte face is torture and/or a deal to save the life of his wife - incidentally, a stupid deal if he did it.

Panda Tse Tung

4th August 2007, 14:04

I'd just like to add something about the whole torture thing:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/.../1939/01/10.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/01/10.htm)

Thats all i wished to add.

Ohw yes, and since i still have the responsibility of adding the information i should have provided on both the Dewey-Commission as well as the case of Bukharin i will now start with the Dewey-commission (Tomorrow I'll do Bukharin):

(Note: that this is a translation from the Dutch language, which in it's turn is a translation from the English language.)

There we're 2 individuals who stepped out of the Dewey-commission, they provided the following reasons (also note these are excerpts):

Originally posted by Mauritz Hallgren+--> (Mauritz Hallgren)
I am ... convinced, and should be that under given circumstances, that the American Committee for the defense of Leon Trotsky, (dunno the translation/DTT), has turned into an instrument of Trotskyists, who want to promote a political intervention in the Soviet Union ... That is why i request you, to scrap me as a member of this Committee.[/b]

Carleton Beals
... The quiet worship by other commission-members towards mister Trotsky during the interrogations have made any honest research impossible ... The first day i was already told that my questions we're inappropriate. The eventual cross-examination was shaped in a pre-formed bag which prevented any process towards the truth. I was taken (DTT but it vaguely means something like 'being attacked'), because i wanted to examine Trotsky's archives. The cross-examination thus existed out of giving Trotsky the opportunity to spread his well-spoken propagandistic accusations and allegations, while there was rarely an attempt to actually check up on the made allegations ... The commission is free to confuse the public with their false state of affairs, but i don't want my name to be connected with any furthering of this childish game that is being played

Intelligitimate

4th August 2007, 15:42

The evidence of Stalin's personal intervention at the plenum is in the minutes of the plenum of the CC which quotes Stalin proposing "Not to send them to trial but to send them to the NKVD" The transcsript is available in Voprosy istorii . For this quote see Issue No. 2 (1993).

I believe I am looking at the document now (found in Getty's The Road to Terror, pages 409-413). Nothing about the document in anyway suggests torture. Hell, Buhkarin and was sitting right there when this was read out. In fact, in the original version of the document, it seems Stalin simply requested exile. The request to send the case to the NKVD (which in no way suggests torture), was only added to this document later (ibid, document 143). This would make the third time Stalin personally intervened to avoid condemning Buhkarin. In fact, only Stalin was suggesting leniency at this time; six spoke for executing him and Rykov.

No, Ordzhonikidze had an argument with him that morning according to Ordzhonikidze's wife as she recounted the events to Ginzburg, head of the Construction Industry Section within the People's Commissariat of Heavy Industry - see Voprosy istorii KPSS No 3 (1991) pp92-93..

I am unable to locate my copy of Medvedev at this time for the direct source, but Ian Grey cites Medvedev as reporting the conversation happened the day before. He meet with Stalin, had an angry conversation, returned to his office until 2 AM, and then went to bed. He refused to get out of bed, and then his wife heard the shot at 5:30 PM.

Voprosy istorii is a Russian journal, and unless you can read Russian and translate, you should either be citing English journals or books. Even for those that can read Russian, getting access to this journal wouldn't be easy in the US.

The point is that you claim to believe the official version of events. You believe with a purely political incredulity. Yet when it comes to Orzhonikidze's death you dont believe the official version......your position is not consistent.

I don't believe things on faith. There is no proof Buhkarin was tortured, that is just an article of faith that those who believe the anti-communist Cold War version of history have to accept. I mean, there is no possible way they could have confessed to these things, so they just assume, a priori, they were tortured.

For a reasonable account of Bukharin's fate look up the preface to Bukharin's novel 'How It All Began' New York Columbia University Press, 1998, by Stephen Cohen. As to direct evidence for Bukharin's torture, dont be silly. What kind of evidence do you want - blood still on the wall seventy years later that we can do DNA tests on ?? A confession from Kogon, his interrogator. No. These things must be deduced the way all such historical matters are deduced. There is wide-ranging testimony in many sources that persons held in NKVD custody in the 1930s were subject to torture. In Bukharin's case he repeatedly insisted that he had not engaged in any counter-revolutionary activity...he said this again and again in public and private and said he would not lie about the matter and then, in court, he comes up with the following idiotic nonsense as a supposed 'confession':

"I plead guilty to... the sum total of crimes committed by this counter-revolutionary organization, irrespective of whether or not I knew of, whther on not I took a direct part in, any particular act."

The most reasonable interpretations of this volte face is torture and/or a deal to save the life of his wife - incidentally, a stupid deal if he did it.

And so we see, your evidence is just more assumptions. No actual evidence of anything. You even make up threats to his family without the slightest shred of evidence.

As Molotov commented years later in his memoirs, he believed they confessed to certain things that weren't true to try and discredit the whole preceding. But there is no question of the fact Buhkarin knew of the Riutin Platform and told no one, and his relationship with the Right opposition, and all the Rightists who implicated Buhkarin. If you have read the minutes of the various meetings where Buhkarin discusses this openly in front of the party, you no doubt know his protests were considered bullshit by everyone. Stalin would ask him direct questions about why all these people implicated him, and all Buhkarin could do was call them “scoundrels” and whatnot. His evasions are unconvincing, except if you have a commitment to the Cold War version of history.

Karl Marx's Camel

4th August 2007, 16:16

Stalin was a traitor and a great catastrophe to the workers movement. Moreover, he illustrated the failure of leninism, how it can so easily become corrupted.

Panda Tse Tung

4th August 2007, 16:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:16 pm
Stalin was a traitor and a great catastrophe to the workers movement. Moreover, he illustrated the failure of leninism, how it can so easily become corrupted.
Yesterday i learned of the concept called 'Drive by-arguments'. This is a great example.
For someone who has more then 2000 posts on his name this is quite disappointing (or an explanation on why you have so many posts on your name).

Intelligitimate

4th August 2007, 16:54

Random Precision

4th August 2007, 21:21

CornetJoyce

4th August 2007, 21:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 08:21 pm
Mauritz Hallgren was a liberal editor of the Baltimore Sun who had seen the show trials as valid even before he joined the committee, insisting that the defendants knowing their fate and inability to make a deal must mean the the confessions were true. His statement here and other twisted reasoning to validate the trials shows nothing more than his own gullibility, his quotation by Stalinists shows how desperate they were to show they had "objectivity" on their side.

As for Beals, he was a GPU plant who resigned from the commission only after he entered into a provocative line of questioning designed to jeapordize Trotsky's asylum in Mexico, which was rightfully challenged. In any case, he had only become part of the commission to replace better-known figures who were unable to make it because of last-minute conflicts.
Beals was well known, so who were the better known people he replaced?

The Author

5th August 2007, 03:50

Originally posted by [email protected] August 04, 2007, 03:03 am
I wasn't talking about the testament, and i didn't say he censored Lenin's writings completely just part's of them, little bits and pieces here and there that showed that Lenin made any mistakes or contradicted what Stalin and the CC were doing. Just take a look at the publications of Lenin's writings that were printed in the SU during Stalin's time and those published during Lenin's time.

I'm interested to know which titles, which writings specifically?

Like "What is to Be Done?" "State and Revolution?" Which works were edited for supposed contradictions?

al-Ibadani

5th August 2007, 04:52

I would agree that Stalin was the embodiment of a new ruling class - the proletariat!

Unless you think elected officials and party members in the CPSU constitute their own class? In which case...you're horribly horribly mistaken.

The lie of the century that the proletariat ruled Russia under Stalin. And Yes the bureaucracy constituted the bourgeoisie of Russia

alibadani probably meant a ruling caste.

No I meant what I said. They were a new ruling class, and Stalin was their fuhrer.

gilhyle

5th August 2007, 11:11

The quote from the plenum was to prove that Stalin intervened to prevent a trial and send Bukharin to the NKVD. It proves precisely that. When other members spoke about having him shot, that was merely a shortened way of saying send him to trial, find him guilty and then shoot him (a 'give him a fair trial and then hang him' attitude). What differentiates those people from Stalin is that Stalin was trying to ensure that Bukharin would not go for public trial without having confessed. It is very clear that Stalin did not want him sent to open trial at that time.

It is a separate question as to whether sending him to the NKVD means sending him to be tortured. It is, of course, not impossible that someone could go to the NKVD and not be tortured. Less likely in 1937 than in, for example, 1931, when a senior party member might well have expected not to be tortured. It remains a possibility that Bukharin was not. It is highly unlikely that he was not tortured, given the fate of others in the Lubyanka. The fact is that he was kept there for over a year. The accounts suggest that for three months he held firm but as the pressure was increased he moved more and more to a compromise position.

As to proof. This is not a criminal trial. It is an historical question to be assessed using historiographical standards of evidence rather than criminal standards of proof. It is facile and disingenuous for supporters of the Stalinist line to go around arguing that there was no proof. There is no proof that would stand up in a court of law; there is ample circumstantial evidence which would satisfy a reasonable historian that that is the likely course of events.

As to the Ordzhonikidze arguments with Stalin. There was, actually, an argument each day. The evidence of the messenger on the day of his death reflects the fact that Ordzhonikidze was up and about on the day of his death. Medvedev, assuming you are consulting Let History Judge, had limited access to sources.

I can only smile when you say quote sources, and then when you get original sources referred to ....you prefer secondary sources.

Nothing Human Is Alien

5th August 2007, 12:23

This is really off topic, but since it came up, the ISO is a reformist organization with about 1,000 paper members (i.e. members that signed up at some protest, have a card, but are members only on paper).

Their official line is bad enough (Cliffite 'state capitalism' nonsense, Shachtmanite anti-communism, support for pro-capitalist anti-immigrant Ralph Nader and the capitalist Green Party, etc.), but even that is actually too left for many of its members, who really have no idea what the group is about. For example, in Pittsburgh, the small ISO group based around the campus at PITT had members leave after an official cadre came to talk to the branch about ISO positions.

They have about zero base in the working class, and only a quicksand-footing on some campuses.

None of this is meant to be sectarian, rather, it's just an honest assessment.

Panda Tse Tung

5th August 2007, 15:56

Mauritz Hallgren was a liberal editor of the Baltimore Sun who had seen the show trials as valid even before he joined the committee, insisting that the defendants knowing their fate and inability to make a deal must mean the the confessions were true. His statement here and other twisted reasoning to validate the trials shows nothing more than his own gullibility, his quotation by Stalinists shows how desperate they were to show they had "objectivity" on their side.

Funny, cause first you said the bourgeoisie media never recognized the validity of the trials, and now you give a practical example of someone who did.
The book recognized he was a liberal, and the fact that he and Beals we're not accepted for their 'critical stance' shows what kind of a farce the Dewey-commission was. I mean really, they never looked into any of the evidence provided during the trials...
How can you evaluate a trial without looking at the provided evidence. As Beals thus said, it was all a pre-shaped bag they we're filling.

As for Beals, he was a GPU plant who resigned from the commission only after he entered into a provocative line of questioning designed to jeapordize Trotsky's asylum in Mexico, which was rightfully challenged. In any case, he had only become part of the commission to replace better-known figures who were unable to make it because of last-minute conflicts.

GPU?
Well, if this questioning is too 'confronting' why not fragging answer the questions?
A question cant be too 'jeopardizing'. I don't care why he was in the commission, the fact is he was in it and stepped out of it because other members attacked him on being too critical!
For Marx's sake! Too critical!

Intelligitimate

5th August 2007, 18:18

The quote from the plenum was to prove that Stalin intervened to prevent a trial and send Bukharin to the NKVD. It proves precisely that.

You quoted it as proof that Stalin had Buhkarin tortured. I'm glad we're in agreement that you quote doesn't prove what you said it did.

And in any case, Stalin didn't even suggest that. The minutes of that meeting has him as originally suggesting exile. Only at some later time was the document changed to have Stalin suggesting to send the case to the NKVD. You can literally see where things have been crossed out and wrote in on the minutes.

What differentiates those people from Stalin is that Stalin was trying to ensure that Bukharin would not go for public trial without having confessed.

Complete bullshit, as for one, Stalin never even said to send him to the NKVD, and you're still trying to make the quote say torture, when you already agreed it says no such thing at all. Sending the case to the NKVD does not mean have him tortured. You have zero evidence of Buhkarin was ever tortured in the first place.

It is very clear that Stalin did not want him sent to open trial at that time.

No, what is clear is that Stalin was the only person in the entire room suggesting leniency.

It is a separate question as to whether sending him to the NKVD means sending him to be tortured. It is, of course, not impossible that someone could go to the NKVD and not be tortured. Less likely in 1937 than in, for example, 1931, when a senior party member might well have expected not to be tortured. It remains a possibility that Bukharin was not. It is highly unlikely that he was not tortured, given the fate of others in the Lubyanka.

More bullshit. You go from having absolutely zero evidence of torture to “highly unlikely that he was not tortured” without the slightest shred of evidence. Everyone should be paying close attention, because this is precisely how many Cold War 'scholars' did their work. They just make shit up and expected it to be believed.

As to proof. This is not a criminal trial.

No shit, Sherlock. You haven't presented any evidence at all that could be judged by any standard. You have not presented anything that could be judged on a historical basis. You just assume the paradigm of Cold War scholarship to fill in the gaps for you. The historical paradigm you employ a priori tells you Stalin is an evil monster, and hence in your mind you don't even see a need to justify the idea they were tortured with any evidence. You just assume it to be true, and expect others to make this assumption as well.

There is no proof that would stand up in a court of law; there is ample circumstantial evidence which would satisfy a reasonable historian that that is the likely course of events.

There is actually no evidence that would satisfy a historian not wedded to the anti-communist Cold War paradigm.

I can only smile when you say quote sources, and then when you get original sources referred to ....you prefer secondary sources.

The problem is you quote a source in another language, which I'm fairly confident you can't actually read, and I have absolutely zero reason to trust you are citing your sources in an honest manner. If you can't give an English translation of this source, say in a English journal or book, then you don't need to be citing the source. And I'm fairly confident anyway you are actually getting this reference second-hand yourself from an English source, so your comment undoubtedly makes you a dishonest hypocrit.

Goatse

6th August 2007, 00:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:38 pm
Stalin as a leader was horrible, but I guess we must give him some bones for his war against nazism. But on the other hand, wouldn't Trotsky or another Soviet leader have done the same thing?
Stalin was grossly incompetent whereas Trotsky was an experienced military commander...

gilhyle

6th August 2007, 00:55

You charge me with being dishonest for having quoted a Russian language source....this is a bizarre argument. The point in quoting the Russian Language source is to point out that the transcript has actually been published and can be read. It is in the public domain and available to be read.

Incidentally, in addition to Russian primary sources, I have cited two english language versions of the relevant events for you to examine. You cite Medvedev...but he doesnt support your argument.

You consider it very significant that the transcript has certain matters crossed out and replaced. You seem unaware that the transcript was circulated to participants to correct the record of their intervention.

You seem to be suggesting that Stalin's intervention was falsified by someone else and that contrary to Stalin's wishes the Plenum did not show mercy. Are you really trying to suggest that this transcript, widely circulated in the party, by the party, after the meeting, contained a falsification of Stalin's position. How do you suggest this happened. Where is the evidence of such a plot ? Who is the historian supporting this conspiracy theory

Thus you invent a version of events which a) has no evidential basis, b) is inconsistent with Stalin's overwhelming power in 1937 and c) has no capacity to explain Bukharin's behaviour. You do this from a political perspective which wants to prove Stalins's innocence of manipulative and improper behaviour.

From my point of view, it does not matter to my politics what Bukharin's fate was. I have no regard for Bukharin as a political figure. I have made it clear that I consider him a weak, ineffective bolshevik. I can judge his fate without regard to any political agenda - the details of his fate just have no political significance for me, except as minor illustrations of a view of Stalin for which there is a myriad of other evidence.

Futhermore, I have placed no emphasis on Bukharin being tortured. I mentioned it. You picked on it. It remains likely, but of no great significance for my view. I do contradict the view that Stalin wanted to go easy on Bukharin. That is not supported by the transcript taken in its entirety - have particular regard to the outcome of the meeting and the totality of Stalin's interventions.

Your reference to an early idea of exile is irrelevant. Stalin was a complex individual known for the complexity of his interventions in meetings., always seeking to deflect responsibility from himself to the collectivity. On this occaision he had to intervene to send Bukharin to the NKVD because the meeting would not do it without his intervention. That is clear from how the meeting went. You repeatedly ignore the fact that my reference is a QUOTE of Stalin's motion to send Bukharin to the NKVD and NOT to trial. That is the politically significant point. It illustrates that Stalin wanted a particular result, the one he got : a confession and a public - show - trial.

You suggest that non-cold war historians share your view Quote or at least cite a few. .....If you dont mind, I wont hold my breath.

Finally, you disregard the point I make that it is a legitimate form of historical argumentation to observe

1. Bukharin was determined in Feb 37 to deny that he was involved in counterrevolutionary activity,

2. Bukharin was sent to the Lubyanka,

3. there is wide ranging testimony from people held in the Lubyanka in the 1930s of torture

4. Bukharin subsequently confessed to counterrevolutionary activity

5. Bukharin's confessions are full of bizarrely incoherent statements (such as the one I quoted) which involve denying and admitting simultaneously.

These facts are going to lead any reasonable historian to consider that something very strange happened between the plenum and the trial. The most likely explanation is torture. A second probable explanation is blackmail to save his family. The explanation least likely to explain this combination of facts is an honest intention to confess the truth.

Intelligitimate

6th August 2007, 03:36

You charge me with being dishonest for having quoted a Russian language source....this is a bizarre argument.

It's not bizarre at all, because unless you read Russian, you've never read the source you're quoting, and had to have go it from a different source, which makes you a dishonest hypocrite for trying to say something about the fact that you source can't be checked.

The point in quoting the Russian Language source is to point out that the transcript has actually been published and can be read. It is in the public domain and available to be read.

Then cite an English translation or reveal your real source.

Incidentally, in addition to Russian primary sources, I have cited two english language versions of the relevant events for you to examine.

No you haven't. You cited a Russian journal that you never read, and that's it.

You cite Medvedev...but he doesnt support your argument.

That is what Medvedev says happened, according to Ian Grey. Again, I have misplaced my copy of Medvedev, so I can't locate the exact quotation.

You consider it very significant that the transcript has certain matters crossed out and replaced. You seem unaware that the transcript was circulated to participants to correct the record of their intervention.

You don't know that. Nowhere does Getty or Naumov cite anything about this either in their discussion of the document. You're just making up shit as you go along.

You seem to be suggesting that Stalin's intervention was falsified by someone else and that contrary to Stalin's wishes the Plenum did not show mercy. Are you really trying to suggest that this transcript, widely circulated in the party, by the party, after the meeting, contained a falsification of Stalin's position.

The original minutes has Stalin suggesting leniency, which as Getty points out, is consistent with Stalin's leniency toward Bukharin in the past. And the fact that the minutes were changed doesn't necessarily mean anyone falsified anything. The reason for the change is unknown, despite you trying to pretend otherwise.

How do you suggest this happened. Where is the evidence of such a plot ? Who is the historian supporting this conspiracy theory

More meaningless bullshit.

Thus you invent a version of events which a) has no evidential basis

The evidence is the original transcription of the minutes, you dumb motherfucker.

b) is inconsistent with Stalin's overwhelming power in 1937

You haven't demonstrated this. This is just more Cold War anti-communist assumptions you try to sneak into the discussion.

has no capacity to explain Bukharin's behaviour.

I'm not trying to explain Bukharin's behavior with the minutes if this meeting. You're the one trying to use it as a justification for your belief Bukharin was tortured, when in fact, it shows nothing of the sort.

You do this from a political perspective which wants to prove Stalins's innocence of manipulative and improper behaviour.

More bullshit.

On this occaision he had to intervene to send Bukharin to the NKVD because the meeting would not do it without his intervention. That is clear from how the meeting went. You repeatedly ignore the fact that my reference is a QUOTE of Stalin's motion to send Bukharin to the NKVD and NOT to trial. That is the politically significant point. It illustrates that Stalin wanted a particular result, the one he got : a confession and a public - show – trial.

Except you have no proof Stalin ever said any such thing, and you're twisting even the words you suppose were really said to the breaking point. “Send the case to the NKVD” does not mean have Bukharin tortured. Again, the only thing you can do is employ the Cold War paradigm to fill in the gaps for you, because there is absolutely nothing in the transcripts that suggest any such absurd thing. It's as if you have a ouija board beside you when read this, trying to discover 'hidden' motives of people that can't be detected via any actual reading of the text, because there is no other way you could possibly justify any such notion from the text itself.

You suggest that non-cold war historians share your view Quote or at least cite a few. .....If you dont mind, I wont hold my breath.

The field is extremely anti-communist, and so even those scholars that would come out against this bullshit rarely do. For instance, Getty himself was quoted as saying he believed the people in the Moscow Trials were guilty, but when this was made public and someone called him about it, he denied it and broke off contact with the person who he said it to. In another case, Robert Thurston was basically driven out of the field for not being anti-Stalin enough in his work. This area of history is still highly politically charged, and you simply can't say certain things outright, even though all the implications are laid out in their works. This is mostly seen in the new scholars rejection of the previous generation of scholars, such as the various attacks on Robert Conquest that can be found.

But in any case, you can't provide any evidence Bukharin was tortured to begin with, so it doesn't really matter.

1. Bukharin was determined in Feb 37 to deny that he was involved in counterrevolutionary activity,

Doesn't matter. Prisons are full of people who claim to be innocent. Bukharin admitted to knowing about the Riutin Platform, and told no one. This would be like someone in the Bush administration knowing about an internal government plot to kill him and saying nothing about it. Of course that person would be immediately suspect. It's amazing Bukharin was able to last as long as he did.

2. Bukharin was sent to the Lubyanka,

Doesn't mean anything.

3. there is wide ranging testimony from people held in the Lubyanka in the 1930s of torture

Quote some of it, if you think it is at all relevant. Apparently in between torture and threats to his family, Bukharin had time to write several different books...and then in open court apparently decided that he must not have really cared too much about the threats to his family, as he openly argued with many accusations against him.

These facts are going to lead any reasonable historian to consider that something very strange happened between the plenum and the trial. The most likely explanation is torture.

Torture that didn't apparently hinder writing books, and arguing with the prosecution, and trying to ridicule the whole proceeding. The torture must have not have been very effective at all.

But in any case, we have more than enough circumstantial evidence, outside of the trial, that he was involved in the Rightist conspiracy, which most certainly did exist. Again, Buhkarin knew several of these people and knew their intentions, and never uttered a word. He justified this by saying he thought he could “bring them back to the party” and that he never actually read the contents of the Platform, even though he was in an apartment where the document was being discussed. As Koiser said to Bukharin, “Do you want us to believe now, after all that's happened, do you want us to believe that. . . Bukharin knows nothing?”

gilhyle

6th August 2007, 12:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:36 am

You do this from a political perspective which wants to prove Stalins's innocence of manipulative and improper behaviour.

More bullshit.

You might want to thin about this one...double negatives are dangerous !.

You tell me that I lie when I say that I quoted two english language sources. Well I'll cite them again so you dont have to read back over the thread:

Stephen Cohen Preface, How It All Began, Bukharin, (1998)
V.Z. Rogovin, 1937: Stalin's Year of Terror, (1998)

You tell me I have no proof that Stalin said dont send him to trial, send him to the NKVD. This is in the transcript.....that is the evidence. It is simply not the case that I have no evidence.

You bluster that the transcript contains nothing proposing Bukharin should be tortured. No indeed and Lord Denham did not congradulate the torturers of the Birmingham Six either ..... so presumably they werent tortured either.

You say I twist the meaning of the transcript. Yet its clear. Some members started propsing that Bukharin be sent to jail for ten years. Stalin put a motion, all other motions were withdrawn and Stalin's motion to send them to the NKVD rather than for trial was unanimously approved. Where is the twist ?

You say that I made it up that the transcript was subsequently corrected and then circulated within the party. I would quote a russian language source for this....but you would consider that deception; so I'll quote an English language source:

""According to the procedure of the party at the time, the stenographic transcript of the plenum of the CC was sent to all the republic and area organizations" (Rogovin P.229)

BUt get to the bottom line. Your basic argument is that Bukharin knew the people who were involved in a rightist conspiracy and did nothing about it and therefore deserved his fate. You mention, in particular, his awareness of Riutin. Riutin said that unless Stalin was overthrown, capitalism would inevitably be restored - this was correct. Riutin organised in private because to organise in public inevitably meant exile. Knowledge of this was no crime. Stalin showed his colours by seeking Riutin's execution but he was five years too earlyand he faced the fact that Ordzhonikidze, Kuibyshev and Kirov had no appetitive for this level of oppression. Stalin's year of terror began only when all three of those healthy men had died with various degrees of mystery surrounding their deaths.

Of course, you dont go into the details of the charges at the trial. In particular, the supposed plot against Maxim Gorky - that Bukharin and Trotsky had plotted since the late 1920s to kill Gorky and that they had organised to encourage him to drink too much, to keep his shirt on when it was hot and receive inappropriate medicine in order to be slowly killed over a period of years !

I suggest finally that you need to escape the petit bourgeois moralism that you keep bringing to this issue. Its not a question about whether Stalin was a good or bad man, someone who tortured people or not. You keep on insisting on these moralising simplicities .... and then combining them with desperate injunctions against any opponent that they cant prove this or that. None of this is important.

What is important is the politics. Stalin was in the leadership position in 1937. He eliminated Bukharin as part of a process of restructuring the parrty to create obediance to his own line without debate. It was part of a process of creating a party that would turn out to be incapable, without repeated extra-legal purges and violence, in running a bureaucratically planned economy and thus it was a process which laid the basis for the restoration of capitalism.

It is the elimination of Bukharin and the farcical manner in which it was done that was of significance. My original comments were to deny that Stalin could avoid responsibility for that. He clearly led it. Its schizphrenic on your part to try to get personal credit for Stalin for all the supposed economic achievements of the USSR and suggest that someone his control dd not extend to the political process of purges. If he gets 'credit' for one, he gets the blame for the other.

Herman

6th August 2007, 13:36

I'm glad you have the psychological credentials to diagnose a person you have never met and have obviously not even studied very much with paranoia and use this as the basis for his political mistakes.

Haha... this actually gave me a chuckle.

Really, to say that Stalin was Satan himself is just going too far.

Prove it?

He doesn't have to prove anything. You're the one accusing the Soviet Union of NOT being socialist. The burden of proof is on YOU. 'Innocent until proven guilty'.

Intelligitimate

6th August 2007, 13:52

You might want to thin about this one...double negatives are dangerous !.

You might want to look up what a double negative is.

You tell me that I lie when I say that I quoted two english language sources. Well I'll cite them again so you dont have to read back over the thread:

Stephen Cohen Preface, How It All Began, Bukharin, (1998)
V.Z. Rogovin, 1937: Stalin's Year of Terror, (1998)

You mentioned these works. Nowhere did you actually cite them as a source regarding the suicide of Ordzhonikidze. You still haven't.

You tell me I have no proof that Stalin said dont send him to trial, send him to the NKVD. This is in the transcript.....that is the evidence. It is simply not the case that I have no evidence.

It's not on the original copy of the transcript, and in any case, it doesn't mean anything even close to what you want it to mean.

You say I twist the meaning of the transcript. Yet its clear. Some members started propsing that Bukharin be sent to jail for ten years. Stalin put a motion, all other motions were withdrawn and Stalin's motion to send them to the NKVD rather than for trial was unanimously approved. Where is the twist ?

For one, Stalin didn't suggest that. He suggested exile. And secondly, you're trying to twist the meaning of the text to have it imply Stalin wanted them tortured so they would confess at a public trial, when is suggests absolutely nothing of the sort. Send the case to the NKVD means let them handle it, and stop letting the party continue the questioning of Bukharin and Rykov.

""According to the procedure of the party at the time, the stenographic transcript of the plenum of the CC was sent to all the republic and area organizations" (Rogovin P.229)

Doesn't mean anything. No one knows actually why Stalin's word were changed. I would presume it was probably done just to reflect the decision of the group, which most certainly didn't favor leniency as Stalin originally did.

BUt get to the bottom line. Your basic argument is that Bukharin knew the people who were involved in a rightist conspiracy and did nothing about it and therefore deserved his fate. You mention, in particular, his awareness of Riutin. Riutin said that unless Stalin was overthrown, capitalism would inevitably be restored - this was correct.

So you have a crystal ball and can tell the course of events that never happened? If Stalin was gone, the USSR would be around today? More bullshit.

Riutin organised in private because to organise in public inevitably meant exile. Knowledge of this was no crime. Stalin showed his colours by seeking Riutin's execution but he was five years too earlyand he faced the fact that Ordzhonikidze, Kuibyshev and Kirov had no appetitive for this level of oppression. Stalin's year of terror began only when all three of those healthy men had died with various degrees of mystery surrounding their deaths.

You have no proof Stalin had anything to do with Kirov's murder, no one seriously believes that shit anymore (and it would be quite easy to quote scholars in that regard). Nor do you have any proof Stalin was behind any terror. Others have concluded it was mostly the work of the First Secretaries (people like Khrushchev), since Stalin and his inner circle were actually pushing for democracy and minimizing the danger of Trotskyists and wreckers at the time.

Of course, you dont go into the details of the charges at the trial. In particular, the supposed plot against Maxim Gorky - that Bukharin and Trotsky had plotted since the late 1920s to kill Gorky and that they had organised to encourage him to drink too much, to keep his shirt on when it was hot and receive inappropriate medicine in order to be slowly killed over a period of years !

Doesn't matter, the evidence outside of the trial, that the Bolsheviks knew about, is more than enough.

I suggest finally that you need to escape the petit bourgeois moralism that you keep bringing to this issue.

You're the one that paints Stalin in a cartoonishly evil light. I never said anything about Stalin being good or bad.

What is important is the politics. Stalin was in the leadership position in 1937. He eliminated Bukharin as part of a process of restructuring the parrty to create obediance to his own line without debate.

You haven't demonstrated this.

It is the elimination of Bukharin and the farcical manner in which it was done that was of significance. My original comments were to deny that Stalin could avoid responsibility for that. He clearly led it. Its schizphrenic on your part to try to get personal credit for Stalin for all the supposed economic achievements of the USSR and suggest that someone his control dd not extend to the political process of purges. If he gets 'credit' for one, he gets the blame for the other.

I never said anything about Stalin getting personal credit for economic achievements of the USSR, so this comment is bizarre.

grove street

7th August 2007, 01:18

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 25, 2007 06:54 pm
[
and his own paranoid-slash-psychopathic nature resulted in countless unneeded cruelties and deaths (think of the gulags and the Doctor's Plot).

This is mere speculation (calling him paranoid). The doctors plot is one of the phew things i think was not right. But Stalin was getting old, and he was in a surrounding that was very hostile towards him (and Marxism-Leninism in general) which explains that for the most part.

The Doctors Plot did exist and was successful.

New evidence suggests that Stalin was poisned.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that people aren't after you.

Random Precision

7th August 2007, 03:57

The book recognized he was a liberal, and the fact that he and Beals we're not accepted for their 'critical stance' shows what kind of a farce the Dewey-commission was.

What do you mean by "not accepted"? They both resigned of their own volition. If they were indeed not accepted, it was because they had preconcieved notions of what was the truth, and not for being critical.

I mean really, they never looked into any of the evidence provided during the trials...
How can you evaluate a trial without looking at the provided evidence. As Beals thus said, it was all a pre-shaped bag they we're filling.

Yes they did, I can only advise you to give the transcripts another look.

GPU?
Well, if this questioning is too 'confronting' why not fragging answer the questions?
A question cant be too 'jeopardizing'. I don't care why he was in the commission, the fact is he was in it and stepped out of it because other members attacked him on being too critical!
For Marx's sake! Too critical!

Okay, here's the actual transcript of the event:

Originally posted by Dewey Commission Transcripts+--> (Dewey Commission Transcripts)BEALS: Do you know Mr. Borodin?

TROTSKY: Personally, no.

BEALS: He was in China.

TROTSKY: Maybe I met him one or two times, but I didn’t know he was Borodin. I knew him as a political personality.

BEALS: He came secretly to Mexico toward the end of 1919 or toward the early part of 1920.

TROTSKY: Yes?

BEALS: He founded the first Communist Party in Mexico. He at that time made the statement that he was an emissary of yours.

TROTSKY: Of mine? At that time I was in my military train. I forgot all the world geography except the geography of the front.

BEALS: The reason I ask that is, that at that time he stated there was a controversy along these lines in the Soviet Union.

TROTSKY: May I ask the source of this sensational communication? It is published – no?

BEALS: It is not published.

TROTSKY: I can only give the advice to the Commissioner to say to his informant that he is a liar.

BEALS: Thank you, Mr. Trotsky. Mr. Borodin is the liar.

TROTSKY: Yes; it is very possible.[/b]

I personally do not see what reason that line of questioning could have except for endangering Trotsky's asylum in Mexico by turning the government against him. Trotsky himself saud it best:

Leon Trotsky
In the afternoon session of April 16th – that is, yesterday – Commissioner Beals asked me if I knew Borodin personally. My answer was in the negative. Actually I knew him only through his activity in China. Mr. Beals asked me if I had not sent Borodin in 1919 to Mexico with the mission of fomenting revolution. Completely taken aback by this question, which, so it seems to me, does not have the slightest basis even in the official Stalinist calumny, the verification of which is one of the tasks of the Commission, I, in my turn, asked Mr. Beals from what source his information came, and whether or not it has been published, Mr. Beals replied that it was from Borodin, without mentioning the persons to whom Borodin gave the alleged information. Then I answered that my advice was to tell the informant that he was a liar. It was after that that I understood that the informant was Mr. Borodin himself. This information naturally changes nothing in my answer. Mr. Beals’s informant is a liar. The falsehood which he has utilized has a definite purpose – to compromise my situation in Mexico. I am anxious to repeat in writing with the necessary precision: 1. I have never had personal relations with Borodin. 2. I knew him only through his activities in China; 3. I have attacked him openly as the most harmful man in the Chinese revolution (see my writings on China). I have never concerned myself with questions of Mexican politics, and I have never sent anybody to Mexico. I do not even know if somebody was really sent to Mexico in 1919 and if it was Borodin. At that time I was entirely absorbed in the Civil War.

“Having given great importance to the question and its obvious purpose, which is not to examine the Moscow accusations but to throw upon me through other means new suspicions in the eyes of Mexican public opinion, I immediately ask the Commission to throw light on the source of Commissioner Beals’s information. If he has received this information directly from Borodin, then where and when? If he received this information through a third person, through whom and when? I expect that through an investigation into these questions, which involve Mr. Beals’s personal honor, a new amalgam will be discovered, a new amalgam created with the purpose of preventing me from unmasking the judicial crimes in Moscow.

gilhyle

7th August 2007, 18:21

Im saying nothing about Dewey (else I'd be here all day !) Sticking to Bukharin,lets go over this again, to try to keep a focus on what is important (Sorry about the length).

This thread began with the question 'What do you think about Stalin ?' In the course of his comments Kilroy-was-here observed "He purged the leadership of some of the greatest and keenest minds of communism (Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin), " to which No.2 replied "These we're justifiably purged. Because of their lack of mass-support they eventually had to resort into terrorism and they we're thus justifiably trialled for it." Catbert836 brought up Bukharin as an example of someone who renounced his confession, thus contradicting No.2's apparent suggestion that the terrorism for which they were purged actually happened.

To this, No. 2 replied "There is no evidence besides this one claim of Bukharin towards his wife that the trial was flawed." and he went on "I will assume that this is an authentic document and that it might be true that Bukharin was not guilty, perhaps. Still, if this was the case then this would not prove how the rest would not be guilty and how the trial would be falsified. For someone being trialled by a 'falsified trial' he is overtly positive about it and does not sounds like someone where the confesions we're tortured out of him. Assuming he is not guilty, it is still not Stalins fault he was trialled. For he did not trial him, it was the court that trialled him. This document has thus not provided any evidence that it was either A. a falsified trial B. Stalins direct fault that they died, because of an odd grudge he would hold. In fact Bukharin states that he thinks Stalin thinks he might be guilty, merely showing how much Stalin himself knew about the trials (just what was told to him). To conclude i would like to state that the Soviet Union thus had a seperate judicial and political sector, making it impossible to blaim Stalin on this whole event, nor the party (even if they we're the one to appoint judges, etc...)."

No.2 seems unaware in this post of the 1930s practice of the party having the right of initiative in relation to legal matters concerning senior party members. No matter. His post establishes as a key point in judging Stalin as to whether Stalin was responsible for Bukharin's trial and execution.

At this point Catbert 836 stated that "I do not blame Stalin as such, for he was only a represenatative (admittedly, the most important one) of the beareaucracy that I blame for the Moscow Trials. ".I disagreed, stating "the plenum of the Central Committee sent Bukharin to the NKVD on Stalin's personal motion" to illustrate Stalin's personal role in Bukharin's fate. I also added that "I think the question of the fate of Bukharin is quite irrelevant" and I had earlier made clear in my first intervention that my problem with Stalin was not that he was in anyway immoral, but that his approach did not work. Thus I was not arguing for Bukharin's political importance or arguing on any other grounds than the purely political grounds of how the Russian Revolutin should best have been defended and developed.

The issue was set up as whether Stalin's role in the purges is a significant example of what is wrong with Stalin. My answer was

a) yes, because the purges were part of a process of setting up a party that would be incapable of managing a planned economy in the medium term and

b) Stalin has personal responsibility because he led the purges and

c) this is illustrated by his leading role in the fate of Bukharin.

At this point, Illegitimate entered the debate, arguing "Regarding Buhkarin's last letter, it was published in Getty's The Road to Terror, co-authored with that idiot Naumov (...). In that some work, we also learn that Buhkarin knew about the existence of the Riutin Platform, and told no one...." To which I replied: "Bukharin had long since ceased any oppositional activity by 1936. In truth he was killed cos Stalin could kill him cos Ordzhonikidze was dead. Its as simple as that. Stalin started the process within weeks of Ordzhonikidze's "suicide"." To which Illegitimate replied "Buhkarin was the ideological founder of the Rightist deviation and had extensive contact with these people, even admitting to not uttering a word about the Riutin platform and those who supported it. I see no reason to a priori assume he was not actually involved in this conspiracy, which most certainly did exist. "

Manic Expression observed: "The Bolsheviks who made the revolution were done away with because they opposed the bureaucracy that Stalin came to represent." balancing Grand Monster Mao's useful earlier comment on Bukharin that "He was a fucking capitalist traitor! He was a revisionist fuck, much like Deng Xioping of China. A motherfucker who didn't even try to cover the fact that he wanted a state capitalist economy and that he was trying to undermine Democratic Centralism" No.2 responded to Manic Expression as follows: "Now the biggest excesses in the Soviet-Union didn't even occur because of the bloated 'bureaucracy', no they occurred because the cadres we're too enthusiastic. An example of this here:http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/DS30.htmlI'll be more concrete: the great purges in general we're aimed at the bureaucracy, and a whole set of measures for democratization we're taken before that. See, here: http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html"

This suggested an alternative interpretation - not only that Stalin was not personally responsible but that excessive enthusiasm by 'cadres' busy fighting bureaucracy caused Bukharin's trial and execution.

I then argued: "CC wanted to send him for trial and Stalin had to intervene personally to prevent Bukharin being sent for trial and to have him tortured instead. Once he had intervened the rest fell in line." My point was that Stalin had to intervene to prevent Bukharin being sent to trial without a confession. For Illegitimate what was important in this sentence was the reference to torture. Thus he replied: "You have no evidence Stalin intervened to have Buhkarin tortured, or any evidence Buhkarin was tortured at all."

This reference to torture was beside the main point of the claim. The point was that Stalin was directly involved in determining Bukharin's fate and, in particular, the avoidance of a trial until there was a confession. Of course if one took this whole issue from a petit bourgeois moralistic perspective, it would be the charge of torture that would be significant. But from a political perspective, what was significant was Stalin's requirement to have a show trial, rather than a real trial. The torture question - although I still consider it likely that Bukharin was tortured - is beside the point.

On the torture question, No.2 usefully put up a link to Stalin's 1939 document approving the use of torture in certain circumstances, pointing out "The VKP CC affirms that the use of physical pressure in the work of the NKVD has been permitted since 1937 in accordance with a resolution of the VKP CC" Stalin's document doesnt contain the reference, but I believe it is to the CC resolution of 29th July, 1937, as Bukharin's interrogation was heating up. I did not pursue this, or the contrast with the 1934 Politburo intervention against the use of such 'physical pressure' or the evidence in the Tukachevski case... because it was besides the key point I wanted to focus on, the political point that Stalin intervened to avoid a premature trial, thus illustrating his personal supervision of the matter.

[Also beside the point btw, is the question of whether Ordzhonikidze committed suicide or whether Kirov's murderer acted alone. The point in relation to them is that Kirov, Ordzhonikidze and Kuibyshev may have stood in the way of mass purges of the party and when they were gone such purges became practical BECAUSE then Stalin had virtually absolute personal power. That is the point - Stalin's personal role.Thus, I disagree with Catbert 486 and Manic Expression. I dont see Stalin as a representative of the bureaucracy, but as leader of a small, bonapartist, sub-consciously revolutionary clique within the party which believed certain key ideas about what the USSR needed to do to survive and how to deal with what they saw as ultra-lefts and bureacrats. This is important for explaining the differences to which Getty, Zhukov and Grover Furr have pointed -see No.2 's link : http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html - without falling into their conclusion]

The point of the debate is that there is a picture out there that Stalin was somehow helpless in the face of cadre enthusiasm to attack bureacrats and rightist deviationists or that the purges were the work of the bureaucracy. Far from it. The evidence of the CC plenum is that he was directly involved. The standing of the evidence from the CC plenum transcript is therefore critical.

Illegitimate makes, I think, two arguments:

- the transcript was subsequently adjusted, thus it cant be relied on to indicate Stalin's personal role, and

- in the transcript, Stalin had advocated exile.

On the second point, I cant find where Stalin advocated exile, but I haven't denied it. Illegitimate seems to suggest Getty has a reference, but I dont have Getty and Illegitimate thinks citing original language sources is dishonest...so we cant resolve that. I have argued that it is not relevant as Stalin said many things over the days of the meeting (intervening over 100 times). What should count is his final considered view - namely the resolution he proposed and which was adopted by the meeting.

On the first point, I have also argued:

- it was perfectly normal procedure for transcripts to be edited afterwards by those involved.

- it is unthinkable that the amended transcript resolution would not reflect Stalin's intentions as it was widely circulated within the party at the time as his resolution (as part of the process of stirring up the anti-rightist purge in the party) - people were shot for a lot less than misrepresenting what Stalin's actions.

I will now add the following reference just to illustrate the reasonableness of the interpretation I give: in their 2002 book Stalin’s Loyal Executioner: People’s Commissar Nikolai Ezhov 1895–1940, Nikita Petrov and Marc Jansen summarise the events at the CC Plenum:" Ezhov demanded that he [Bukharin -GH] and Rykov be expelled from the Party, tried, and condemned to death. Some of the participants thought the death penalty was too severe, and at Stalin’s suggestion the Central Committee decided first to refer the matter to the NKVD. Bukharin and Rykov were arrested on the site. (References: ‘‘Materialy,’’ Voprosy istorii 1992, no. 4–5: 3–16; 1993, no. 2: 24–33; no. 7: 23–24; Reabilitatsiia, pp. 252, 255–57; ‘‘Konets kar’ery,’’ Istoricheskii arkhiv 1992, no. 1: 121–31, esp. p. 124; Larina, Nezabyvaemoe, p. 360; R. Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment (London,1990), p. 174.)

The relevant text can be found at this link : http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817929029_53.pdf

I find Illegitimate's claims hard to understand at this point. I note that he says this "No one knows actually why Stalin's word were changed. I would presume it was probably done just to reflect the decision of the group, which most certainly didn't favor leniency as Stalin originally did." I note that this claims a) that Stalin 'originally' favoured exile and b) that the meeting ultimately made a different decision. But since the ultimate decision of the meeting was to approve a resolution made by Stalin, this paragraph is very hard to understand. Is he saying that, contrary to the transcript someone else proposed the motion finally accepted ? There is absolutely no evidence AT ALL for such a claim. It just has to be discounted.

There is one interpretation of Illegitimate's arguments that might have some force to show that Stalin preferred exile (btw there is evidence from late 1936 that it was Ezhov who preferred exile, but thats the mad world of 1937 USSR - little was what it seemed). Illegitimate may be suggesting (and may be following Getty in this) that Stalin's final resolution actually proposed and got the meeting's agreement to exile. This would mean that after the meeting someone....someone else ?.....overruled the explicit decision of the CC and over-ruled Stalin and sent Bukharin to the NKVD against Stalin's wishes. Illegitimate writes as follows: "The minutes of that meeting has him as originally suggesting exile. Only at some later time was the document changed to have Stalin suggesting to send the case to the NKVD. You can literally see where things have been crossed out and wrote in on the minutes." This would be amazing given Stalin's almost complete power after Ordzhonikidze's 'suicide'. But since I dont have Getty, I cant say any more on this except this:

- lets say Stalin changed the transcript - that means Stalin could override an explicit decision of the CC in private afterwards....I'm not sure even Stalin had that power in 1937...but if he did it illustrates my argument that he was personally responsible for the purge of Bukharin.

- lets say someone else changed it - Who ? Who had the power to over-ride Stalin in 1937. If such a person existed, its him/her we should be discussing. Was Lenin still secretly alive ?

[The double negative arises if you deny that you denied that Stalin did anything improper. That kind of double negative could get you shot in '37 !!]

Intelligitimate

8th August 2007, 04:08

The point was that Stalin was directly involved in determining Bukharin's fate and, in particular, the avoidance of a trial until there was a confession...what was significant was Stalin's requirement to have a show trial, rather than a real trial.

The document you cite simply does not support this. “Send the case to the NKVD” does not mean have him tortured until he will confess at a public trial, which I have pointed out over and over again. The text does not suggest anything of the sort.

Also beside the point btw, is the question of whether Ordzhonikidze committed suicide or whether Kirov's murderer acted alone. The point in relation to them is that Kirov, Ordzhonikidze and Kuibyshev may have stood in the way of mass purges of the party and when they were gone such purges became practical BECAUSE then Stalin had virtually absolute personal power.

You can not show they were either the plan of Stalin, or that Stalin had “virtually absolute power,” nor can you show these men actually stood in the way of anything. Especially with Kirov; there is no evidence he was anything but a hard-line supporter of Stalin.

The point of the debate is that there is a picture out there that Stalin was somehow helpless in the face of cadre enthusiasm to attack bureacrats and rightist deviationists or that the purges were the work of the bureaucracy. Far from it. The evidence of the CC plenum is that he was directly involved. The standing of the evidence from the CC plenum transcript is therefore critical.

The plenum however, fails to suggest anything of the sort.

On the second point, I cant find where Stalin advocated exile, but I haven't denied it. Illegitimate seems to suggest Getty has a reference, but I dont have Getty and Illegitimate thinks citing original language sources is dishonest...

In the reference I provided, there is actually a photocopy of the document. You can literally see the document, and you can see where the minutes of the meeting had been altered. Stalin is originally recorded as suggesting exile.

On the first point, I have also argued:

- it was perfectly normal procedure for transcripts to be edited afterwards by those involved.

- it is unthinkable that the amended transcript resolution would not reflect Stalin's intentions

I never said that it didn't. What I suggested was that Stalin undoubtedly went along with the rest of the people present, and then the minutes were changed to reflect that.

I find Illegitimate's claims hard to understand at this point. I note that he says this "No one knows actually why Stalin's word were changed. I would presume it was probably done just to reflect the decision of the group, which most certainly didn't favor leniency as Stalin originally did." I note that this claims a) that Stalin 'originally' favoured exile and b) that the meeting ultimately made a different decision. But since the ultimate decision of the meeting was to approve a resolution made by Stalin, this paragraph is very hard to understand. Is he saying that, contrary to the transcript someone else proposed the motion finally accepted ? There is absolutely no evidence AT ALL for such a claim. It just has to be discounted.

1.The resolution was not made by Stalin. In fact, in the original minutes, Yezhov is the one who presents the proposal.
2.The final decision does not say that everyone accepted Stalin's proposal, but that the decision is to send the case to the NKVD.

There is one interpretation of Illegitimate's arguments that might have some force to show that Stalin preferred exile (btw there is evidence from late 1936 that it was Ezhov who preferred exile, but thats the mad world of 1937 USSR - little was what it seemed).

And back then, Stalin is the one who had Bukharin exonerated of all charges, and then later had left the charges against Bukharin undecided. There is a consistent pattern of leniency on Stalin's part toward Bukharin that in no way agrees with the idea Stalin was simply trying to get rid of Bukharin. It he wanted to get rid of Bukharin, his previous decisions make no sense. Even his actions afterward make no sense. Stalin personally intervened to make sure his wife wasn't evicted from their Kremlin apartment.

Illegitimate may be suggesting (and may be following Getty in this) that Stalin's final resolution actually proposed and got the meeting's agreement to exile. This would mean that after the meeting someone....someone else ?.....overruled the explicit decision of the CC and over-ruled Stalin and sent Bukharin to the NKVD against Stalin's wishes. Illegitimate writes as follows:

No, I am not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that Stalin's original proposal was for exile, which is what is reflected in the minutes, and then they came to the decision to send the case to the NKVD, and Stalin's proposal was then changed to reflect this group decision.

gilhyle

8th August 2007, 21:13

Ezhov proposed that Bukharin be sent for trial and withdrew his proposal when Stalin's wasmade. While I dont have Getty I looked up a book today that, once again, recounted that Stalin proposed to send Bukharin to the NKVD rather than to trial.........and cited Getty and Naumov as the source !! Quote me Getty's account supporting your interpretation.

Intelligitimate

9th August 2007, 03:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:13 pm
Ezhov proposed that Bukharin be sent for trial and withdrew his proposal when Stalin's wasmade. While I dont have Getty I looked up a book today that, once again, recounted that Stalin proposed to send Bukharin to the NKVD rather than to trial.........and cited Getty and Naumov as the source !! Quote me Getty's account supporting your interpretation.
Yezhov's proposal was not to send the case to the NKVD, nor was it withdrawn. Yezhov's proposal was "to expel Bukharin and Rykov as candidate members of the Central Committee and members of the VKP(b) and to transfer them to the military tribunal with application of the highest measure of punishment--shooting."

The document literally has a date (27 February 1937), then a list of people present, then it lists what the discussion is about, then it lists Yezhov's proposal, then it says "suggestions of the members of the commission" (this part is crossed out), then it lists the suggestions, then it lists the decision.

Again, the document does not support the interpretation you are trying to force on it. Send them to the NKVD simply in no way means "don't have a trial until they are tortured and confess at a public trial". There is simply no way at all to make the text suggest any such thing. You have to interpret the text wearing the goggles of the Cold War paradigm to even begin to come to such a ridiculous idea.

manic expression

9th August 2007, 14:42

No.2

Wow, that was the most Trotskyite comment I've seen on here this far (even from Trotskyite's). As if things are that easy... *sigh* i wish...
Nothing is clear in life, not even the most clearest of all things are clear.

Things are clear enough if you analyze them properly. We should all strive to be scientific in our outlook.

See, here your going wrong already. Stalin did a lot of things to struggle against bureaucracy and capitalist-roaders. Wow, things start getting more vague then they we're before doesn't it?

The nomenklatura flourished under Stalin's polices, your point is nonsensical. If Stalin did so much to "struggle against bureaucracy", why did the nomenklatura even exist? Had steps been taken against the bureaucracy, its existence would have been unthinkable. In reality, however, Stalin and the nomenklatura enjoyed mutual patronage.

I'll be more concrete: the great purges in general we're aimed at the bureaucracy, and a whole set of measures for democratization we're taken before that.

The purges were aimed at many parts of the Soviet system, of course. However, the fact is that while the purges may have targeted bureaucrats, the bureaucracy itself and its power was never threatened by this. Stalin never took a single step toward the elimination of the bureaucracy, and this is due to the fact that his power was derived from this caste and the mutually beneficial relationship they shared.

Read threads before you 'decide' to add hollow information.

So it's unreasonable for me to put forth my opinions? Please address my points: Stalin eliminated the Bolsheviks who threatened the bureaucracy and his position; their innumerable contributions to the revolution matter not, they were against the nomenklatura and its figurehead, and were therefore targeted by Stalin and his clique.

Wow, thanks for providing that information. It was so detailed and seems like a real Marxist analyses to me.

Do yourself a favor and read the biographies of the major Bolsheviks. By 1940, almost all of them who didn't die from natural causes had been executed by Stalin and his bureaucratic power-base. After reading what actually happened, try to make a real Marxist analySIS on the subject.

Oh, and by the way, perhaps you could tell me how your response is in any way insightful and not an attempt to deflect attention from the issue.

Do you Trotskyites just learn some standard babblings, just in case you walk into a 'Stalinist'. Cause besides all this empty and non-analytical information you don't seem to add much to the discussion...
If you read well you can see that all the points your 'bringing up', are already brought up! And are currently being debated! For God's sake add something to the discussion or just don't participate!

I understand that these points may have been brought up before, but I wanted to present my perspective and debate with those interested. I don't have too much time to use the internet these days, so I didn't read the thread, but then again you don't have to respond to my post.

I'm inclined to agree that i could work together with certain Trotskyites.
I am this specific because i notice that Trotskyites do have a tendency to 'hijack' other organizations and basically ruining them. They also have a tendency to split over every single issue that doesn't seem fit to them (showing a lack of discipline in my opinion). Most also seem to have tendency's of alienating themselves from the masses, but then again other Trotskyists of pretty fine in our international (International Communist Seminar). Such as the Workers World Party, well those are not really Trotskyite anymore for their rejection of the 'degenerated workers state' part. But they do seem to agree with most of Trotsky's analyses concerning the way a revolutionary state should develop
(Of course my criticism towards Trotskyites is not aimed at all of them, if you don't feel like you don't fit into that category, don't respond. Just a 'general tendency' you can see in Trotskyite groups world-wide).

I do work with anti-revisionists who openly support Stalin and/or Mao and I enjoy doing so. On entryism, Trotskyist organizations have used entryism in the past, and even then it was aimed more at non-Leninist socialist organizations IMO. Trotskyist organizations do have a reputation for being sectarian, and while this is not unfounded, it isn't entirely accurate. The pressure put on the fourth international and Trotskyist parties was immense, and many turned inward and split because they were constantly under siege by both capitalist and Stalinist forces. On alienation, if anything, parties who followed the Moscow line alienated themselves from the working class, encouraging Popular Fronts and class collaborationism. However, in my opinion, alienation comes first and foremost from the courses that individual parties take, not solely from their ideology. Maoists could be "alienated" in Germany but the vanguard in Nepal, it's not uniform. At any rate, I don't have any problem working with anti-revisionists in any way and I have a lot of respect for many of them (and I'd call many of them comrades of mine).

To be honest, if my points are redundant then say so, I simply intended to put my perspective into the discussion.

Intelligitimate

9th August 2007, 15:14

The nomenklatura flourished under Stalin's polices

No they didn't. The problem of the nomenklatura only really began after Stalin, and even then is highly exaggerated. Even the most privileged examples lived lives that weren't even comparable to millionaires, let alone the bourgeois elite of the West.

Stalin never took a single step toward the elimination of the bureaucracy, and this is due to the fact that his power was derived from this caste and the mutually beneficial relationship they shared.

This is simply nonsense, as outlined in the Furr article already cited.

Stalin eliminated the Bolsheviks who threatened the bureaucracy and his position; their innumerable contributions to the revolution matter not, they were against the nomenklatura and its figurehead, and were therefore targeted by Stalin and his clique.

More nonsense. Trotsky was far more bureaucratic than any other Bolshevik, and this was said so by Lenin himself.

Do yourself a favor and read the biographies of the major Bolsheviks. By 1940, almost all of them who didn't die from natural causes had been executed by Stalin and his bureaucratic power-base.

This is only true if you have a very limited definition of “major Bolsheviks.” Otherwise, it is not the case at all.

Niemand

9th August 2007, 16:05

Originally posted by SovietPants+August 04, 2007 03:06 am--> (SovietPants @ August 04, 2007 03:06 am)
Originally posted by Niemand+August 03, 2007 11:49 pm--> (Niemand @ August 03, 2007 11:49 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 09:43 pm
From an RCP member who I talked with once. I apoligize for the error,
I live in Cleveland and the RCP is practically non-existent.

But, to get back on to the failure of the Soviet experience. It is of my opinion that the workers' state died after the Kronstadt sailors were betrayed by the Bolsheviks who were drunk on power. [/b]
lol so krondstadt radically changed the class nature of the Soviet State? [/b]
The slaughter of Kronstadt showed the growth of the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union. All the Kronstadters wanted are these fifteen points and any self-respecting communist would support.

Sailors of Kronstadt
1. Immediate new elections to the Soviets. The current Soviets no longer represent the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new election should be by secret ballot and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda.

2. Freedom of speech and of Press for the workers and peasants, and Anarchists, and Left Socialist parties.

3. The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant organisations.

4. The organisation, at the latest on 10th March 1921 of a conference of non-party workers, peasants, soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt, and the Petrograd District.

5. The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasants organisations.

6. The election of a committee to look into the dossier of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.

7. The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces. No political party should have privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or receive State subsidies to this end. In the place of the political sections various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State.

8. The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.

9. The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.

10. The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups. The abolition of Party guards in factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated, taking into account the views of the workers.

11. The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour.

12. We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution.

13. We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.

14. We demand the institution of mobile workers' control groups.

15. We demand that handicraft production be authorised provided it does not utilise wage labour.

After the Bolsheviks crushed the Kronstadt Uprising the Revolution had been betrayed and the resurgence of capitalism had been guaranteed.

gilhyle

9th August 2007, 22:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:56 am
the document does not support the interpretation you are trying to force on it. Send them to the NKVD simply in no way means "don't have a trial until they are tortured and confess at a public trial". There is simply no way at all to make the text suggest any such thing. You have to interpret the text wearing the goggles of the Cold War paradigm to even begin to come to such a ridiculous idea.
I think it does. Firstly, it is worth recalling what being sent to the NKVD meant. Bukharin recorded the understanding of the time in his letter that Anna Larina memorised: "These wonder-working organs can grind any member of the Central Committee, and party member, into the dust......".

Secondly, let me point out that the document you have been talking about all this time was NOT the transcript of the plenum. Rather it was a draft protocol of a meeting of a Commission set up by the CC to consider Bukharin's case The plenum had, on 23rd, set up a Commission to look further into the case and Stalin personally reported back from the Commission to the plenum on the 27th. He reported as follows:

" ....There were differences of opinion as to whether they should be handed over for trial or not, then as to what we should confine ourselves to. Part of the Commission expressed itself in favour of handing them over to a military tribunal and having them executed. Another part of the Commission expressed itself in favour of handing them over for trial and having them receive a sentence of 10 years in prison. A third part expressed itself infavour of having them handed over for trial without a preliminary decision as to what should be their sentence. And finally a fourth part of the Commission expressed itself in favour of not handing them over for trial but instead referring the matter of Bukharin and Rykov to the NKVD. The last named proposal won out......"

Stalin went on to propose a resolution:
"Stalin: (reading) Resolution fo the Plenum of the CC of the VKP(b) regarding the case of Comrades Bukharin and Rykov. On the basis of investigating materials submitted by the NKVD by face to face confrontation....(reading) ...to transfer the case of Bukharin and Rykov to the NKVD."

This was approved by all in favour except two absentions (Bukharin and Rykov).

This document may be found in Getty and Naumov as Document 142, as you previously pointed out, and is also in Alex G. Cummins Documents of Soviet History Vol 7, P. 315.

Could Stalin have proposed exile and have been over-ruled or have agreed to some consensus ? The document you have suggested as supporting this view is NOT the transcript of the plenum, but a draft protocol of the meeting of the Commission. That protocol is quite strange, as amended. Unusually it does not include a motion. Getty discusses this. THe typed text is amended in an unknown hand to turn Ezhov's motion into a suggestion. As amended, it records Stalin and five others as supporting sending B&R to the NKVD. Eight vote for sending him to trial, while the votes of 16 are not recorded. Thus it is not a record - as amended - of what was actually reported by Stalin to the CC, since what he reported was a final consensus for sending him to the NKVD, whereas, as amended, this is a minority view of those who voted. It should also be noted that Stalin's report is consistent with another document from the Commission (Document 141 in Getty and Naummov). Thus Getty's document 143 is - even as amended - is an incorrect record of the outcome of the Commission and one must conclude that it is not the official protocol of the Commission for that reason and is at most a draft protocol of the outcome - even as amended.

Consider now the unedited version of the document. This is even more bizarre. It has Ezhov making a proposal which receives more votes than any other option, but - nevertheless - has the meeting conclude to "transfer them to the NKVD", a proposal not proposed or supported by any member of the Commission. It also has Stalin proposing exile (internal exile). This is simply incoherent.

So what we have (as edited) is a document that is not the final protocol of the meeting and (as unedited) is internally incoherent. Clearly it is not reliable as a record of anything and no conclusions can be drawn from it. Getty and Naumov draw no conclusions at all, except that "like any highly skilled politician his (Stalin's GH) maneuvers, his personnel and political motives remain hidden" (P.419). They say it raises more questions than it answers (P.413).

That is the point that can be drawn from this tantalising hint as to the internal debates within the Commission. Stalin may indeed have supported or pretended to support exile for a variety of reasons, whether the draw out weakness in others, to keep his options open as to the correct fate for Bukharin or to leave the ground open for him to shift blame to Ezhov. We dont know and it is impractical to try to read Stalin's intentions.....rather we should judge him by his actions. His action was that for the only time in his life he made the report from a Commission himself and proposed a motion to the CC to send Bukharin to the NKVD. That is the point - Stalin intervened to determine Bukharin's fate and ensured, in the face of a defiant Bukharin and Rykov, that the result would be neither an immediate trial (where there was no evidence but confessions from Bukharin's former students and Izvestia colleagues) nor a secret execution after a millitary commission.

Could Stalin have been over-ruled at the initiative of Ezhov or someone else ? In the biography of Ezhov quoted earlier, the authors are quite clear that Stalin personally directed all Ezhov's main activities. The Stalin-Kaganovich Correspondence (Yale University Press, 2003) records Stalin directing the Piatakov trial in 1936 in great detail - to the point of personally re-writing the judgement (see for example the telegram of 23 August, 1936). The Kaganovich correspondence is particularly revealing because it is not a matter of Kaganovich and Stalin discussing what should be done. Kaganovich is clear that he is at all times receiving "instructions" from Stalin. Stalin took a similar approach to Bukharin's trial, to the point of personally re-editing the full transcript of the trial before its publication. O.V. Klevniuk who has examined the papers from this period in detail - see Politburo Mekanizmy Politicheskoi vlaste v 1930 - e gg (Moscow ROSSPEN, 1996) - has concluded that Stalin personally directed the show trial and the purges. His conclusion is summarised by Alter Litvin and John Keep in their book "Stalinism: Russian and Western Views at the turn of the Millenium" (Routledge, 2005) as that Stalin: "personally drafted the principal orders for the mass operations, supervised NKVD investigations of arrested suspects and wrote the scenarios for the show trials" (P.59)

Most supporters of Stalin tend to adopt the approach that Stalin led the purges and was correct to do so. They admit the fact that he led the whole affair. If that could ever have been denied, it cant credibly be denied now that the records of his correspondence and instructions is becoming available. Bukharin was clearly paraded in a show trial and shot because Stalin wanted that to happen. You have attempted to draw a conclusion from an incomrehensible edit of a document of uncertain standing from which your source, Getty, refuses to draw such a conclusion. No-one indeed draws the conclusion you draw from the document because it just doesnt work. In ay case, it doesnt override Stalin's actions in proposing a motion to the CC to have Bukharin sent to the NKVD, a unique action on his part, reflecting Bukharin's potential propaganda importance and Stalin's personal direction of his fate.

Manic Expression has drawn the distinction between attacking bureaucrats and attacking the rule of the bureaucracy. This is an important distinction. If we say that this was a workers state, which had been seized by a layer of bureaucrats, we can also say - as a transitional fact - that the highest levels of governmental power rested with a small clique which were deeply suspicious of the bureaucratic layer that occupied the government and willing to use violence against them to impede the restoration of capitalism which bureacratic rule inevitably led to. I have no problem with that conclusion, but it leads inexorably to an attempt to judge Stalin by reference to his revolutionary intentions rather than by his failure to build a stable revolutionary state on a bureaucratic foundation. Stalin would have no sympathy with such a sentimental basis for judging him. The truth is Stalin saw the nomecltura as an unavoidable, controllable feature of an isolated workers state. This judgement was false. He would have judged himself by his results and if he had understood where his policies would lead he would have had himself shot - I give him that much.

Intelligitimate

10th August 2007, 04:40

I think it does. Firstly, it is worth recalling what being sent to the NKVD meant. Bukharin recorded the understanding of the time in his letter that Anna Larina memorised: "These wonder-working organs can grind any member of the Central Committee, and party member, into the dust......".

This is Bukharin's own personal opinion, as reported by his wife, what his experience was like. It is not what being sent to the NKVD means.

Secondly, let me point out that the document you have been talking about all this time was NOT the transcript of the plenum.

It is the only thing recording anything Stalin proposed at that plenum. The report given by Stalin is a report on the decision taken by the commission, and does not contain any of his personal proposals. Only document 143 does that, and the original has Stalin suggesting exile.

Stalin went on to propose a resolution:
"Stalin: (reading) Resolution fo the Plenum of the CC of the VKP(b) regarding the case of Comrades Bukharin and Rykov. On the basis of investigating materials submitted by the NKVD by face to face confrontation....(reading) ...to transfer the case of Bukharin and Rykov to the NKVD."

This is not Stalin proposing anything. This is reporting the decision of the commission. The previous sentences explicitly spell this out:

“As a result, the commission has passed the following resolution. May I read it to you?

Voices: Please go ahead.

Stalin: (reading)...”

I'm not sure at this point whether or not to conclude you are incompetent or dishonest, or both. It seems you are simply incapable of accurately describing anything.

Could Stalin have proposed exile and have been over-ruled or have agreed to some consensus ?

Yes. There is nothing at all strange about this, unless you are trying force the Cold War paradigm on the text (which you most certainly are).

Consider now the unedited version of the document. This is even more bizarre. It has Ezhov making a proposal which receives more votes than any other option, but - nevertheless - has the meeting conclude to "transfer them to the NKVD", a proposal not proposed or supported by any member of the Commission. It also has Stalin proposing exile (internal exile). This is simply incoherent.

There is nothing incoherent about it at all. They came to a different decision via consensus.

Clearly it is not reliable as a record of anything and no conclusions can be drawn from it. Getty and Naumov draw no conclusions at all, except that "like any highly skilled politician his (Stalin's GH) maneuvers, his personnel and political motives remain hidden" (P.419). They say it raises more questions than it answers (P.413).

This is a highly dishonest quotation of what Getty and Naumov write. To quote the text:

“It is the remaining group that is especially intriguing. As the first draft indicates, five members were “for the suggestion of Comrade Stalin.” But what was that suggestion? In the original document, Stalin spoke against the death penalty, a prison sentence, or even a trial, and for the relatively lenient punishment of internal exile. In the final version, Stalin's modified “suggestion” had become the final decision not to sent them to trial but to turn the matter of Bukharin and Rykov over to the NKVD for further investigation [note how they don't draw the same bizarre conclusion you do about what sending the case to the NKVD means].

Following Bukharin's exoneration in September 1936 and Stalin's move to delay proceedings against him at the December 1936 plenum, this was the third time that Stalin had personally intervened to avoid unambiguously condeming Bukharin. It was the second time Bukharin had pointedly refused to play his scapegoat role in the Central Committee ritual.

We can now finally rule out the notion, so often found in the literature, that Stalin in this period was backing down before an antiterror “liberal” coalition of senior Bolsheviks. Of those often mentioned in such a role (Kuibyshev, Kirov, Ordzhonikidze, and others), none were alive at the time of the plenum. On the contrary; according to the documents, once again only Stalin was resisting application of either a prison or death sentence. Why?”

That is the point that can be drawn from this tantalising hint as to the internal debates within the Commission. Stalin may indeed have supported or pretended to support exile for a variety of reasons, whether the draw out weakness in others, to keep his options open as to the correct fate for Bukharin or to leave the ground open for him to shift blame to Ezhov.

Or maybe, as Getty suggests:

“On the other hand, Stalin's original suggestion of “exile” may not have been entirely disingenuous. Going into the plenum, Stalin may not have decided exactly how far to proceed against Bukharin and Rykov. As the final resolution showed, it had not been “proved” that they had in fact joined the Troskyist “terror organization.” Rather, “at a minimum” they knew about the Trotskyists' plans, which is not the same thing. Yezhov had been the one closest to the investigations and interrogations of the rightists. Back in the fall of 1936, he had written to Stalin to express “doubt that the rights had concluded a direct organizational bloc with the Trotskyists and Zinovievists.” At the same time, Yezhov recommended a “minimum punishment” of exile to a far region for Bukharin and Rykov. Yezhov's 1936 formulation was precisely the one voiced by Stalin at the February-March 1937 plenum: that “at a minimum” Bukharin and Rykov knew about the terrorist plans of others and failed to report them. A distinction was made between them and the Trotskyists, and Stalin's first proposed punishment was exile. He used the same word, vysylka, that Yezhov had used in his letter the previous autumn. When Stalin reported the several contending points of view at the meeting and related how a compromise had been reached, he may have been telling the truth.”

We dont know and it is impractical to try to read Stalin's intentions....

Which is basically all you have been doing.

His action was that for the only time in his life he made the report from a Commission himself and proposed a motion to the CC to send Bukharin to the NKVD.

Except he made no such motion, as I already outlined in your incompetent/dishonest quotation of the text.

That is the point - Stalin intervened to determine Bukharin's fate and ensured, in the face of a defiant Bukharin and Rykov, that the result would be neither an immediate trial (where there was no evidence but confessions from Bukharin's former students and Izvestia colleagues) nor a secret execution after a millitary commission.

Except this is bullshit that is in no way supported by any text you cite, and you are again trying to “read Stalin's intentions” using a historical paradigm grounded in extreme anti-communism.

Could Stalin have been over-ruled at the initiative of Ezhov or someone else ? In the biography of Ezhov quoted earlier

It should be noted these authors are extreme anti-communists and their work should be taken with a large grain of salt. Like gilhyle, they excel in the art of uncritical reading of history to further anti-communist ends.

Most supporters of Stalin tend to adopt the approach that Stalin led the purges and was correct to do so. They admit the fact that he led the whole affair. If that could ever have been denied, it cant credibly be denied now that the records of his correspondence and instructions is becoming available. Bukharin was clearly paraded in a show trial and shot because Stalin wanted that to happen.

Except you can't demonstrate any of this.

You have attempted to draw a conclusion from an incomrehensible edit of a document of uncertain standing from which your source

No, you are the one doing so. I just pointed out the original document says exile, and in no way supports your bullshit. I have pointed out it is consistent with Stalin's prior leniency on Bukharin, and I have not drawn any conclusions from it. In fact, the conclusion I draw is that there is good reason to suspect Bukharin had some involvement in the Rightist conspiracy, and this is based on Bukharin's own admissions in the party (not at the trial).

Getty, refuses to draw such a conclusion.

Getty most certainly does accept that Stalin suggested exile, as the entire commentary afterwards is based around it. Your incredibly dishonest/incompetent quotations not withstanding.

In ay case, it doesnt override Stalin's actions in proposing a motion to the CC to have Bukharin sent to the NKVD, a unique action on his part, reflecting Bukharin's potential propaganda importance and Stalin's personal direction of his fate.

Except that isn't what the text says, as I have already shown.

gilhyle

10th August 2007, 08:51

Intelligitimate

10th August 2007, 14:17

Firstly, there is no dishonesty in my quote from Getty. I quote his concluding sentence, which sums up his view having reviewed various options. He adopts none of those options - that is his concluding point. You adopt one of them. That is your difference from him.

In the portion I quoted, I showed Getty does come to conclusions, namely all the commentary afterward rests on his acceptance that Stalin proposed leniency, and Getty does conclude “We can now finally rule out the notion . . . that Stalin in this period was backing down from an antiterror liberal campaign . . . On the contrary. . .once again Stalin was resisting application of either prison or a death sentence.”

Secondly, even if I accepted that the document you referred to proved that Stalin proposed exile I, like Getty, refuse to draw conclusions about his intentions from this. The reality is too complex and the evidence is too slight to draw conclusions.

Some of the more idiotic suggestions Getty and Naumov provide no doubt reflect Naumov's idiocy, as I am quite familiar with Getty's work and he would never suggest some of this garbage seriously. Access to the archives is politically controlled, and co-writing this work with Naumov was probably required to even get any of this published.

Naumov himself is a terrible scholar. His major work on the Doctor's Plot, Stalin's Last Crime, is an absolute pile of shit. As I said earlier, this book is good only because Getty had something to do with making it, and is tainted by Naumov.

Thirdly, the evidence relates to Stalin's actions only at the Commission. The claim I made was that Stalin intervened directly at the CC Plenum to send Bukharin to the NKVD.

And all the documents you have thus far provided do not show this. To re-iterate, the draft proposal which you originally cited has Stalin originally proposing exile, and the report Stalin gave has no personal proposals from him in it at all. So twice now you have cited documents to prove this that prove no such thing at all.

All your arguments turn out to relate to evidence of a different meeting of a different body, as is only now clear since I read Getty. If anyone should worry about honesty of their counterpart.

This is simply not true, and as I have already demonstrated you are either an incompetent/dishonest reader, I don't think anyone else should take you seriously either.

I should, since you have stretched out this whole debate on the basis that there was evidence out there that the plenum record had been altered to delete a proposal from Stalin for exile.

Which it had been, as you can clearly see in Getty, and which you can clearly see Getty accepts.

This actually is not the case and you knew it all along since you have Getty and in Getty the record of the plenum sits right beside the document you have used and is clearly ittled as concerning a different meeting.

The only document that contains any suggestion by Stalin is document 143, Protocol of the meeting of the Commission of the Central Committee on the matter of Bukharin and Rykov, and most certainly is not about a different meeting.

Fourthly, the facts about the Plenum remain. Nothing that happened at the Commission alters the fact that Stalin proposed the establishment of the Commission, got himself made its rapporteur, (uniquely for him) proposed its motion to the plenum and that the effect of that motion was to exclude two alternatives which had been canvassed, either a) the private shooting of Bukharin or b) the immediate trial of a non-cooperative Bukharin.

1.There is no evidence Stalin proposed the establishment of the commission. In document 140, Andreev simply says “Comrades, there is a motion to ask the plenum to elect a commission whose responsibility would be to make a decision concerning the case of Rykov and Bukharin.” As Getty says, “In rare cases when there was a disagreement or when the drift of the meeting went beyond the draft proposals, an ad hoc commission of Central Committee members would retire during the meeting to work out a new text for the final resolution.” The Commission was setup because so many members suggested other things be done with them, including having them shot.

2. There is no evidence Stalin made himself the rapporteur. Stalin literally says in the report, in the first sentence, “Comrades, the commission of the CC plenum has entrusted me with the task of reporting to you the results of its work.”
3. You are, yet again, trying to make the text suggest “send the case to the NKVD” means have them tortured for a future public show trial, when the text nor Getty's commentary suggests anything of the sort. Send the case to the NKVD means have the NKVD and not the Party further investigate the matter.

Fifthly, my interpretataion of the detailed evidence is consistent with a wider model of the 1936-38 show trials to the effect that Stalin directed the course of events personally.

I don't really care what “wider model” you're employing. The “wider model” is basically one stilled wedded to the anti-communist, 'totalitarian' Cold War paradigm, and I could give less of a shit about this model.

I notice you make no comment on the wider evidence.

You have presented nothing but book summaries of incompetent fourth-rate scholars. With people like the authors of that book on Ezhov, I don't care what they conclude at all. Their books are of value only in their presentation of primary source documents and possibly as a demonstration of the bankruptcy of much of what passes for scholarship in the field of Soviet history.

Sixthly You suggest a conclusion of your own as follows : "I have pointed out it is consistent with Stalin's prior leniency on Bukharin, and I have not drawn any conclusions from it. In fact, the conclusion I draw is that there is good reason to suspect Bukharin had some involvement in the Rightist conspiracy, and this is based on Bukharin's own admissions in the party (not at the trial)." Exactly how you link Stalin proposing a weaker sentence (exile) to the charges being true escapes me.

I don't. The point of bringing up Stalin's suggestion of exile in the first place was to counter your bullshit about Stalin personally intervening to have Bukharin tortured. The document you cited in evidence of that suggested nothing of the sort, and in fact, suggested incredible leniency on Stalin's part.

Finally, lets be clear on what the issue is. It is not the case that I am arguing that Stalin supported the harshest treatment of Bukharin. That does not concern me. My claim is that Stalin ensured that Bukhari's fate served his political purposes and he intervened in events personally at the key moment to ensure that that was how events turned out.

You have demonstrated none of that.

What mattered to Stalin when dealing with senior old bolsheviks was confessions. Everything points to this. The extraction of executions from senior bolsheviks allowed Stalin to suggest that there were terrorist conspiracies and that allowed him, credibly, to purge the bureaucracy and terrorise the general population under the guise of weeding out subversion. This was Stalin's personal political programme in 1936-39. The fate of Bukharin was determined on the basis of how best it served that purpose. That is not controversial - Getty agrees with it, for example, without putting the political interpretation on it that I would.

You have demonstrated none of this bullshit, which is pure Cold War trash, and is not supported in the slightest by the evidence, or even reflects the general consensus of modern scholarship, even as anti-communist as it still is.

And Getty most certainly does not agree with you. In fact, the work mentioned earlier by Grover Furr largely agrees with Getty's discussion of the Purges in his PhD thesis Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, one of the great works bringing forth the new era of Soviet historical scholarship in the West.

Led Zeppelin

10th August 2007, 17:40

I think it's pretty rich that Intelligitimate expected the official transcripts to say something like: "Stalin: TORTURE THAT **** BUKHARIN NOW!!11"

Cold war bullshit comes from both sides.

gilhyle

10th August 2007, 22:20

I have pursued this debate far beyond any prospect of useful progress in order to see where it would lead. (My apologies to anyone who has followed these rather long posts for somewhat exaggerating the contrast between us to see where it would go.)

Originally, it seems to me Intelligitimate could have had three good points:

Firstly, I cant be sure Bukharin was tortured, no one can, so its rhetoric to speak as I did of Bukharin being sent to be tortured;
Secondly, Stalin was, at the plenum, proposing a motion to which over twenty members of the CC at a separate Commission had agreed, so Bukharin's fate of being sent to the NKVD was not entirely Stalin's personal initiative;
Three: Stalin's approach may have been more complicated than just sending Bukharin to the NKVD since there is evidence (somewhat inconclusive, but evidence nevertheless) that Stalin had proposed exile to the Commission.

Each of these points would have been correct if Intelligitimate had made them as such. But he did not make any of these points in this way. Had he made the points in this way, they would have qualified my point, but not disproven it. They would have helped to draw a picture of how complex what Stalin was doing in 1937 was and how he had to maneuver to get what he wanted. That would have accorded with recent scholarship which shows - contrary to cold war rhetoric - that Stalin was far from having absolute, unfettered power before the Feb 1937 Plenum of the CC and even thereafter had to act with some caution to protect his own reputation.

Intelligitmate's problem was that this did not suit what he wanted to achieve. He wanted to argue that Bukharin was probably guilty and at least new about the Ryutin platform. But in addition he wanted to discredit my post, rather than engage with my argument. Consequently, what he tried to do - in addition to arguing that knowledge of Riutin was deserving of death - was to argue that I had misused the plenum record. This was, in effect, an ad hominem argument. The attempt to develop the arguments about torture and Ordzhonikidze's 'suicide' suited this purpose also - all off the point, but useful to suggest that the author of my posts should not be trusted.

I pursued this to see where it would go....and I think it hits rock bottom in the last post. In that post Intelligitimate states, clearly that the edited document is a record of the plenum. The relevant extract from the earlier post is as follows:

"QUOTE From Gil Hyle:
I should, since you have stretched out this whole debate on the basis that there was evidence out there that the plenum record had been altered to delete a proposal from Stalin for exile.

Response by Intelligitmate:
Which it had been, as you can clearly see in Getty, and which you can clearly see Getty accepts.

QUOTE From Gil Hyle
This actually is not the case and you knew it all along since you have Getty and in Getty the record of the plenum sits right beside the document you have used and is clearly ittled as concerning a different meeting.

Response by Intelligitimate
The only document that contains any suggestion by Stalin is document 143, Protocol of the meeting of the Commission of the Central Committee on the matter of Bukharin and Rykov, and most certainly is not about a different meeting."

What is interesting about this is that there is a very simple verifiable fact at stake - is Document 143 a record of the Commission of the CC or a record of the Plenum of the CC ? Intelligitimate insists in his first response above that Document 143 is a record of the Plenum. But in his second response he quotes the title of the document and lo and behold, the very title he quotes shows that the document is a Protocol of the Commission - a fact he has just denied.

What interests me about this is the degeneration of rational debate which this kind of comment involves. Intelligitimate cannot bring himself to admit even something he has in front of him in writing. Why ? Ad hominem arguments are common, but they are not usually pursued to this degree.

Take another example from his most recent post. I had quoted some Russian language sources. Intelligitimate didnt like this, cos he could not check them. Understandable point, if a bit constraining. So when I then quoted Russian Languages sources I also quoted an English language reference to back it up. But Intelligitimate objects to this also "You have presented nothing but book summaries of incompetent fourth-rate scholars." Add to this, that having speculated that objective scholars would agree with him, he is then unable to quote any and has to explain that almost the whole field is caught up in the cold war ( something that might have been true thrity years ago, but no longer). "More bullshit" backs this up as a favoured label. Then on top of that, he has to engage in unevidenced speculation that one of the joint authors alone of the jointly authored book which he most likes is responsible for the bits in that book that he doesnt like. No evidence for that at all. Thus we get a method of sourcing evidence that is powerfully structured to exclude all evidence that might cause a problem to his argument. The importance of that cannot be overestimated, when considering how important the complaint 'you cant prove that' is to the kind of arguments Intelligitimate makes......not much can be proven if you exclude all the evidence !

Finally consider a very telling remark "I don't really care what “wider model” you're employing. The “wider model” is basically one stilled wedded to the anti-communist, 'totalitarian' Cold War paradigm, and I could give less of a shit about this model."

There is no wider model at all behind Intelligitimate's argument and he doesnt want to have to articulate one. To articulate a broad model would open his position up to attack by the presentation of contrary evidence (which could only then be rejected by devices such as complaining that the primary sources for Russian history are in Russian and thus should not be used !) There is a mindless empiricism at work here, quite contrary to Marxism. The tactic is that often used by litigators : call into question some aspect of the statement of the witness and you can discredit him. But this tactic depends on the burden of proof being on the prosecution. The defence litigator does not have to explain what happened, only discredit the witnesses. Defence counsels using this method are always cautioned never to ask the witness a question if you dont already know how he will anser it. Why ? Because the danger is the Jury will get some facts that will lead them to begin to build a picture of what did happen, and that is the last thing the defence counsel wants. He needs to keep the trial in the realms of emotion, not reason. The science of historiography does not work like that. All options face an equal burden of proof - that helps constitute historiography as a scientific practice.

Why do I go on about this ? In the 1930s Stalinism was at its peak. This type of emotive irrational debating methodology was at its height and was state sponsored. Vyshinsky was its master. That is no longer the case. Yet even today, there are persons on this board who will no longer debate with supporters of Stalin because the debates tend to degenerate into irrationalism, with an emphasis on rhetorical technique.

This thread, to my mind, has not been the worst in that regard. I have learnt something I did not know about the Feb 37 Commission....always useful. However, it remains the case that there is a willingness, an eager willingness, of stalinists to decend to ad hominen arguments not - as the rest of us do - as a failure of self-discipline, but as a persistent methodology.

What is interesting to me is how that still happens in 2007 on the part of people who are undoubtedly earnest (there are no longer rich pickings for the subservient Stalinist fellow traveller).

I think this may reflect something at the heart of the Stalinist strategy. The Stalinist strategy focuses on the fact that the enemy is amongst us - the bureaucracy is within the party. Thus the party cannot rationally coalesce against the bureaucratic threat. Consequently debate, in the Stalinist tradition must be conducted at a different level. It must be conducted at an emotional level at which one surrenders one's reflective capacity to the leader. Discourse within Stalinism must be primarily rhetorical and emotive, it cannot be reasonable, or rather it can only be reasonable by way of exception. The rationale of Stalin's own policies has never been articulated, except in Molotov's old age interviews and even then only partially. In his own time, it had to be secret, esoteric.

The original question was what was wrong with Stalin......well maybe the ultimate answer to that is that Stalin's programme makes rational discourse among revolutionaries at best an exception and at worst impossible. What could be worse for a movement that must start with ideas ?

Intelligitimate

11th August 2007, 03:02

It seems gilhyle's only legitimate complaint is that I wasn't very careful in the terminology I used, and he has latched onto this to prove some sort of dishonesty on my part. No, the document is not the minutes of the plenum, but it is the only record of anything Stalin personally suggested regarding Bukharin's fate. How much real confusion, if any, this may have caused anyone is questionable, but I do apologize for not carefully designating the document as a draft protocol.

Consequently, what he tried to do - in addition to arguing that knowledge of Riutin was deserving of death - was to argue that I had misused the plenum record. This was, in effect, an ad hominem argument.

Actually no, because it is not an ad hominem argument to point out that evidence you presented does not support your conclusions. An ad hominem argument would be more similar to the one you make at length against me for being a “Stalinist.”

And in any case, you have already agreed with me at this point that the evidence you cite does not show Stalin personally had Bukharin sent to the NKVD to be tortured so he would confess at a public trial.

What is interesting about this is that there is a very simple verifiable fact at stake - is Document 143 a record of the Commission of the CC or a record of the Plenum of the CC?

I wasn't personally aware you were quibbling about exactly what the document in question was, so I wasn't aware anything was “at stake.” In any case, the actual conversations recorded at the plenum don't contain any suggestions from Stalin on what to do about Bukharin and Rykov, so I didn't assume you were ever talking about that to begin with. Frankly, I think your quibbling on this issue is slightly dishonest, because I see no indication you were ever talking about any other document, because no other documents contain any personal proposals by Stalin on what to do with Bukharin and Rykov, except the draft protocol.

Take another example from his most recent post. I had quoted some Russian language sources. Intelligitimate didnt like this, cos he could not check them. Understandable point, if a bit constraining. So when I then quoted Russian Languages sources I also quoted an English language reference to back it up. But Intelligitimate objects to this also "You have presented nothing but book summaries of incompetent fourth-rate scholars."

You are dishonestly quoting me. This was in regards to the issue of the suicide of Ordzhonikidze. And I think at this point the issue is pretty clear cut you don't read Russian (neither do I), and so to quote Russian language sources is just concealing your true source and giving a reference to a document you have actually never read. It's dishonest to do such things, and calling you out on this point is perfectly reasonable.

The quote about your choice of scholars is regarding to an entirely separate matter from the suicide of Ordzhonikidze, and it is again more dishonesty on your part to conflate the two issues.

Add to this, that having speculated that objective scholars would agree with him, he is then unable to quote any and has to explain that almost the whole field is caught up in the cold war ( something that might have been true thrity years ago, but no longer).

I actually did quote an admittedly anecdotal account of Getty's true opinion regarding the Moscow Trials, and I freely admitted I wouldn't be able to find anyone who openly published such views (except maybe Furr or Ludo Martens, but you would undoubtedly just reject these sources outright). And the truth is the field is still incredibly anti-communist, though not nearly as bad as thirty years ago. If it wasn't, you would see people like Furr and Martens in the mainstream, though they aren't and probably never will be. Furr, for instance, published in a scholarly journal an article about Tukhachevsky, and one of the editors of the journal had to threaten to resign before they would publish, and there was never any comment made about the quality of the work. It simply said things that you're not allowed to say (namely there is substantial evidence of guilt of many of the people in the so-called “Show Trials,” which there most certainly is).

hen on top of that, he has to engage in unevidenced speculation that one of the joint authors alone of the jointly authored book which he most likes is responsible for the bits in that book that he doesnt like. No evidence for that at all.

The evidence is my own personal familiarity with the work of both scholars. I have read many of Getty's books and articles, and have read several of Naumov's. I don't know exactly who was responsible for exactly what bits of commentary, but I have more than gut feeling. The fact so many possible scenarios are given throughout the work to explain various documents is undoubtedly a reflection of the fact that those two authors come from radically different perspectives regarding Soviet history.

I think this would be clear to anyone familiar with the work of both scholars, and that you question it probably reflects your lack of familiarity with the field.

Thus we get a method of sourcing evidence that is powerfully structured to exclude all evidence that might cause a problem to his argument.

The point of my comment was to drive home the point I am not going to accept the commentary of any scholar alone, so quoting the conclusions of scholars who have wrote other books isn't gonna convince me (or anyone with sufficient familiarity with this field) of anything. I have read some pretty awful works of 'scholarship' in this field, and I have to insist on primary source material. I simply do not trust many scholars to reliably interpret, or to even honestly convey the contents of their primary source documents, and that includes the authors of the Ezhov book you mentioned.

There is no wider model at all behind Intelligitimate's argument and he doesnt want to have to articulate one.

I could propose an interpretative framework to view the documents from, but you have never asked me for one, and I'm not sure what the point would be in articulating one now.

Much of the rest of your commentary is truly just an attack on me via attacking “Stalinism,” and I will just ignore it. I wouldn't call it an ad hominem, because that is supposed to have a very technical meaning, but in the manner you (and others) frequently use the word, it is most certainly just that.

gilhyle

11th August 2007, 12:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:02 am
I do apologize for not carefully designating the document as a draft protocol.

.
You rise above my expectations in this comment. I applaud you for it.

You are correct that an ad hominem argument has a technical meaning and it does involve changing the focus of discussion, as I did in my last post. But that is a necessary rather than a sufficient condition for an ad hominem argument. It was not my intention - or, I suggest, effect - to stir up emotions that would discredit you. Rather, my intention was to focus on the rational structure of the discourse, given that we were going round in circles. The discussion of that was intended to be reasonable rather than emotional. A second intention was to seek to draw some constructive conclusion relating back to the original question posed on this thread.

To illustrate why this was appropriate let me add some brackets to one of your comments setting out my proposition, to illustrate where we got to: "Stalin personally had Bukharin sent to the NKVD (to be tortured) so he would confess at a public trial."

You are correct that there is no evidence that Bukharin was tortured. My opinion is a speculation on my part.....and not one shared by authorities, unlike the case of Tukhachevski. But as I have tried to emphasise more than once, the proposition above survives without the part I have put in brackets in the above quotation.

With regard to the consideration of that proposition (as amended), we have - it seems to me - reached an impasse and what seems to me significant is how that impasse has been reached - namely the structure of the discourse which can lead us to reach such an impasses in relation to a matter which should not cause such an impasse, given the available evidence. It should not be that the significance of the difference between the plenum meeting and the Ccmmission meeting should elude you. The cause of that seems to me political, rather than personal to either you or me.

The work of Furr and Martens to my mind reflects this same issue. It is polemical in character, rather than being truly scientific. This is reflected primarily in the very selective use of sources. What is wrong in the academic response to this is not to see it as a challenge. It is a challenge.....but it is only a challenge. It is rarely a substitute for a rounded picture of the relevant events; these writers (in what I have looked at, at least) dont usually approach a fully rounded picture of events and where they do they become radically less persuasive than in their work of drawing attention to sources that are insufficiently regarded.

Their work is a deconstruction only. It is a kind of post modern Stalinism which vindicates their positive doctrine only associatively. I think there is one exception to this - namely the way in which access to primary sources (and of course there is more to come from Stalin's private archive) is showing how contested Stalin's role in the 1930s was.

tarendol

12th August 2007, 00:46

There's a good book by Boris Souvarine about Stalin (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/souvar/works/stalin/index.htm).
(Souvarine was an historian and the main founder of the Communist Party in France).

I agree with him that Stalin actually represents the antithesis of Marxism. He was a murderer of thousands of communists and socialists, and therefore an enemy for everyone of us.

bezdomni

15th August 2007, 21:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:46 pm
There's a good book by Boris Souvarine about Stalin (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/souvar/works/stalin/index.htm).
(Souvarine was an historian and the main founder of the Communist Party in France).

I agree with him that Stalin actually represents the antithesis of Marxism. He was a murderer of thousands of communists and socialists, and therefore an enemy for everyone of us.
The U.S.S.R. under Stalin's leadership sucessfully fought off a U.S. backed imperiaist blockade, fascism in europe and domestic counterrevolution.

Yes, some innocent comrades were imprisoned or dealt with too swifty and harshly as a result of Stalin's mechanistic and bureaucratic tendencies...but if it were not for Stalin's leadership, the Soviet Union would probably not have survived world war two.

The imperialists and fascists would be having far too much fun.

Setting the Record Straight - Raymond Lotta, Spokesperson for the RCP,USA (http://www.rwor.org/strs/index.htm)

Karl Marx's Camel

15th August 2007, 22:50

but if it were not for Stalin's leadership, the Soviet Union would probably not have survived world war two.

If it were not for Stalin, perhaps we would have had proletarian dictatorships in Russia and elsewhere?

It seems you base your view on Stalin on how good or bad statesman he was, not of his effect on workers power in the Soviet Union or the workers movement as a whole.

ComradeR

16th August 2007, 12:06

To put it simply, Stalin was a Nationalist and a bureaucrat first, and communist and internationalist second.

Tower of Bebel

16th August 2007, 13:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:06 pm
To put it simply, Stalin was a Nationalist and a bureaucrat first, and communist and internationalist second.
When was he 'first' and when became he 'second'?

ComradeR

16th August 2007, 13:31

Originally posted by Raccoon+August 16, 2007 12:19 pm--> (Raccoon @ August 16, 2007 12:19 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 01:06 pm
To put it simply, Stalin was a Nationalist and a bureaucrat first, and communist and internationalist second.
When was he 'first' and when became he 'second'? [/b]
I'm referring to his priorities, he would do everything he could in order to strengthen the USSR and avoid any confrontation with the capitalist powers, up to and including sabotaging revolutions.

manic expression

18th August 2007, 15:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:14 pm

The nomenklatura flourished under Stalin's polices

No they didn't. The problem of the nomenklatura only really began after Stalin, and even then is highly exaggerated. Even the most privileged examples lived lives that weren't even comparable to millionaires, let alone the bourgeois elite of the West.

Stalin never took a single step toward the elimination of the bureaucracy, and this is due to the fact that his power was derived from this caste and the mutually beneficial relationship they shared.

This is simply nonsense, as outlined in the Furr article already cited.

Stalin eliminated the Bolsheviks who threatened the bureaucracy and his position; their innumerable contributions to the revolution matter not, they were against the nomenklatura and its figurehead, and were therefore targeted by Stalin and his clique.

More nonsense. Trotsky was far more bureaucratic than any other Bolshevik, and this was said so by Lenin himself.

Do yourself a favor and read the biographies of the major Bolsheviks. By 1940, almost all of them who didn't die from natural causes had been executed by Stalin and his bureaucratic power-base.

This is only true if you have a very limited definition of “major Bolsheviks.” Otherwise, it is not the case at all.
1.) The nomenklatura was a power with Stalin in power, that much is true. When the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, the first group that convened to hear the news was the nomenklatura (from "Stalingrad" by Antony Beever; I can get more sources if you want them).

I never claimed the nomenklatura lived like kings or bourgeois millionaires. I DID claim that they had priveleges and living conditions that far surpassed the workers of the Soviet Union; more importantly, they had material interests that were separate from the workers.

2.) Please cite exactly which passages you mean so I can respond to them point-by-point. As I stated prior, the purges did target portions of the bureaucracy, but Stalin did not target the bureaucracy itself or its position.

3.) Quote Lenin on that. Furthermore, Lenin's letter to the Politburo explicitly criticized Stalin. Lo and behold, Stalin's clique suppressed what Lenin wrote.

If you want to go on Trotsky's pruported bureaucratic tendencies, you'll need to specify something. The fact that Trotsky was wildly popular with the soldiery of the Red Army, virtually all of them from proletarian or peasant backgrounds, says quite a bit.

4.) What, then, is your definition of "major Bolsheviks"? Zinoviev, Radek, Kamenev, Rakovsky, Trotsky were all major Bolsheviks, and we all know what happened to them.

Intelligitimate

18th August 2007, 18:37

1.) The nomenklatura was a power with Stalin in power, that much is true. When the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, the first group that convened to hear the news was the nomenklatura (from "Stalingrad" by Antony Beever; I can get more sources if you want them).

You obviously don't know what the word nomenklatura means if you think they “convened” to hear the news of the invasion.

never claimed the nomenklatura lived like kings or bourgeois millionaires. I DID claim that they had priveleges and living conditions that far surpassed the workers of the Soviet Union;

And this is bullshit.

more importantly, they had material interests that were separate from the workers.

More bullshit.

2.) Please cite exactly which passages you mean so I can respond to them point-by-point. As I stated prior, the purges did target portions of the bureaucracy, but Stalin did not target the bureaucracy itself or its position.

Read the entire article.

3.) Quote Lenin on that. Furthermore, Lenin's letter to the Politburo explicitly criticized Stalin. Lo and behold, Stalin's clique suppressed what Lenin wrote.

You already know where it says “he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.” Lenin even points out his non-Bolshevik past. And it did not criticize Stalin in the least, except in a post-script added after he was rude to his wife on the phone. Stalin did exactly as Lenin wished and offered his resignation at the 13th Party Congress, and everyone refused it, including Trotsky.

So we have Lenin saying Stalin was too rude and might not be sufficiently cautious, while Trotsky is bureaucratic, egotistical and was a Menshevik. Lenin also points out Bukharin is not fully Marxist, and brings up Zinoviev and Kamenev's betrayal. Stalin comes off looking way better than everyone else mentioned.

If you want to go on Trotsky's pruported bureaucratic tendencies, you'll need to specify something. The fact that Trotsky was wildly popular with the soldiery of the Red Army, virtually all of them from proletarian or peasant backgrounds, says quite a bit.

Please. Trotsky wanted to militarize labor, and Lenin specifically wrote against Trotsky on this point. See Once Again On The Trade Unions: The Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/25.htm) and other related documents.

4.) What, then, is your definition of "major Bolsheviks"? Zinoviev, Radek, Kamenev, Rakovsky, Trotsky were all major Bolsheviks, and we all know what happened to them.

If you can even count the Menshevik Trotsky as an Old Bolshevik...

There were plenty of Bolsheviks in the party pre-1917 who were not executed. I made a list awhile ago that included about 17 people, and more than half lived or died of unrelated causes. To say Stalin had all the Old Bolsheviks (or your term, “major Bolsheviks”) means excluding a lot of figures to make this statement 'true,' but even then, it ignores the issue of whether or not they were guilty of the charges against them, which there is plenty of evidence they were.

Saint Street Revolution

19th August 2007, 01:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 08:43 pm
But I suppose I am still stickin with the fact that he is a total duck.
I agree, he's nothing more than a duck.

But in all seriousness, there is no excuse for the killings of many, many, thousands of people and therefore I also stand with the position that Stalin was a duck.

Saint Street Revolution

19th August 2007, 01:52

Oh shiznit I revived this.

Many sorries. :(

edit: Actually, nah...the last post before mine was pretty recent, though not immediately recent

Philosophical Materialist

19th August 2007, 02:56

On the one hand Stalin helped the Soviet Union to industrialise at a rapid rate.

One the other hand, a cult of personality grew around him, he was very paranoid, he made a deal with Hitler (and refused to believe intelligence reports of a Nazi invasion), there was no Dictatorship of the Proletariat, he had vast numbers of people killed for arbitrary reasons, he made demands of "no retreat" to the Soviet armies thereby removing the the option of a tactical retreat in military affairs, he utilised reactionary nationalism, he brought Stalinist regimes to Eastern Europe (instead of truly democratic working class rule).

Stalin may or may not have been a plus factor in the defeat of Nazi Germany. It is possible that under different leadership that the USSR could have been defeated by Fascism. But it is possible that different leadership of the USSR could have defeated the Nazis much sooner (perhaps in 1939-40) and thus preventing the huge genocide and devastation of the European war.

My overall perception of Stalin is negative. I don't like Stalinism and consider "socialism in one country" to be a nonsense. He greatly undermined progressive causes everywhere and gave the capitalists and fascists propagandist ammunition to use against Communism.

Redmau5

19th August 2007, 12:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 07:27 pm
The Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership was a socialist state
No it wasn't, at least not in the Marxist sense.

manic expression

19th August 2007, 19:13

Obviously, intelligitimate, you are intent on making unsubstantiated claims with no regard for the facts at hand. Perhaps you are so accostumed to using such invalid arguments that you don't even try to cover it up anymore. In case you're wondering, "bullshit" and "More bullshit" are not valid arguments (and neither is calling Trotsky a Menshevik). Let me know when you're ready to use a measure of reason when discussing these things.

Saint Street Revolution

19th August 2007, 20:02

Originally posted by Makaveli+August 19, 2007 11:17 am--> (Makaveli @ August 19, 2007 11:17 am)
[email protected] 01, 2007 07:27 pm
The Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership was a socialist state
No it wasn't, at least not in the Marxist sense. [/b]
Then I guess it couldn't have been, since Stalin called himself and the Soviet Union Marxist-Leninist.

Intelligitimate

19th August 2007, 21:53

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 19, 2007 06:13 pm
Obviously, intelligitimate, you are intent on making unsubstantiated claims with no regard for the facts at hand. Perhaps you are so accostumed to using such invalid arguments that you don't even try to cover it up anymore. In case you're wondering, "bullshit" and "More bullshit" are not valid arguments (and neither is calling Trotsky a Menshevik). Let me know when you're ready to use a measure of reason when discussing these things.
I'm not sure how you expect me to reply to large, sweeping claims like "The nomenklatura was a power with Stalin in power" and they "had priveleges and living conditions that far surpassed the workers of the Soviet Union." I mean, you don't give me the courtesy of actually trying to substantiate this claim with any actual evidence whatsoever, so I don't see why I am obliged to refute this claim in an extensive manner.

I mean, at least gilhyle seems to understand the need to substantiate claims with at least some sort of evidence. If gilhyle were making the same argument, I'm sure he would be ready to cite some author or some sort of actual evidence that then could be the subject of discussion. But you haven't done any of this, nor does it seem you even have a grasp of the field comparable to gilhyle. So I see no need why I should bother refuting your unsubstantiated assertions at length.

Colonello Buendia

20th August 2007, 17:17

as far as im concerned Stalin was as bad as Hitler and was directly responsible for the deaths of more people in the gulags than hitlers concentration camps.

he was paranoid,a megalomaniac, corrupt and also as we italians say senza scrupoli (no qualms) he killed all the generals that would have been able to halt the german advance much faster and with fewer losses.

another thing that causes me great anger is the fact that he literally airbrushed people he didnt approve of out of photos. very 1984 isnt it?

all in all stalin was a dick even though the stalinists will deny it. :hammer: :trotski: :marx:

R_P_A_S

20th August 2007, 19:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 08:43 pm
All very helpful posts, thanks comrades. But I suppose I am still stickin with the fact that he is a total duck. Because I feel that there is no excuse for killing soo many ppl.
just don't get too caught up on all the bullshit like most people on here arguing for a dead assholes.
read about the soviet union history, learn it and don't get lost in the crap.

gilhyle

20th August 2007, 19:27

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+August 05, 2007 02:50 am--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways @ August 05, 2007 02:50 am)
[email protected] August 04, 2007, 03:03 am
I wasn't talking about the testament, and i didn't say he censored Lenin's writings completely just part's of them, little bits and pieces here and there that showed that Lenin made any mistakes or contradicted what Stalin and the CC were doing. Just take a look at the publications of Lenin's writings that were printed in the SU during Stalin's time and those published during Lenin's time.

I'm interested to know which titles, which writings specifically?

Like "What is to Be Done?" "State and Revolution?" Which works were edited for supposed contradictions? [/b]
The documents are in 'The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive, Richard Pipes (Ed.) Yale University Press 1998

While Richard Pipes comments may sometimes be well off the mark, this volume contains 113 documents or parts of documents not included in the Collected Works and as Yury A. Buranov comments in the 'Acknowlements' other documents are 'not yet available' and others again were probably destroyed.

It includes, by the way, a judgement of Trotsky some of his followers wont like: "Trotsky is a tempermental man with military experience. He is in love with the organisation, but as for politics, he hasn't got a clue." 13th March 1921, Summary of Remarks to the Delegates to the 10th COngress of the RKP (b)

Saint Street Revolution

20th August 2007, 22:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:17 pm
all in all stalin was a dick even though the stalinists will deny it. :hammer: :trotski: :marx:
Bottom fucking line. Why is this thread still active?

Coggeh

21st August 2007, 06:59

Because their is a debate going on about Stalin , its not closed because you decided he sucks , thats your opinion (mine too) .

But i do like debating its one of very last issues to can debate because their seems to be an air of a new "pure marxism" and what you can or cannot believe in on this site which is stupid .(Back to the subject)

Why do i keep hearing all this crap about Stalin defeating Fascism ?!!?!?
Churchill and Rosevelt fought against fascism shall we call them socialists too ?

The-Spark

21st August 2007, 07:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 12:36 pm

He doesn't have to prove anything. You're the one accusing the Soviet Union of NOT being socialist. The burden of proof is on YOU. 'Innocent until proven guilty'.
How was the Soviet Union socialist? It was still a society controlled by the minority, and it was state controlled, instead of a beggining towards the end of poverty there was more, i believe fully in socialism but the soviet union got it wrong and Stalin did not help. Now yes, Stalin fought against the fascism, yet would not of Trotsky done the same? And Lenin opposed idolism, yet stalin had statues and huge banner built of his image. I dont think this was Lenin's dream at all comrades.

Ismail

21st August 2007, 22:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:59 am
Churchill and Rosevelt fought against fascism shall we call them socialists too ?
Churchill was a Fascist sympathizer who served as vice president of the First International Congress of Eugenics in 1912 and said that he'd vote for Mussolini if he was Italian. Meanwhile, Roosevelt called Mussolini "that fine Italian gentleman" or some such. I can't find any evidence of Stalin admiring any Fascist.

Dublin Red

23rd August 2007, 02:35

Many people have differing views on him but apparently over 35% of Russians would vote for him if he was still alive today!!! :o

Random Precision

23rd August 2007, 03:50

The bottom line is this, I think: Stalin's reign was a disaster for the Soviet Union, its people, and the entire socialist struggle. If we were to put him on trial, I think the charges would stack up roughly like this:

- Stalin was the ONE MAN in charge of the USSR, and established a cult of personality unbecoming of any true revolutionary.
- Workers' democracy did not exist during his reign, it was a dictatorship of the party beaureaucracy
- Likewise, there was no freedom of expression under his rule, and as such art and literature, as well as science sometimes, were repressed arbitrarily on ideological grounds
- He purged the party of all other significant revolutionary leaders to sustain this dictatorship, and had the vast majority of them executed or killed outright
- He also purged many with no connection to the party leadership for nonexistant affiliations with an ineffectual opposition to his rule
- His similar purge of the military resulted in a quite unfavorable situation for the Soviet military during World War II
- His economic policies, while they had the benefit of industrializing the nation, cost far too many resources and people to truly be described as beneficial
- Similarly, his policies resulted in the famine that is specifically known in Ukraine as Holomodor
- During his de facto control over the worldwide communist movement, he betrayed the struggle for socialism on numerous occasions
- He showed an alarming willingness to co-operate with fascism, the most hated enemy of socialists everywhere
- He showed likewise a tendency towards Russian nationalism and anti-Semitism

There are probably more charges that could be made, but these will suffice for now. Aside from any debates by his modern apoligists, there is a tremendous amount of evidence to prove that each of these charges are the truth, when proving just two or three would probably suffice to declare his reign a disaster.

Stalinists on the forum, I do NOT intend to debate this. In my mind, it is a futile enterprise.

Tower of Bebel

23rd August 2007, 08:04

Originally posted by Dublin [email protected] 23, 2007 03:35 am
Many people have differing views on him but apparently over 35% of Russians would vote for him if he was still alive today!!! :o
To me that looks like a low percentage, considering the social crisis and internal chaos Russia is confronted with.

The Advent of Anarchy

24th August 2007, 20:28

Stalin was a good leader. A great one. He brought a backwards, feudal society into an industrialized Proletarian state, and then to socialism. He brought prosperity to the people of the Soviet Union, and helped destroy the most destructive, brutal, tyrannical, murderous, parasitic, and imperialistic form of capitalism: Nazism. However, he was not without fault. For example, he did not rely on the masses as much as he did on himself for trying to get rid of the revisionists and reactionaries in his party. This ended up with /some/ innocents dying. He was great, but not perfect. It's hard to expect anyone to be perfect.

The Advent of Anarchy

24th August 2007, 20:31

And I think this topic should be pinned, so this could be the area on where to argue about Stalin. You know, there's way too many threads on Stalin and we should make one /the/ place to argue, discuss, and debate Stalin.

The Author

25th August 2007, 03:28

We did use to have a pinned topic on Stalin. Some jackass moderator(s) thought it best to unpin it.

Maybe somebody in charge will finally wake up and repin the topic...

Janus

27th August 2007, 04:00

It was unpinned following some complaints about about the lack of activity/further responses. Anyways, Stalin is such a popular topic that another sticky may be necessary.

Merged.

stevensen

29th August 2007, 18:05

stalin was a great leader. with all his faults he was and will remain a great marxist-leninist. it is too early to pass a conclusive judgement on him but i wud like to think history will ultimately absolve him of lies.
in stalin i trust

hajduk

29th August 2007, 19:11

GULAG GULAG GULAG GULAG GULAG GULAG :angry:

The Advent of Anarchy

29th August 2007, 20:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:11 pm
GULAG GULAG GULAG GULAG GULAG GULAG :angry:
Quit trolling.

Random Precision

1st September 2007, 03:45

Intellegitimate:

I recently read "The Road to Terror", and it seems to me (as well as the academic reviewers of the book) that it was, in fact Getty who did all the work on it, with Naumov being pretty much a freeloader. He pretty much openly admits this in the introduction. Another thing he says there is that he has revised/entirely abandoned many of his early positions on the Purges, as documented in "The Origins of the Great Purges". Presumably this was prompted by the opening of the Soviet Archives, and thousands of documents that he did not have access to before. While I have many problems with the selection of documents he provided in the book, as well as the quantity/quality of his commentary on them, in my book he deserves much credit for that.

Comrade_Scott

1st September 2007, 05:33

i quit fancy the chap no none can doubt the grat strides made by the ussr during his reign. now about the death toll as most have stated it is an estimate and i belive 50% or a bit more of those who died were actually counter revolutionary ( depending on which revolution you follow :lol: ) and the others well no system is perfect. however..... stalins was far from it and as i stated before many innocents died whichever estimates you belive and even though that is bound to happen dosent mean i enjoy it. personality and politics get a 10 overall a 7 and that shall stay untill we discover howmany innocents died (still i think highly of all of them so hey :P )

Intelligitimate

1st September 2007, 06:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 02:45 am
Intellegitimate:

I recently read "The Road to Terror", and it seems to me (as well as the academic reviewers of the book) that it was, in fact Getty who did all the work on it, with Naumov being pretty much a freeloader. He pretty much openly admits this in the introduction. Another thing he says there is that he has revised/entirely abandoned many of his early positions on the Purges, as documented in "The Origins of the Great Purges". Presumably this was prompted by the opening of the Soviet Archives, and thousands of documents that he did not have access to before. While I have many problems with the selection of documents he provided in the book, as well as the quantity/quality of his commentary on them, in my book he deserves much credit for that.
I tend to see that as more of a political concession than anything serious. His articles even after that book was published still basically agree with his Origins, and I myself don't even see where the book really disagrees with it.

hajduk

1st September 2007, 13:35

Originally posted by Koretsu+August 29, 2007 07:09 pm--> (Koretsu @ August 29, 2007 07:09 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2007 06:11 pm
GULAG GULAG GULAG GULAG GULAG GULAG :angry:
Quit trolling. [/b]
why?
you think that GULAG was a place for vacation?

bezdomni

5th September 2007, 21:30

Originally posted by hajduk+September 01, 2007 12:35 pm--> (hajduk @ September 01, 2007 12:35 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 07:09 pm

[email protected] 29, 2007 06:11 pm
GULAG GULAG GULAG GULAG GULAG GULAG :angry:
Quit trolling.
why?
you think that GULAG was a place for vacation? [/b]
Typing the world Gulag ad naseum isn't a constructive post.

Vinny Rafarino

5th September 2007, 22:16

Stalin had a fantastically full mustache and a perfectly coiffed pompadour.

His breakfast cereal known as The People's Flakes (commonly known as "commie flakes" among western imperialist sympathizers) were a tribute to economical production and distribution methods.

He brought drab military wear back from the dead ind influenced the way an entire generation felt about fatigues. Modern tributes to this re-vamping of the red army hep-cat style can be seen on fashion runways in both Cuba and Venezuela.

His 70s television show "Welcome Back Stalin" was the highlight of the 1975 fall season. His wacky antics were comedic genius highlighted with that year's "catch phrase" among young adults:

"Lev Bronstein will not be in school today signed Bronstein's motha".

That Lev Bronstein and that Lennie Redarino were character classics!

What else is there to know?

I say dig that groove baby.

Red Scare

6th September 2007, 00:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 12:05 pm
stalin was a great leader. with all his faults he was and will remain a great marxist-leninist. it is too early to pass a conclusive judgement on him but i wud like to think history will ultimately absolve him of lies.
in stalin i trust
grrrr........ :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :star: :che: :hammer: :banner: GULAG!!! GULAG GULAG GULAG!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rawthentic

6th September 2007, 01:40

Please keep the trolling down. I can understand that it can be hard for you types, but try.

Comrade Rage

6th September 2007, 03:07

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 05, 2007 04:16 pm
Stalin had a fantastically full mustache and a perfectly coiffed pompadour.

I can't begrudge the guy on his hair. Why didn't it ever gray out anyway?

Vinny Rafarino

6th September 2007, 17:06

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 05, 2007 05:40 pm
Please keep the trolling down. I can understand that it can be hard for you types, but try.
Up yours buddy, I got a delivery to make.

Red Scare

7th September 2007, 02:51

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+September 05, 2007 09:07 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ September 05, 2007 09:07 pm)
Vinny [email protected] 05, 2007 04:16 pm
Stalin had a fantastically full mustache and a perfectly coiffed pompadour.

I can't begrudge the guy on his hair. Why didn't it ever gray out anyway? [/b]
evil piece of despicable shit, but great hair :D :hammer:

RNK

7th September 2007, 07:43

it is too early to pass a conclusive judgement on him but i wud like to think history will ultimately absolve him of lies.

Dude he's been dead for over half a century, I think enough history has fucking gone by.

manic expression

19th September 2007, 02:07

Originally posted by Intelligitimate+August 19, 2007 08:53 pm--> (Intelligitimate @ August 19, 2007 08:53 pm)
manic [email protected] 19, 2007 06:13 pm
Obviously, intelligitimate, you are intent on making unsubstantiated claims with no regard for the facts at hand. Perhaps you are so accostumed to using such invalid arguments that you don't even try to cover it up anymore. In case you're wondering, "bullshit" and "More bullshit" are not valid arguments (and neither is calling Trotsky a Menshevik). Let me know when you're ready to use a measure of reason when discussing these things.
I'm not sure how you expect me to reply to large, sweeping claims like "The nomenklatura was a power with Stalin in power" and they "had priveleges and living conditions that far surpassed the workers of the Soviet Union." I mean, you don't give me the courtesy of actually trying to substantiate this claim with any actual evidence whatsoever, so I don't see why I am obliged to refute this claim in an extensive manner.

I mean, at least gilhyle seems to understand the need to substantiate claims with at least some sort of evidence. If gilhyle were making the same argument, I'm sure he would be ready to cite some author or some sort of actual evidence that then could be the subject of discussion. But you haven't done any of this, nor does it seem you even have a grasp of the field comparable to gilhyle. So I see no need why I should bother refuting your unsubstantiated assertions at length. [/b]
Those are neither large nor sweeping arguments, they are observations of what actually happened. The bureaucracy was extremely powerful in Stalin's time, and he abbetted this growth through his policies. Did he ever go after the nomenklatura? No, he defended their anti-worker position within the Soviet state.

I did substantiate my claim, you failed to address it. I shouldn't be surprised, however, by Stalinists who dance around inconvenient facts and call it an honest argument! As I said, get back to me when you're serious about the reality, and not your delusional fantasies.

Die Neue Zeit

27th September 2007, 05:05

Alright, while I may be veering a bit off topic, what about Stalin's role in penning the 1918 constitution along with Sverdlov? There's not much said about Stalin in the immediate post-revolutionary years, save for his being assigned to Nationalities.

Blood_elf2

27th September 2007, 05:29

I'm Defintly Pro-Stalin This man was a geinus.. Long live Stalin and Soviet Russia!!!

Faux Real

27th September 2007, 05:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 09:29 pm
I'm Defintly Pro-Stalin This man was a geinus.. Long live Stalin and Soviet Russia!!!
What was so genius about him?

Panda Tse Tung

3rd October 2007, 11:48

Those are neither large nor sweeping arguments, they are observations of what actually happened. The bureaucracy was extremely powerful in Stalin's time, and he abbetted this growth through his policies. Did he ever go after the nomenklatura? No, he defended their anti-worker position within the Soviet state.

Never heard of the Great Purges and other anti-bureaucratic campaigns within the USSR?

Red Scare

3rd October 2007, 12:27

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 03, 2007 05:48 am

Those are neither large nor sweeping arguments, they are observations of what actually happened. The bureaucracy was extremely powerful in Stalin's time, and he abbetted this growth through his policies. Did he ever go after the nomenklatura? No, he defended their anti-worker position within the Soviet state.

Never heard of the Great Purges and other anti-bureaucratic campaigns within the USSR?
AKA the gulag

ComradeR

3rd October 2007, 12:59

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 03, 2007 10:48 am

Those are neither large nor sweeping arguments, they are observations of what actually happened. The bureaucracy was extremely powerful in Stalin's time, and he abbetted this growth through his policies. Did he ever go after the nomenklatura? No, he defended their anti-worker position within the Soviet state.

Never heard of the Great Purges and other anti-bureaucratic campaigns within the USSR?
Stalin used The Great Purges to wipe out the old Bolsheviks and solidify his control of the party and the state.

Tower of Bebel

3rd October 2007, 13:10

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 03, 2007 12:48 pm

Those are neither large nor sweeping arguments, they are observations of what actually happened. The bureaucracy was extremely powerful in Stalin's time, and he abbetted this growth through his policies. Did he ever go after the nomenklatura? No, he defended their anti-worker position within the Soviet state.

Never heard of the Great Purges and other anti-bureaucratic campaigns within the USSR?
You most have a lot of purges to wipe out the bureaucracy me thinks. Besides, who is behind the purges? The bureaucracy?

Panda Tse Tung

3rd October 2007, 14:25

Stalin used The Great Purges to wipe out the old Bolsheviks and solidify his control of the party and the state.

Stalins own position was in danger during the great purges...

You most have a lot of purges to wipe out the bureaucracy me thinks. Besides, who is behind the purges? The bureaucracy?

Lenin was a proponent of a regular purge. Molotov agrees with you actually, he said that the great purges should have been permanent. Something on which I'm inclined to agree, only purges alone wont help much.

The party was behind the purges, and yes some mistakes we're made because of this. But they we're isolated cases. If someone was unjust fully kicked out of the party he had the right to go to court. A lot of party-members we're re-admitted in such a manner. The bureaucracy could not be behind the purges because the purges we're directed at them, showing how a vast majority of the party was still Marxist-Leninist at that time.

manic expression

3rd October 2007, 14:39

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 03, 2007 10:48 am
Never heard of the Great Purges and other anti-bureaucratic campaigns within the USSR?
The Great Purges targeted Bolsheviks who opposed the bureaucratic power base of Stalin. Stalin and his clique protected the bureaucrats, as they basically were his patrons.

and on edit: I've heard of the pro-bureaucratic Great Purges, obviously, but I HAVE heard of anti-bureaucratic campaigns within the USSR, namely the left opposition.

ComradeR

3rd October 2007, 14:43

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 03, 2007 01:25 pm

Stalin used The Great Purges to wipe out the old Bolsheviks and solidify his control of the party and the state.

Stalins own position was in danger during the great purges...
Yet it's funny how he came out of them stronger and with an iron grip on both the party and the state...
He seems to have benefited quite well from them what with the removal of the opposition don't you think?

Panda Tse Tung

3rd October 2007, 16:12

You haven't provided any additional information. How the fuck do you expect to reply to such empty statements. It's a fact Stalins own position was in power. You merely seem to 'assume' that he came out with a solid grip.
My source - Molotov remembers. Written after the denunciation of Stalin in the USSR, if you do wonder. The fact that it was targeted towards the bureaucracy can be read in several sources. The most compact (as in multiple sources forged into one) would be the chapter about the great purges in 'Another view of Stalin'.
Anyways please provide some additional information instead of repeating such hollow phrases.

Random Precision

3rd October 2007, 21:19

Originally posted by No. [email protected] 03, 2007 03:12 pm
You haven't provided any additional information. How the fuck do you expect to reply to such empty statements. It's a fact Stalins own position was in power. You merely seem to 'assume' that he came out with a solid grip.
My source - Molotov remembers. Written after the denunciation of Stalin in the USSR, if you do wonder. The fact that it was targeted towards the bureaucracy can be read in several sources. The most compact (as in multiple sources forged into one) would be the chapter about the great purges in 'Another view of Stalin'.
Anyways please provide some additional information instead of repeating such hollow phrases.
Well, we know that Stalin's position was never in jeopardy and that he, in fact, masterminded the purges. My source: The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-Destruction of the Bolsheviks, 1932-1939 by J. Arch Getty and Oleg V. Naumov, which has already been discussed on this thread. It contains many useful primary source documents that verify this position. I would suggest that Molotov, on the other hand, had an agenda...

Die Neue Zeit

4th October 2007, 02:22

Originally posted by manic expression+October 03, 2007 06:39 am--> (manic expression @ October 03, 2007 06:39 am)
Originally posted by No. 2+October 03, 2007 10:48 am--> (No. 2 @ October 03, 2007 10:48 am) Never heard of the Great Purges and other anti-bureaucratic campaigns within the USSR? [/b]
The Great Purges targeted Bolsheviks who opposed the bureaucratic power base of Stalin. Stalin and his clique protected the bureaucrats, as they basically were his patrons.

and on edit: I've heard of the pro-bureaucratic Great Purges, obviously, but I HAVE heard of anti-bureaucratic campaigns within the USSR, namely the left opposition. [/b]
It's more complicated, actually. I had a thread on the possibility of two "Stalinisms" at work and against each other during Stalin's rule (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69965).

[email protected]
I've come across a few historian works recently in regards to the functioning of the Soviet state under Stalin as opposed to under his successors. Were there two separate bureaucracies altogether? In the 1930s, as the purges rolled along, it seems that Stalin wanted greater emphasis on the state bureaucracy, with the party playing second fiddle (hence the purges within the party).

At that time, Stalin was perfectly OK with the notion of "partyocracy" from his position of CC General Secretary. However, given the party backlash against him in 1934 and opposition invitations to Sergei Kirov, he triggered the purges.

Also of note is the resulting integration between the Politburo and the executive body within Sovnarkom, much like most of today's Chinese leaders holding one prominent state position of some sort (president, premier, NPC chair, etc.). It was said somewhere that, by 1940 or 1941, everybody but Kalinin was a member of that executive body (with Stalin as chair). The procedure was that major resolutions were signed upon by the executive body, and then that body invited Kalinin to essential rubber-stamp said resolutions in order to double-effect them as Politburo resolutions.

Me
Even the "Partyocrat" Khrushchev alluded to this in his "Secret Speech," with the "quintets, sextets, septets, and novenaries" replacing the politburo, not to mention the mass purge of the 17th congress.

See the above regarding Kalinin.

In the late 40s, this continued, since "General Secretary" Stalin (having effectively abolished that served-its-rise-to-power-purpose post in 1934 for the rest of his life) signed documents only as chairman of Sovmin, leaving Malenkov to sign those same documents as a representative of the party. The politburo still wasn't functioning as it should have nominally, since Beria, Malenkov, Molotov, Bulganin, etc. were all making decisions as part of a higher body within Sovmin.

And then came Zdhanov and his "partyocratic" rants, which caused him to fall out of Stalin's favour really quickly (note my recent question in that thread).

OneBrickOneVoice

4th October 2007, 03:09

Originally posted by ComradeR+October 03, 2007 11:59 am--> (ComradeR @ October 03, 2007 11:59 am)
No. [email protected] 03, 2007 10:48 am

Those are neither large nor sweeping arguments, they are observations of what actually happened. The bureaucracy was extremely powerful in Stalin's time, and he abbetted this growth through his policies. Did he ever go after the nomenklatura? No, he defended their anti-worker position within the Soviet state.

Never heard of the Great Purges and other anti-bureaucratic campaigns within the USSR?
Stalin used The Great Purges to wipe out the old Bolsheviks and solidify his control of the party and the state. [/b]
No it was to wipe out counterrevolutionaries, people who were supporting the restoration of capitalism through counterevolution.

Random Precision

4th October 2007, 20:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 02:09 am
No it was to wipe out counterrevolutionaries, people who were supporting the restoration of capitalism through counterevolution.
Thank you for that impressive and well-supported contribution to the thread. :rolleyes:

Comrade Nadezhda

4th October 2007, 21:22

I am definitely not pro-Stalin. Yes, I do find it necessary to eliminate threats in order to secure revolution. No, it is not possible to secure the revolution by other means. The elimination of threats must be taken seriously, I am well aware of that. Violence is necessary in seizing state power and securing/maintaining it, but there is a difference between what is done to eliminate threats which could prevent communist society from being attained and elimination in excessive amounts for the purpose of securing self-interested goals such as the methods Stalin used to attain power. I do not agree with the claims which some choose to use to defend Stalin. Yes, as I said, elimination of threats plays a major role in attaining communist society - but that is when there are existing threats. If Stalin wasn't selfinterested, he wouldn't have needed to eliminate in such excess- and it was not only excessive, but Stalin only thought it to be necessary to do what gave him the greatest power- and it didn't necessarily matter if that involved eliminating fellow comrades - even if they were not a threat to anyone but himself. Stalin eliminated those who had power and therefore threatened his ability to attain it himself. That is why I find him to be selfinterested and why I definitely don't see him as someone who did any good in that regard. Regardless of my perspective on this issue, what Stalin thought to be necessary in securing his own power was excessive and definitely not in the interests of anyone but himself.

McCaine

22nd October 2007, 12:35

I think the most telling thing is that apparently all the Old Bolsheviks and their assistants, despite having fought through exile, prison and mortal dangers their entire lives for the revolution, suddenly all at the same time decided to create a conspiracy against this one man, Stalin. I think anyone who has even the most remote faculties of critical thought, when reflecting on this idea, will conclude that it is extremely more likely that the opposite is the case, that this one man conspired against them. That is really all one needs to consider.

Comrade Nadezhda

22nd October 2007, 16:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:35 am
I think the most telling thing is that apparently all the Old Bolsheviks and their assistants, despite having fought through exile, prison and mortal dangers their entire lives for the revolution, suddenly all at the same time decided to create a conspiracy against this one man, Stalin. I think anyone who has even the most remote faculties of critical thought, when reflecting on this idea, will conclude that it is extremely more likely that the opposite is the case, that this one man conspired against them. That is really all one needs to consider.
Conspiracy? Stalin had all the old party members executed.

I don't think I need to make a list.

Trotsky and N. K. Krupskaya had a conversation of this after Stalin took power- and she said something like -- "If Ilyich were alive, he would probably already be in prison."

I think given all the events that occured, that the above statement would likely be true.

Intelligitimate

23rd October 2007, 01:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:35 am
I think the most telling thing is that apparently all the Old Bolsheviks and their assistants, despite having fought through exile, prison and mortal dangers their entire lives for the revolution, suddenly all at the same time decided to create a conspiracy against this one man, Stalin. I think anyone who has even the most remote faculties of critical thought, when reflecting on this idea, will conclude that it is extremely more likely that the opposite is the case, that this one man conspired against them. That is really all one needs to consider.
"Reflecting" isn't necessary. We know they did. The Ruitin Platform and the opening of the Trotsky archives reveals exactly that. We know Trotsky lied about forming a bloc with the Zinovievists, because we have Trotsky's own papers testifying to the fact. It's part of the reason why Trotsky requested his archive be sealed until the 1980s. We also now know the contents of the Riutin Platform, which was the manifesto of the Rightist conspiracy to overthrow the government, of which we know Bukharin was the ideological father of, and which he most surely took part in, as has been discussed at length in this thread.

Trotsky and N. K. Krupskaya had a conversation of this after Stalin took power- and she said something like -- "If Ilyich were alive, he would probably already be in prison."

The only source of this quote is Trotsky himself, and he is a documentable liar.

Random Precision

23rd October 2007, 02:58

"Reflecting" isn't necessary. We know they did. The Ruitin Platform and the opening of the Trotsky archives reveals exactly that. We know Trotsky lied about forming a bloc with the Zinovievists, because we have Trotsky's own papers testifying to the fact. It's part of the reason why Trotsky requested his archive be sealed until the 1980s. We also now know the contents of the Riutin Platform, which was the manifesto of the Rightist conspiracy to overthrow the government, of which we know Bukharin was the ideological father of, and which he most surely took part in, as has been discussed at length in this thread.

The Riutin Platform did not advocate the overthrow of the Stalin Bloc through violent or terroristic means, but rather movement within the Party, which the Rightists had been so fond of. While Trotsky indeed tried to form a cohesive united opposition with the Rights and Zinovievists, neither did he advocate the use of violence or terrorism.

Intelligitimate

23rd October 2007, 03:26

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the [email protected] 03, 2007 08:19 pm
Well, we know that Stalin's position was never in jeopardy and that he, in fact, masterminded the purges. My source: The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-Destruction of the Bolsheviks, 1932-1939 by J. Arch Getty and Oleg V. Naumov, which has already been discussed on this thread. It contains many useful primary source documents that verify this position. I would suggest that Molotov, on the other hand, had an agenda...
Except your source doesn't show that in any way at all.

Intelligitimate

23rd October 2007, 03:37

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the [email protected] 23, 2007 01:58 am

"Reflecting" isn't necessary. We know they did. The Ruitin Platform and the opening of the Trotsky archives reveals exactly that. We know Trotsky lied about forming a bloc with the Zinovievists, because we have Trotsky's own papers testifying to the fact. It's part of the reason why Trotsky requested his archive be sealed until the 1980s. We also now know the contents of the Riutin Platform, which was the manifesto of the Rightist conspiracy to overthrow the government, of which we know Bukharin was the ideological father of, and which he most surely took part in, as has been discussed at length in this thread.

The Riutin Platform did not advocate the overthrow of the Stalin Bloc through violent or terroristic means, but rather movement within the Party, which the Rightists had been so fond of. While Trotsky indeed tried to form a cohesive united opposition with the Rights and Zinovievists, neither did he advocate the use of violence or terrorism.
Please. The Bolsheviks had a vast history of conspiratorial violence, all of them. Trotsky did indeed make statements to the effect that another October had to happen, and the Riutin Platform states thusly:

"The Mistakes of Stalin and his clique have turned into crimes. . .

In the struggle to destroy Stalin's dictatorship, we must in the main rely not on the old leaders but on new forces. These forces exist, these forces will quickly grow. New leaders will inevitably arise, new organizers of the masses, new authorities."

And so on and so forth. That you have Getty's book in front of you and you could still say such a thing shows you haven't read it very carefully, if at all.

Die Neue Zeit

23rd October 2007, 04:03

On a more minor aspect on how Stalin's policies led to the decay of today's Russian society, the "troika" which he was part of lifted prohibition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_Russian_Empire_and_Soviet_Union). Not everything associated with the czars was bad, since this policy was continued by the Lenin government.

Comrade Nadezhda

23rd October 2007, 04:26

The only source of this quote is Trotsky himself, and he is a documentable liar.
And Stalin isn't? :huh: What do you base that on? It wasn't just what happened regarding Trotsky- he may be the only person making that claim, but not everyone who was executed was a "trotskyist". Stalin had everyone- within and outside of the party- who was a threat to his power not to the state eliminated. As much as it is argued that Trotsky was a liar-- and either way- regardless of Trotsky, Stalin was ruling in his own interest, not of the working-class - he wasn't even ruling in the interest of the party. If this wasn't true, then I doubt Lenin would have thought it necessary to remove Stalin; (and anyone who denies this is just ignorant). It is quite obvious, and I think it is also obvious that the Soviet Union wouldn't have ended up the way it did if Stalin didn't have all the party members eliminated who could have done any good for Russia.

Intelligitimate

23rd October 2007, 10:36

And Stalin isn't?

I haven't ran across anything where Stalin publically says one thing but privately reveals just the opposite, as in the case with Trotsky and his lies to the Dewey Comission.

Stalin had everyone- within and outside of the party- who was a threat to his power not to the state eliminated. As much as it is argued that Trotsky was a liar-- and either way- regardless of Trotsky, Stalin was ruling in his own interest, not of the working-class - he wasn't even ruling in the interest of the party.

This is just your BS, backed by nothing.

If this wasn't true, then I doubt Lenin would have thought it necessary to remove Stalin; (and anyone who denies this is just ignorant)

Anyone who cites Lenin's 'Last Testament' clearly hasn't read it very carefully, nor do they know what happened afterwards. Absolutely nothing negative is said about Stalin, except in a post-script, after Stalin had been rude to his wife over the phone for violating doctor's orders. This is in comparison to Lenin bringing up Trotsky's non-Bolshevik past, saying Bukharin is not fully Marxist, and bringing up Zinoviev and Kamenev's betrayal in October. Even then, Stalin is only claimed to be too rude, and immediately at the next party Congress when this was read, Stalin offered his resignation. Everyone there, including Trotsky, refused it.

It is quite obvious, and I think it is also obvious that the Soviet Union wouldn't have ended up the way it did if Stalin didn't have all the party members eliminated who could have done any good for Russia.

The Rightist deviation was the ideological basis of Gorbachev, which is why they went through such pains to rehabilitate Bukharin. Where did that lead? Where would Trotsky's adventurism and defeatism have lead the USSR in WW2?

In any case, Stalin didn't have all the party eliminated, nor is there any evidence Stalin had anyone purged for purely political reasons, or that he was the driving force behind the 37-8 purge (the only one of any real significance).

manic expression

23rd October 2007, 18:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:36 am
I haven't ran across anything were Stalin publically says one thing but privately reveals just the opposite, as in the case with Trotsky and his lies to the Dewey Comission.
In this lies your fallacy. The Dewey Commission, which actually looked at what happened in the Soviet Union, is faulty, whereas Stalin and his bureaucratic clique told the truth throughout the kangaroo trials they put Bolsheviks through. That's just rich.

In any case, Stalin didn't have all the party eliminated, nor is there any evidence Stalin had anyone purged for purely political reasons, or that he was the driving force behind the 37-8 purge (the only one of any real significance).

No, of course not, he just eliminated the people who threatened him and his bureaucratic backers. Disagreeing with the bureaucracy and their figurehead Stalin is really why Bolsheviks got purged.

Also, it's interesting how the Stalinists say that:

a.) The purges were for political reasons, as they targeted counterrevolutionaries!
b.) The purges were not purely for political reasons at all!

Random Precision

23rd October 2007, 21:09

Please. The Bolsheviks had a vast history of conspiratorial violence, all of them. Trotsky did indeed make statements to the effect that another October had to happen, and the Riutin Platform states thusly:

"The Mistakes of Stalin and his clique have turned into crimes. . .

In the struggle to destroy Stalin's dictatorship, we must in the main rely not on the old leaders but on new forces. These forces exist, these forces will quickly grow. New leaders will inevitably arise, new organizers of the masses, new authorities."

And so on and so forth. That you have Getty's book in front of you and you could still say such a thing shows you haven't read it very carefully, if at all

Please provide citations of where both Trotsky and Riutin explicitly stated that violence was necessary to topple the Stalin clique before the purges started. Neither your excerpt nor your other vague assertion does that.

Comrade Nadezhda

23rd October 2007, 21:51

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 23, 2007 12:16 pm
No, of course not, he just eliminated the people who threatened him and his bureaucratic backers. Disagreeing with the bureaucracy and their figurehead Stalin is really why Bolsheviks got purged.
Yes-- and that was destructive to the worker's state, regardless of the way it is represented-- Stalin did not have the interests of the proletariat in mind at all-- it was not to eliminate counterrevolutionary movement at all. Exactly why I don't discount what Trotsky argued- and why I don't take Stalin and his bureaucracy's word over Trotsky's and the Left Oppositionists.

Intelligitimate

24th October 2007, 00:38

In this lies your fallacy. The Dewey Commission, which actually looked at what happened in the Soviet Union, is faulty, whereas Stalin and his bureaucratic clique told the truth throughout the kangaroo trials they put Bolsheviks through. That's just rich.

Still interesting that these “kangaroo trials” struck closer to the truth than the Dewey Commission, eh? We know Trotsky lied about forming a bloc with the Zinovievists, from his own archives. Do you even know the story behind them? The destitute Trotsky sold them for money, and one of the conditions on it was that they not be opened until the 1980s. Letters were discovered showing exactly what the “kanjaroo trials” accused him and Zinoviev/Kamenev of, and disproved Trotsky's own lies to the Dewey Commission. See my earlier post in this very thread on the subject.

No, of course not, he just eliminated the people who threatened him and his bureaucratic backers. Disagreeing with the bureaucracy and their figurehead Stalin is really why Bolsheviks got purged.

Prove it.

Also, it's interesting how the Stalinists say that:

a.) The purges were for political reasons, as they targeted counterrevolutionaries!
b.) The purges were not purely for political reasons at all!

I've said no such things at all. There is a difference between saying Stalin didn't have anyone purged for purely political reasons, and saying either of those two things above. I've argued that the people in the Moscow Trials were largely guilty of what they were accused of, but of the larger purge that went on, there is really no telling. I haven't seen the slightest shred of evidence that Stalin personally had anyone 'purged' for purely political reasons, whether presented in this thread or anywhere else.

The exact nature of what happened in the 37-38 purges is still basically a mystery. The line advanced by Furr (and basically Getty himself in his Origins and other works), as well as the more-or-less official Soviet stance on what happened is probably the most accurate. The purges were an out of control reaction of a paranoid state that saw dangers everywhere, with active participation from the masses, and was probably used by many to settle personal scores, both high and low. Ezhov himself was executed because of this, with him confessing to trying to undermine the government by eliminating so many people. Thousands of people were rehabilitated afterwards by Beria.

Please provide citations of where both Trotsky and Riutin explicitly stated that violence was necessary to topple the Stalin clique before the purges started. Neither your excerpt nor your other vague assertion does that.

The quote most certainly does imply the violent overthrow of the government, whether you want to interpret it that way or not, and Trotsky's own words to the effect are too numerous to bother mentioning. Indeed, it is mind boggling that you could even ask for a reference to Trotsky wanting to overthrow the government, as he spent the whole last part of his life trying to do just that.

Random Precision

24th October 2007, 00:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:38 pm
The quote most certainly does imply the violent overthrow of the government, whether you want to interpret it that way or not, and Trotsky's own words to the effect are too numerous to bother mentioning.
It doesn't imply anything except that the Stalin Bloc should be overthrown, you're just reading violence into it like your buddies during the thirties.

Indeed, it is mind boggling that you could even ask for a reference to Trotsky wanting to overthrow the government, as he spent the whole last part of his life trying to do just that.

But by violence, before the purges?

Intelligitimate

24th October 2007, 01:10

It doesn't imply anything except that the Stalin Bloc should be overthrown, you're just reading violence into it like your buddies during the thirties.

What else could it imply? That they would "destroy Stalin's dictatorship" by asking? They had already been defeated by the majority of the party. The only way to advance their line was outside of the party, which is exactly what they did, and the only way they were ever gonna "destroy Stalin's dictatorship" was by maneuvering and acting outside of party politics. This most certainly does imply violence.

But by violence, before the purges?

Trotsky wrote a letter to the Party before he officially split with them, asking to be let back. His only concession was that he would not publically break with party unity, and refused to not form factions. When his letter was ignored, then began his campaign against the Soviet government and Stalin personally. This was around 1932, long before the purges.

Again, the same comments about the Ruitin Platform apply to Trotsky's writings, except all the more. Trotsky himself was certainly the most brutal of all the Bolsheviks, and the very idea Trotsky would not support violent action is laughable. Trotsky was an incredibly violent person, and ruthlessly dealt with any of his opponents, whether during the war or figuratively speaking in his writing.

Intelligitimate

24th October 2007, 01:56

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the [email protected] 23, 2007 02:50 am
The bottom line is this, I think: Stalin's reign was a disaster for the Soviet Union, its people, and the entire socialist struggle. If we were to put him on trial, I think the charges would stack up roughly like this:

- Stalin was the ONE MAN in charge of the USSR, and established a cult of personality unbecoming of any true revolutionary.
- Workers' democracy did not exist during his reign, it was a dictatorship of the party beaureaucracy
- Likewise, there was no freedom of expression under his rule, and as such art and literature, as well as science sometimes, were repressed arbitrarily on ideological grounds
- He purged the party of all other significant revolutionary leaders to sustain this dictatorship, and had the vast majority of them executed or killed outright
- He also purged many with no connection to the party leadership for nonexistant affiliations with an ineffectual opposition to his rule
- His similar purge of the military resulted in a quite unfavorable situation for the Soviet military during World War II
- His economic policies, while they had the benefit of industrializing the nation, cost far too many resources and people to truly be described as beneficial
- Similarly, his policies resulted in the famine that is specifically known in Ukraine as Holomodor
- During his de facto control over the worldwide communist movement, he betrayed the struggle for socialism on numerous occasions
- He showed an alarming willingness to co-operate with fascism, the most hated enemy of socialists everywhere
- He showed likewise a tendency towards Russian nationalism and anti-Semitism

There are probably more charges that could be made, but these will suffice for now. Aside from any debates by his modern apoligists, there is a tremendous amount of evidence to prove that each of these charges are the truth, when proving just two or three would probably suffice to declare his reign a disaster.

Stalinists on the forum, I do NOT intend to debate this. In my mind, it is a futile enterprise.
All these 'points' have been refuted at length on this forum, by myself and others. It would be very wise of you not to try and debate these points, because you will be made a fool of, like others have been in threads past.

manic expression

24th October 2007, 04:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:38 pm
Still interesting that these “kangaroo trials” struck closer to the truth than the Dewey Commission, eh? We know Trotsky lied about forming a bloc with the Zinovievists, from his own archives. Do you even know the story behind them? The destitute Trotsky sold them for money, and one of the conditions on it was that they not be opened until the 1980s. Letters were discovered showing exactly what the “kanjaroo trials” accused him and Zinoviev/Kamenev of, and disproved Trotsky's own lies to the Dewey Commission. See my earlier post in this very thread on the subject.

No, of course not, he just eliminated the people who threatened him and his bureaucratic backers. Disagreeing with the bureaucracy and their figurehead Stalin is really why Bolsheviks got purged.

Prove it.

Also, it's interesting how the Stalinists say that:

a.) The purges were for political reasons, as they targeted counterrevolutionaries!
b.) The purges were not purely for political reasons at all!

I've said no such things at all. There is a difference between saying Stalin didn't have anyone purged for purely political reasons, and saying either of those two things above. I've argued that the people in the Moscow Trials were largely guilty of what they were accused of, but of the larger purge that went on, there is really no telling. I haven't seen the slightest shred of evidence that Stalin personally had anyone 'purged' for purely political reasons, whether presented in this thread or anywhere else.

The exact nature of what happened in the 37-38 purges is still basically a mystery. The line advanced by Furr (and basically Getty himself in his Origins and other works), as well as the more-or-less official Soviet stance on what happened is probably the most accurate. The purges were an out of control reaction of a paranoid state that saw dangers everywhere, with active participation from the masses, and was probably used by many to settle personal scores, both high and low. Ezhov himself was executed because of this, with him confessing to trying to undermine the government by eliminating so many people. Thousands of people were rehabilitated afterwards by Beria.
So we're supposed to believe that Trotsky and Zinoviev were part of a grand conspiracy? Against what, precisely? The Soviet order that Trotsky helped to build and defend while Stalin was a petty commissar? That? There is more to the story.

The development of the bureaucracy led to the purges and the show trials against Bolshevik leaders. Trotsky opposed bureaucratic power and was therefore exiled and hunted down for the rest of his life. Bolsheviks and their entire families were summarily liquidated, all for the concentration of power in the bureaucratic clique of Stalin's backers.

If you're going to claim that Trotsky was part of a grand conspiracy (which is an irrational claim in the first place), provide some clear examples with evidence. The burden of proof is on you.

The fact that most of the Bolsheviks at that point were all killed doesn't bother you? Are you that out of touch with reality? Of course none of us know for certain what exactly happened in the late 30's, but we DO know that Stalin's enemies were eliminated and the nomenklatura's position was secure. That was the end result, and we must deal with this instead of ignoring it.

Yes, I think Getty is a good source. However, while it clearly debunks bourgeois lies about the Soviet Union, it does not absolve Stalin, it simply paints a far more realistic picture of what happened and shows that it was not all Stalin's personal orders. This, in fact, does not weaken but strengthens Trotsky's analysis: that the bureaucratic caste had developed an entrenched position of power.

Intelligitimate

24th October 2007, 10:53

So we're supposed to believe that Trotsky and Zinoviev were part of a grand conspiracy? Against what, precisely? The Soviet order that Trotsky helped to build and defend while Stalin was a petty commissar? That? There is more to the story.

Yeah, because we know he was. The only thing that could possibly be argued is the extent and scope of this conspiracy. It's as if you're not even reading anything I am writing.

The development of the bureaucracy led to the purges and the show trials against Bolshevik leaders.

No it didn't. This is just absurd blathering, based on nothing.

Trotsky opposed bureaucratic power and was therefore exiled and hunted down for the rest of his life.

Trotsky was the most bureaucratic of all the Bolsheviks, as said by none other than Lenin himself in that 'Last Testament' you're so found of. What Trotsky opposed was having anyone disagree with him, not bureaucracy.

I swear, I am just repeating myself over and over again with you. I can see why I dropped out of this thread. You just blather on like an idiot. You have zero familiarity with any serious scholarship on the history of the USSR, and just make sweeping idiotic statements without the slightest bit of backing. It is a complete waste of time, as no one can learn anything viewing this discussion between us by reading your posts.

Bolsheviks and their entire families were summarily liquidated, all for the concentration of power in the bureaucratic clique of Stalin's backers.

“Blah blah blah, what's this thing call evidence, blah blah blah.”

If you're going to claim that Trotsky was part of a grand conspiracy (which is an irrational claim in the first place), provide some clear examples with evidence. The burden of proof is on you.

Proof that Manic isn't even reading anything in this thread. That is usually the case with anti-communists here. It takes them about 15 posts to start even attempting to deal with the evidence. They are that incompetent.

The fact that most of the Bolsheviks at that point were all killed doesn't bother you?

Already dealt with when you brought this garbage up before, in this very thread. Why don't you try reading it next time, before you reply?

Are you that out of touch with reality?

You don't know shit about the USSR, Soviet scholarship, old or modern, and you can't even bring yourself to read what the fuck is written in this thread. People in this thread should be wondering what kind of grip you have on reality.

Of course none of us know for certain what exactly happened in the late 30's, but we DO know that Stalin's enemies were eliminated and the nomenklatura's position was secure.

No “we” don't know that, you least of all.

Yes, I think Getty is a good source. However, while it clearly debunks bourgeois lies about the Soviet Union, it does not absolve Stalin, it simply paints a far more realistic picture of what happened and shows that it was not all Stalin's personal orders. This, in fact, does not weaken but strengthens Trotsky's analysis: that the bureaucratic caste had developed an entrenched position of power.

I doubt you've ever read anything Getty wrote. In any case, Trotsky propaganda war against Stalin is the foundational basis of all “bourgeois lies" about Stalin and the USSR. Trotsky is the grandfather of anti-communism, and all bourgeois liars pay homage to him in one way or another. And yes, Getty's analysis most thoroughly debunks Trotsky's crap.

McCaine

24th October 2007, 11:38

Originally posted by Intelligitimate+October 23, 2007 12:52 am--> (Intelligitimate @ October 23, 2007 12:52 am)
[email protected] 22, 2007 11:35 am
I think the most telling thing is that apparently all the Old Bolsheviks and their assistants, despite having fought through exile, prison and mortal dangers their entire lives for the revolution, suddenly all at the same time decided to create a conspiracy against this one man, Stalin. I think anyone who has even the most remote faculties of critical thought, when reflecting on this idea, will conclude that it is extremely more likely that the opposite is the case, that this one man conspired against them. That is really all one needs to consider.
"Reflecting" isn't necessary. We know they did. The Ruitin Platform and the opening of the Trotsky archives reveals exactly that. We know Trotsky lied about forming a bloc with the Zinovievists, because we have Trotsky's own papers testifying to the fact. It's part of the reason why Trotsky requested his archive be sealed until the 1980s. We also now know the contents of the Riutin Platform, which was the manifesto of the Rightist conspiracy to overthrow the government, of which we know Bukharin was the ideological father of, and which he most surely took part in, as has been discussed at length in this thread.

Trotsky and N. K. Krupskaya had a conversation of this after Stalin took power- and she said something like -- "If Ilyich were alive, he would probably already be in prison."

The only source of this quote is Trotsky himself, and he is a documentable liar. [/b]
Let's, for fun, consider for a moment that this is true, and that all the Old Bolsheviks did in fact create a conspiracy to overthrow Stalin. Then the question arises, which is never answered by Stalinists: why did they feel the need to do this? Why was Stalin such a threat to every single of the Old Bolsheviks of any influence? Could this perhaps be because those committed revolutionaries recognized counter-revolution when they saw it? We have to consider the possibility that even if there was such a conspiracy, which I strongly doubt, they would have been right to undertake it.

Comrade Nadezhda

24th October 2007, 15:56

Any stalinist who claims that there was a conspiracy within the bolsheviks against Stalin is a bit distant from reality-- if that were true, what is the motive? I don't see one-- and for Trotsky to be a liar, there would have to be proof that Stalin didn't eliminate people for his own selfishly motivated interests and the bureaucracy-- and as much as you'd like to prove that, it is impossible-- because Stalin didn't just have "trotskyists" executed.

Random Precision

24th October 2007, 21:15

What else could it imply? That they would "destroy Stalin's dictatorship" by asking? They had already been defeated by the majority of the party. The only way to advance their line was outside of the party, which is exactly what they did, and the only way they were ever gonna "destroy Stalin's dictatorship" was by maneuvering and acting outside of party politics. This most certainly does imply violence.

Maybe in your tankie mythology, not in the real world.

Trotsky wrote a letter to the Party before he officially split with them, asking to be let back. His only concession was that he would not publically break with party unity, and refused to not form factions. When his letter was ignored, then began his campaign against the Soviet government and Stalin personally. This was around 1932, long before the purges.

Again, the same comments about the Ruitin Platform apply to Trotsky's writings, except all the more. Trotsky himself was certainly the most brutal of all the Bolsheviks, and the very idea Trotsky would not support violent action is laughable. Trotsky was an incredibly violent person, and ruthlessly dealt with any of his opponents, whether during the war or figuratively speaking in his writing.

Quote him saying that Stalin's government had to be destroyed by violence before the purges, or shut the fuck up.

Getty's analysis most thoroughly debunks Trotsky's crap.

He actually says in Road to Terror that Trotsky's analysis was correct. But I guess I'm not reading him "closely enough", eh?

Intelligitimate

25th October 2007, 00:27

Let's, for fun, consider for a moment that this is true, and that all the Old Bolsheviks did in fact create a conspiracy to overthrow Stalin.

Define “Old Bolshevik” and make a list of these people. I made a list myself awhile back, and not even the majority of people on were executed.

Then the question arises, which is never answered by Stalinists: why did they feel the need to do this?

“They” did it because “they” couldn't accept party discipline, and having been defeated via legitimate political channels, now pursued their aims outside of that context.

Why was Stalin such a threat to every single of the Old Bolsheviks of any influence?

Because Stalin triumphed and “they” didn't.

Could this perhaps be because those committed revolutionaries recognized counter-revolution when they saw it?

Perhaps. Perhaps Stalin was an alien from Neptune. The question of importance is what does the evidence indicate.

We have to consider the possibility that even if there was such a conspiracy, which I strongly doubt

Then you just haven't been reading this thread, or have any familiarity with the relevant literature.

they would have been right to undertake it.

“Their” line was defeated in the party. “They” refused to accept party discipline. “They” wanted a coup in which to advance “their” line.

Any stalinist who claims that there was a conspiracy within the bolsheviks against Stalin is a bit distant from reality-- if that were true, what is the motive?

Anyone paying attention to this thread should take note of my earlier comment. Anti-communists are simply incapable of even reading anything that disagrees with their grade-school-propaganda induced beliefs. They simply cannot even bring themselves to merely read. They just hit “quick reply” and spout off another idiotic slogan, and then pat themselves on the back as if they did something relevant.

and for Trotsky to be a liar, there would have to be proof that Stalin didn't eliminate people for his own selfishly motivated interests and the bureaucracy-- and as much as you'd like to prove that, it is impossible-- because Stalin didn't just have "trotskyists" executed.

This simply doesn't logically follow. Trotsky could be a liar regardless of what Stalin did. We know Trotsky lied about forming a bloc with the Zinovievists. If you can possibly just bring yourself to fucking read this thread, you would see that.

Maybe in your tankie mythology, not in the real world.

There is no other way to interpret it. They must “destroy” “Stalin's dictatorship” as it is “criminal.” This destruction will be done by “new forces” and will put into power “new leaders.” It is simply preposterous that you can believe it implies something else besides violence. How do you think the Rightists planned to bring up the destruction of the “Stalin's dictatorship,” if not by force?

Quote him saying that Stalin's government had to be destroyed by violence before the purges, or shut the fuck up.

I already did, you're just a fucking moron.

He actually says in Road to Terror that Trotsky's analysis was correct. But I guess I'm not reading him "closely enough", eh?

Quote and page number. Let's see if you're as sloppy a reader as gilhyle.

Random Precision

25th October 2007, 00:41

There is no other way to interpret it. They must “destroy” “Stalin's dictatorship” as it is “criminal.” This destruction will be done by “new forces” and will put into power “new leaders.” It is simply preposterous that you can believe it implies something else besides violence. How do you think the Rightists planned to bring up the destruction of the “Stalin's dictatorship,” if not by force?

Movement from within the party is one method the Rightists were historically quite fond of.

I already did, you're just a fucking moron.

No you haven't. You've made some vague assertions about his violent character and mentioned a letter that he wrote to the Central Committee in 1932, but you have not quoted him directly.

Quote and page number. Let's see if you're as sloppy a reader of gilhyle.

I had to return it to the library. As I recall it was in the introduction.

Intelligitimate

25th October 2007, 01:04

Movement from within the party is one method the Rightists were historically quite fond of.

Except the Riutin Platform says nothing about this, and calls for the “destruction” of “Stalin's dictatorship”.

No you haven't. You've made some vague assertions about his violent character and mentioned a letter that he wrote to the Central Committee in 1932, but you have not quoted him directly.

My apologies, I read your comment as referring to the Riutin Platform, not Trotsky.

In any case, again, I think such a request is ludicrous. But here you go:

“After the experiences of the last few years, it would be childish to suppose that the Stalinist bureaucracy can be removed by means of a party or soviet congress. In reality, the last congress of the Bolshevik Party took place at the beginning of 1923, the Twelfth Party Congress. All subsequent congresses were bureaucratic parades. Today, even such congresses have been discarded. No normal “constitutional” ways remain to remove the ruling clique. The bureaucracy can be compelled to yield power into the hands of the proletarian vanguard only by force”

Trotsky, The Class Nature of the Soviet State (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1933/10/sovstate.htm), 1933.

The sudden change in Trotsky's whole attitude to the USSR and Stalin is documented in Getty's paper, Trotsky in Exile: The Founding of the Fourth International.

I had to return it to the library. As I recall it was in the introduction.

The only thing I could find was some vague comments about Trotsky's criticism of the Nomenklatura.

McCaine

25th October 2007, 02:30

Originally posted by intelligitimate
Define “Old Bolshevik” and make a list of these people. I made a list myself awhile back, and not even the majority of people on were executed.Well of course it doesn't matter to me at all what you want to call them, it's just that Old Bolshevik is an accepted term in the "relevant literature". You know, the one you pretend to have read. By Old Bolshevik is meant any (prominent) member of the Bolsheviks before the 1917 revolution.

And I'm perfectly willing to make a list of all the committed socialists of skill and competence that were shot or imprisoned by Stalin for no reason, but that would take quite a while; it's a big list.

“They” did it because “they” couldn't accept party discipline, and having been defeated via legitimate political channels, now pursued their aims outside of that context.

Because Stalin triumphed and “they” didn't.

Perhaps. Perhaps Stalin was an alien from Neptune. The question of importance is what does the evidence indicate.You are quite stubborn and incapable of addressing the issue. The issue is here, whose Party are we talking about? Lenin himself seems to have had no problem at all with working with people like Trotsky, Zinoviev, Bukharin, etc. It's only after Stalin's seizing of power that suddenly it becomes impossible for hundreds of thousands of committed socialists to be under "Party discipline". Why is this? Is this perhaps because "Party discipline" is a poorly veiled name for Stalin's tyranny? How come that practically all of the Old Bolsheviks are suddenly, where they were the Party before, incapable of working within it? Why do they suddenly, from one year to another, become evil counter-revolutionary saboteurs etc.? How is this even remotely credible to anyone?

Then you just haven't been reading this thread, or have any familiarity with the relevant literature.Haha, that trick won't fly, I'm afraid. I have almost an entire bookcase full of works about Soviet history, and I dare bet quite a lot of money that I have read more about Soviet history than you have. The Stalinist claims are simply utterly without merit, especially if you have read the "relevant literature".

Intelligitimate

25th October 2007, 03:01

Well of course it doesn't matter to me at all what you want to call them, it's just that Old Bolshevik is an accepted term in the "relevant literature". You know, the one you pretend to have read. By Old Bolshevik is meant any (prominent) member of the Bolsheviks before the 1917 revolution.

Is that is your definition, which is definitely acceptable, then you are simply wrong. Budyonny, Dzerzhinsky, Frunze, Joffe, Kalinin, Kirov, Kollontai, Krasikov, Litvinov, Molotov, Shaumyan, Sverdlov, Voroshilov, Yurovsky, Ordzhonikidze, Zhdanov, etc, etc, etc, were all Bolsheviks before 1917 and weren't executed for treason. It is simply not true that “Stalin killed all the Old Bolsheviks,” not even a majority of them were executed.

Now if you want to backtrack and define “Old Bolsheviks” as 5-6 people, like most anti-communists do when confronted about this...

And I'm perfectly willing to make a list of all the committed socialists of skill and competence that were shot or imprisoned by Stalin for no reason, but that would take quite a while; it's a big list.

...you might want to insert clauses like “committed socialists of skill” so you can systematically exclude anyone who joined the Bolsheviks pre-1917 and wasn't killed. Which, by the way, wouldn't even include Trotsky, who was a Menshevik before 1917.

Lenin himself seems to have had no problem at all with working with people like Trotsky, Zinoviev, Bukharin, etc.

Please. Lenin personally demanded Zinoviev and Kamenev be expelled (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LPM17.html) from the party for their treachery in 1917, and according to Molotov's memoirs, Lenin also tried to exclude Trotsky from government later on. In any case, Lenin's ban on factions came about because of Trotsky.

It's only after Stalin's seizing of power that suddenly it becomes impossible for hundreds of thousands of committed socialists to be under "Party discipline".

Except you don't know what you're talking about, because the opposition never had anywhere near hundreds of thousands of people in it. Indeed, it's hard just to tell what exactly you're blathering about here.

How come that practically all of the Old Bolsheviks are suddenly, where they were the Party before, incapable of working within it?

Except this isn't the case at all, just more of your BS already dealt with above.

Haha, that trick won't fly, I'm afraid. I have almost an entire bookcase full of works about Soviet history, and I dare bet quite a lot of money that I have read more about Soviet history than you have.

What a joke.

McCaine

25th October 2007, 04:36

Is that is your definition, which is definitely acceptable, then you are simply wrong. Budyonny, Dzerzhinsky, Frunze, Joffe, Kalinin, Kirov, Kollontai, Krasikov, Litvinov, Molotov, Shaumyan, Sverdlov, Voroshilov, Yurovsky, Ordzhonikidze, Zhdanov, etc, etc, etc, were all Bolsheviks before 1917 and weren't executed for treason. It is simply not true that “Stalin killed all the Old Bolsheviks,” not even a majority of them were executed.

Now if you want to backtrack and define “Old Bolsheviks” as 5-6 people, like most anti-communists do when confronted about this...But what then of Bukharin, Trotsky, Rykov, Tomsky, Rakovsky, Shlyapnikov, Piatakov, I. Smirnov, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Krestinsky, Radek, Sokolnikov, Ter-Vaganyan, Mrachkovsky, Muralov, Boguslavsky, V.M. Primakov, Yevdokimov, Bakayev, Serebriakov, Kotsubinskij, Putna, Gertik, Gayevsky, etc.? I have now named but a fraction, and these are already more names than you have listed. Certainly Stalin did not have all of the Old Bolsheviks shot, no more than he had all of the later competent people shot, but then who cares? It's bad enough that he shot so many without this having to be all. Even if he had only one of them shot it is sufficient to condemn him.

...you might want to insert clauses like “committed socialists of skill” so you can systematically exclude anyone who joined the Bolsheviks pre-1917 and wasn't killed. Which, by the way, wouldn't even include Trotsky, who was a Menshevik before 1917.Trotsky was not a Menshevik but a mezhraiontsy, which is not the same thing; closer to the Bolshevik position than to the Menshevik one. In any case that makes no difference. Again, it is sufficient to condemn Stalin and his slavish followers that he had so many committed socialists shot, without this needing to be all of them, nor does it matter to what party they belonged. You don't actually want me to make this list, do you? It would look very bad, and be very long.

Please. Lenin personally demanded Zinoviev and Kamenev be expelled (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LPM17.html) from the party for their treachery in 1917, and according to Molotov's memoirs, Lenin also tried to exclude Trotsky from government later on. In any case, Lenin's ban on factions came about because of Trotsky.But the expelling did not occur, and what is more, Lenin never seems to have had any problems working with them later. Did he have them expelled? No. Did he have them shot after a show trial? No. Did he accuse them of "deviations", "sabotage", "fascism", or any number of nonsensical accusations? No. Did he consider them useful, committed socialists, despite differences about Party politics? Yes. Only Stalinists and Nazis think it is impossible to work with people as soon as the slightest disagreement appears. Only Stalinists and Nazis use show trials as a way to resolve differences.

Except you don't know what you're talking about, because the opposition never had anywhere near hundreds of thousands of people in it. Indeed, it's hard just to tell what exactly you're blathering about here.Oh, it didn't? How curious! Why then exactly did Stalin have some 700.000 people shot during the Yezhovschina? If the opposition was so small, surely all these hundreds of thousands of people were innocently killed then? Very intriguing!

What a joke.Your mind is like that of the fascist. It is held in a vise-like grip by ideology and propaganda, and no amount of reality or critical thought can move it in the slightest. You and your Stalinist buddies are the joke, a disgrace to socialism, and an irrelevant and neglected sect that will never have any influence again. Go into the dustbin of history where you belong.

Random Precision

25th October 2007, 04:39

McCaine

25th October 2007, 06:07

I think the argument I am making, which allows us to dispense with the pointless bickering over so-called conspiracies in which the Stalinists won't accept any non-Stalinist sources anyway, is expressed best by Max Schachtman:

The official indictment charges a widespread assassination conspiracy, carried on these five years or more, directed against the head of the Communist party and the government, organized with the direct connivance of the Hitler regime, and aimed at the establishment of a Fascist dictatorship in Russia. And who are included in these stupefying charges, either as direct participants or, what would be no less reprehensible, as persons with knowledge of the conspiracy who failed to disclose it?

Leon Trotsky, organizer and leader, together with Lenin, of the October Revolution, and founder of the Comintern.

Zinoviev: 35 years of his life in the Bolshevik party; Lenin's closest collaborator in exile and nominated by him as first chairman of the Communist International; chairman of the Petrograd Soviet for years; member of the Central Committee and the Political Bureau of the C.P. for years.

Kamenev: also 35 years spent in the Bolshevik party; chairman of the Political Bureau in Lenin's absence; chairman of the Moscow Soviet; chairman of the Council of Labor and Defense; Lenin's literary executor.

Smirnov: head of the famous Fifth Army during the civil war; called the "Lenin of Siberia;" a member of the Bolshevik party for decades.

Yevdokimov: official party orator at Lenin's funeral; leader of the Leningrad party organization for many years; member of the Central Committee at the time Kirov died.

Ter-Vaganian: theoretical leader of the Armenian communists; founder and first editor of the party's review, "Under the Banner of Marxism."

Mrachkovsky: defender of Ekaterinoslav from the interventionist Czechs and the White troop during the civil war.

Bakayev: old Bolshevik leader in Moscow; member of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission during Lenin's time.

Sokolnikov: Soviet ambassador to England; creator of the "chervonetz," the first stable Soviet currency.

Tomsky: head of the Russian trade union center for years; old worker-Bolshevik; member of the Central Committee and Political Bureau for years.

Rykov: old Bolshevik leader; Lenin's successor as chairman of the Council of People's Commissars.

Serebriakov: Stalin's predecessor in the post of secretary of the C.P.

Bukharin: for years one of the most prominent theoreticians of the Bolsheviks; chairman of the Comintern after Zinoviev; editor of official government organ, Isvestia.

Kotsubinsky: one of the main founders of the Ukrainian Soviet Republic.

General Schmidt; head of one of the first Red Cavalry brigades in the Ukraine and one of the country's liberators from the White forces.

Other heroes of the Civil War, like General Putna, military attache till yesterday of the Soviet Embassy in London; Gertik and Gaevsky; Shaposhnikov, director of the Academy of the General Staff; Klian Kliavin.

Heads of banking institutions; chiefs of industrial trusts; heads of educational and scientific institutions; party secretaries from one end of the land to the other; authors (Selivanovsky, Serebriakova, Katayev, Friedland, Tarassov-Rodiondv); editors of party papers; high government officials (Prof. Joseph Lieberberg, chairman of the Executive Committee of the Jewish Autonomous Republic of Biro-Bijan); etc., etc.

Now to charge, as has been done, all these men and women, plus hundreds and perhaps thousands of others, with having engaged to one extent or another, in an assassination plot, is equivalent, at the very outset and on the face of the matter, to an involuntary admission by the accusing bureaucracy.

1. That its much-vaunted popularity and the universality of its support among the population, is fantastically exaggerated.

2. That it has created such a regime in the party and the country as a whole, that the very creators of the Bolshevik party and revolution, its most notable and valiant defenders in the crucial and decisive early years, could find no normal way of expressing their dissatisfaction or opposition to the ruling bureaucracy and found that the only way of fighting the latter was the way chosen, for example, by the Nihilists in their struggle against Czarist despotism, namely, conspiracy and individual terrorism.

3. That the "classless socialist society irrevocably" established by Stalin is so inferior to Fascist barbarism on the political, economic and cultural fields, that hundreds of men whose whole lives were prominently devoted to the cause of the proletariat and its emancipation, decided to discard everything achieved by 19 years of the Russian Revolution in favor of a Nazi regime.

4. And, not least of all, that the Russian Revolution was organized and led by an unscrupulous and perfidious hand of swindlers, liars, scoundrels, mad dogs and assassins. Or, more correctly, if these were not their characteristic in 1917 and the years immediately thereafter, then there was something about the gifted and beloved leadership of Stalinism that reduced erstwhile revolutionists and men of probity and integrity to the level of swindlers, liars, scoundrels, mad dogs and assassins.The Stalinist reasonings, their web of poorly and ad-hoc created lies, really condemn themselves even if they had been true. At least one of these four points must be true for their apologetics to work, and every one of the four is utterly damning.

Scientific

25th October 2007, 08:39

I am here with Stalin. And all the things which happened in Stalin era that was great. And no one has done great job in defense of humanity which has Stalin. That is why I have written In Defense of Stalin and continuously I will update it. To study in defense of Stalin go through with my signature.

Comrade Nadezhda

25th October 2007, 16:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:07 am
I think the argument I am making, which allows us to dispense with the pointless bickering over so-called conspiracies in which the Stalinists won't accept any non-Stalinist sources anyway, is expressed best by Max Schachtman:

The official indictment charges a widespread assassination conspiracy, carried on these five years or more, directed against the head of the Communist party and the government, organized with the direct connivance of the Hitler regime, and aimed at the establishment of a Fascist dictatorship in Russia. And who are included in these stupefying charges, either as direct participants or, what would be no less reprehensible, as persons with knowledge of the conspiracy who failed to disclose it?

Leon Trotsky, organizer and leader, together with Lenin, of the October Revolution, and founder of the Comintern.

Zinoviev: 35 years of his life in the Bolshevik party; Lenin's closest collaborator in exile and nominated by him as first chairman of the Communist International; chairman of the Petrograd Soviet for years; member of the Central Committee and the Political Bureau of the C.P. for years.

Kamenev: also 35 years spent in the Bolshevik party; chairman of the Political Bureau in Lenin's absence; chairman of the Moscow Soviet; chairman of the Council of Labor and Defense; Lenin's literary executor.

Smirnov: head of the famous Fifth Army during the civil war; called the "Lenin of Siberia;" a member of the Bolshevik party for decades.

Yevdokimov: official party orator at Lenin's funeral; leader of the Leningrad party organization for many years; member of the Central Committee at the time Kirov died.

Ter-Vaganian: theoretical leader of the Armenian communists; founder and first editor of the party's review, "Under the Banner of Marxism."

Mrachkovsky: defender of Ekaterinoslav from the interventionist Czechs and the White troop during the civil war.

Bakayev: old Bolshevik leader in Moscow; member of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission during Lenin's time.

Sokolnikov: Soviet ambassador to England; creator of the "chervonetz," the first stable Soviet currency.

Tomsky: head of the Russian trade union center for years; old worker-Bolshevik; member of the Central Committee and Political Bureau for years.

Rykov: old Bolshevik leader; Lenin's successor as chairman of the Council of People's Commissars.

Serebriakov: Stalin's predecessor in the post of secretary of the C.P.

Bukharin: for years one of the most prominent theoreticians of the Bolsheviks; chairman of the Comintern after Zinoviev; editor of official government organ, Isvestia.

Kotsubinsky: one of the main founders of the Ukrainian Soviet Republic.

General Schmidt; head of one of the first Red Cavalry brigades in the Ukraine and one of the country's liberators from the White forces.

Other heroes of the Civil War, like General Putna, military attache till yesterday of the Soviet Embassy in London; Gertik and Gaevsky; Shaposhnikov, director of the Academy of the General Staff; Klian Kliavin.

Heads of banking institutions; chiefs of industrial trusts; heads of educational and scientific institutions; party secretaries from one end of the land to the other; authors (Selivanovsky, Serebriakova, Katayev, Friedland, Tarassov-Rodiondv); editors of party papers; high government officials (Prof. Joseph Lieberberg, chairman of the Executive Committee of the Jewish Autonomous Republic of Biro-Bijan); etc., etc.

Now to charge, as has been done, all these men and women, plus hundreds and perhaps thousands of others, with having engaged to one extent or another, in an assassination plot, is equivalent, at the very outset and on the face of the matter, to an involuntary admission by the accusing bureaucracy.

1. That its much-vaunted popularity and the universality of its support among the population, is fantastically exaggerated.

2. That it has created such a regime in the party and the country as a whole, that the very creators of the Bolshevik party and revolution, its most notable and valiant defenders in the crucial and decisive early years, could find no normal way of expressing their dissatisfaction or opposition to the ruling bureaucracy and found that the only way of fighting the latter was the way chosen, for example, by the Nihilists in their struggle against Czarist despotism, namely, conspiracy and individual terrorism.

3. That the "classless socialist society irrevocably" established by Stalin is so inferior to Fascist barbarism on the political, economic and cultural fields, that hundreds of men whose whole lives were prominently devoted to the cause of the proletariat and its emancipation, decided to discard everything achieved by 19 years of the Russian Revolution in favor of a Nazi regime.

4. And, not least of all, that the Russian Revolution was organized and led by an unscrupulous and perfidious hand of swindlers, liars, scoundrels, mad dogs and assassins. Or, more correctly, if these were not their characteristic in 1917 and the years immediately thereafter, then there was something about the gifted and beloved leadership of Stalinism that reduced erstwhile revolutionists and men of probity and integrity to the level of swindlers, liars, scoundrels, mad dogs and assassins.The Stalinist reasonings, their web of poorly and ad-hoc created lies, really condemn themselves even if they had been true. At least one of these four points must be true for their apologetics to work, and every one of the four is utterly damning.
The problem I have with Stalinists is that they don't back up their arguments very well-- and most arguments they make aren't even "true". Their arguments consist of blaming everything on the "Old Bolsheviks" and "Trotsky's lies" (and neither are sustainable arguments-- ex. they have no evidence of these claims other than Stalin's and other Stalinist's arguments.

Is that is your definition, which is definitely acceptable, then you are simply wrong. Budyonny, Dzerzhinsky, Frunze, Joffe, Kalinin, Kirov, Kollontai, Krasikov, Litvinov, Molotov, Shaumyan, Sverdlov, Voroshilov, Yurovsky, Ordzhonikidze, Zhdanov, etc, etc, etc, were all Bolsheviks before 1917 and weren't executed for treason. It is simply not true that “Stalin killed all the Old Bolsheviks,” not even a majority of them were executed.

I think the idea was that Old Bolsheviks who weren't part of the Stalin clique were targeted during the purges. Of your list: are you fucking kidding?!

- Budyonny: part of the Stalin clique
- Dzerzhinsky: died in 1926 of a heart attack
- Frunze: died in 1925 during an operation on his stomach, was an ally of Zinoviev
- Joffe: Left Oppositionist who killed himself in 1927
- Kalinin: part of the Stalin clique
- Kirov: assassinated in 1934, this is considered the event that sparked the purges
- Molotov: part of the Stalin clique
- Shaumyan: executed in nineteen-fucking-eighteen!
- Sverdlov: died of Spanish influenza in 1919
- Voroshilov: part of the Stalin clique
- Ordzhonikidze: committed suicide in 1937
- Zhdanov: part of the Stalin clique

So you're 4 for 16. But I'm sure you knew that already...

according to Molotov's memoirs, Lenin also tried to exclude Trotsky from government later on.

Yea, cause Molotov didn't have anything at stake in the matter. :rolleyes:
yes, the point is indeed that they were targeted, outside of the whole "trotsky issue".

I am here with Stalin. And all the things which happened in Stalin era that was great. And no one has done great job in defense of humanity which has Stalin. That is why I have written In Defense of Stalin and continuously I will update it. To study in defense of Stalin go through with my signature.
What the hell? What do you base your claims on? Do you think the purges were justified? :huh: In defense of humanity? Stalin may have claimed that himself but it is certainly not 'true'. He replaced the worker's state with his his bureaucractic state, which ultimately served in his and the bureaucracy's interests and not the working-class. Do you think it was necessary for Stalin to carry out all of the executions which he did? If you honestly think he executed comrades in the interest of the working-class-- nothing about Stalin was humane. He took power with the intention to fulfill his own interests and the interests of the bureaucracy-- that is evident, given the extent he went to. I don't think it's deniable the excess he went to with these executions, either. It went far beyond eliminating threats, and the threats he eliminated were only threats to himself anyway, not to the state.

Intelligitimate

26th October 2007, 02:05

Regarding “McCaine's” list, which is really just one composed by Schachtman, the ex-socialist who supported the Vietnam war, and overall disgusting piece of shit...

The list is full of individuals that I can not verify that they were ever Bolsheviks before 1917. This includes Yevdokimov, Bakayev, Serebriakov, Kotsubinsky, Gertik, etc. It also includes people who were most certainly not Old Bolsheviks, like Rakovsky and Putna. Rakovsky was a late comer like Trotsky, and Putna served with Tukhachevsky in the Semeonovsky Guards. Some were not killed at all, such as Shaposhnikov, who died of natural causes in 1945, and Sokolnikov, who was killed in prison while serving a 10 year sentence (the only evidence suggesting the government had anything to do with it is Khrushchev's Secret Speech, which is full of BS). Others I can't even verify who they are, such as Gaevsky, Schmidt and Kliavin. Tomsky couldn't technically be included on this list because he killed himself, even though he was probably going to share the same fate.

So lets reconstruct the list you provided with people who can actually have their credentials as Old Bolshevik clearly identified, had actually been executed under Stalin's leadership at any time, and those who can even be identified (and even though Trotsky doesn't fit this criteria, we'll throw him in anyway):

Trotsky
Zinoviev
Kamenev
Smirnov
Rykov
Bukharin
Shliapnikov (just barely falls into this criteria, came back to Russia in 1916)
Muralov
Primakov

These are the only people on the Schachtman's list (which doesn't even appear to be a list of Old Bolsheviks) and the other names you provided, that were actually verifiable Old Bolsheviks and were executed during Stalin's leadership. In contrast to your list, every single person I mentioned has has credentials that can be checked. So it's 9 to 16 as of now (10 to 16 if you wanna count Tomsky), but there are plenty of other people that could be mentioned (on both sides). Please, feel more than free to create a list. I doubt you will, cause you're clearly lazy as hell to use Schachtman, and incompetent, but I encourage you to try anyway.

I don't feel like responding to your other pointless rantings at this time. I got some other stuff to do, and this is already taking up too much time.

I think the idea was that Old Bolsheviks who weren't part of the Stalin clique were targeted during the purges. Of your list: are you fucking kidding?!

The point is that all the Old Bolsheviks were most certainly not killed by Stalin, as is often claimed, nor does it appear even a majority of them were. Labeling some Old Bolsheviks as being part of “Stalin's clique” or pointing out they died of some other cause doesn't change this, so your little comments are pointless.

Yea, cause Molotov didn't have anything at stake in the matter.

No, he didn't, as he had long been excluded from political life, and was critical of a lot of people, Stalin included. Getty cites it in his paper in Stalin: A New History.

Soviet_Kazimir

31st October 2007, 09:17

Why must you anti Stalin Communists relay on American Imperialist statistics fabricated during the cold war. There is so much misinformation about Stalin and his rule as primer of the Soviet Union. Some Capitalists blame him for the death of 60 million people some less in the 20-30 million range thats a big difference don't you think? If you want my opinion on Comrade Stalin it is this. He lead his country to great economic progress. He purged the Trotsky loyal part of the party. He also had to purge many disloyal factions within the party during this time and from what I have read this is many. The Ukraine incident I view from this standpoint The Ukrainians burned their crops destroyed the farm equipment and rebelled against the still week Soviet Union the gain that was produced there was a powerful force helping the Soviet economy and without it the effects were quite major. So the Ukrainians were quarantined and starved to make an example of. This is were most of the high death count figures come from. And the bourgeoisie press messed with the numbers to reflect bad on the Soviets and Primer Stalin. I believe after the war Stalin was the biggest giver the Soviet Union had been hit hard there major cities lay in ruin and they still needed to rebuild and put together their own broken country. But They also with the Warsaw pact rebuild much of Eastern Europe. The Americans only helped the Europeans because of the Communist uprising in these countries and to get on the good side of this countries so that they would repress the communist movements in their countries. Same thing happened in Korea till this day the U$ has an active presence in the south Korean puppet state. Stalin was a good man you would not want to cross him but he generally cared about the people. I think that his paranoia was justified as to the circumstances of his death. His supposed Comrades were talking behind his back every time he was unconscious on his death bed. They were even happy at this turn of events and wouldn't let the doctor into Stalin's chambers. Why was this I believe Stalin was betrayed and poisoned. Please do not flame me to prove my sources because I do not have to prove anything to Revisionist Communists take what I say and take from it what you want.

Cmde. Slavyanski

31st October 2007, 16:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 04:16 pm
What do you think about Stalin? There are two major divisions in Communist theory: pro-stalin, and anti-stalin. I have been going through a political battle with myself for a while, about my Pro-Stalin position and everything else. I need to know both sides of the argument before I make any ideological decisions. So, what I'm asking the people of Revleft is, what do you think about Stalin, anti-revisionism, and the Stalin-era Soviet Union itself?
If you want the real dope on Stalin, read Another View of Stalin by Ludo Martens, which is available online. Then read Allianceml.com's critiques of Martens to get the full picture. One has to remember that Stalin did not exist in a vacuum, but rather was one of several people "in the driver's seat" during a most difficult time in the history of socialism, with little practical experience to go on. It is just as foolish to attribute all the positive aspects of the socialist Soviet Union (1924-early 60s) to Stalin as a personality as it is to blame every negative thing in that time on him. Stalin, whether in the eyes of the bourgeoisie, Trotskyites, revisionists, or Fascists(they really have little differences on this point) is not a real man, but a mythological creature, who supposedly controlled every aspect of life in the Soviet Union. In reality Stalin's power was not nearly as absolute as people claim, and in fact Stalin attempted on several occasions to resign from his post. Strange act for someone supposedly ambitious and power-hungry.

We need to put Stalin in his time, in those conditions. People from privileged western nations, living in modern times, have a real difficult time understanding what Russia and the FSU is like RIGHT NOW, much less back in those days. The fact is that the Stalin bogeyman is used because the right knows that socialism under Stalin, with all the flaws that it did have, owing to conditions of the time and place, actually did WORK- it did what it was intended to do. Revisionism post-Stalin, the state monopoly capitalism, didn't work. So they can claim Khruschev-Gorbachev "just didn't work", and when you bring up Stalin they scream: LOOK AT THE COST IN HUMAN LIVES!!! Well if you are truly a Marxist-Leninist, and you did your homework, you ought to know that body-counts isn't the best point from which a capitalist should attack socialism.

In the end, socialism as it existed needs to be defended to certain degrees. Never foolishly believe, as so many Trotskyites or revisionists do, that the bourgeoisie will let up on you if you renounce and condemn Stalin, borrowing from their own propaganda. Let them rout you when you defend Stalin, and soon they'll be attacking you for defending any other socialist, until you no longer defend Marxism, and then they win. If you still question why you should defend this period of socialist history on factual grounds- ask yourself this:

With all the anti-Stalin rhetoric emerging first from Trotsky and then from the XX Party Congress, how has any of this led to an advance of socialism anywhere? Where is the party that can show any real success from discarding and joining the bourgeoisie in denegrating the Soviet Union under Stalin? Such a party or movement simply doesn't exist- and never will, because once you have accepted the bourgeois assumptions on this period of history, you are stuck in their framework.

Likewise, if you slavishly defend Stalin at every turn, as Ludo Martens did to some extent, you are also falling for the bourgeois-constructed framework, which reduces everything down to Stalin; bad or good. Rational understanding of real-world socialism means putting Stalin in his role and place.

In some ways, the events of the Stalin era are irrelevant as well. Russia for example, is(thanks to Stalin and the Bolsheviks), already industrialized for the most part. Any de-industrialization is due to capitalism. Agriculture is no longer backward, and while farms ought to be collectivized in the Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, etc. We have entered a technological era where a collective farm community can be built that is indisputably far superior to private plots that exist today, even with their mechanical advances. Incidentily, it is also worth noting that a major reversal has occurred, largely in part due to Soviet socialism- in modern times, a great deal of support for socialists and Communists in the FSU, including Ukraine and Russia, comes from the peasants and farmers. This is key because agriculture was the weak point of the USSR, as Stalin admitted.

Soviet_Kazimir

31st October 2007, 22:49

Originally posted by Cmde. Slavyanski+October 31, 2007 03:21 pm--> (Cmde. Slavyanski @ October 31, 2007 03:21 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 04:16 pm
What do you think about Stalin? There are two major divisions in Communist theory: pro-stalin, and anti-stalin. I have been going through a political battle with myself for a while, about my Pro-Stalin position and everything else. I need to know both sides of the argument before I make any ideological decisions. So, what I'm asking the people of Revleft is, what do you think about Stalin, anti-revisionism, and the Stalin-era Soviet Union itself?
If you want the real dope on Stalin, read Another View of Stalin by Ludo Martens, which is available online. Then read Allianceml.com's critiques of Martens to get the full picture. One has to remember that Stalin did not exist in a vacuum, but rather was one of several people "in the driver's seat" during a most difficult time in the history of socialism, with little practical experience to go on. It is just as foolish to attribute all the positive aspects of the socialist Soviet Union (1924-early 60s) to Stalin as a personality as it is to blame every negative thing in that time on him. Stalin, whether in the eyes of the bourgeoisie, Trotskyites, revisionists, or Fascists(they really have little differences on this point) is not a real man, but a mythological creature, who supposedly controlled every aspect of life in the Soviet Union. In reality Stalin's power was not nearly as absolute as people claim, and in fact Stalin attempted on several occasions to resign from his post. Strange act for someone supposedly ambitious and power-hungry.

We need to put Stalin in his time, in those conditions. People from privileged western nations, living in modern times, have a real difficult time understanding what Russia and the FSU is like RIGHT NOW, much less back in those days. The fact is that the Stalin bogeyman is used because the right knows that socialism under Stalin, with all the flaws that it did have, owing to conditions of the time and place, actually did WORK- it did what it was intended to do. Revisionism post-Stalin, the state monopoly capitalism, didn't work. So they can claim Khruschev-Gorbachev "just didn't work", and when you bring up Stalin they scream: LOOK AT THE COST IN HUMAN LIVES!!! Well if you are truly a Marxist-Leninist, and you did your homework, you ought to know that body-counts isn't the best point from which a capitalist should attack socialism.

In the end, socialism as it existed needs to be defended to certain degrees. Never foolishly believe, as so many Trotskyites or revisionists do, that the bourgeoisie will let up on you if you renounce and condemn Stalin, borrowing from their own propaganda. Let them rout you when you defend Stalin, and soon they'll be attacking you for defending any other socialist, until you no longer defend Marxism, and then they win. If you still question why you should defend this period of socialist history on factual grounds- ask yourself this:

With all the anti-Stalin rhetoric emerging first from Trotsky and then from the XX Party Congress, how has any of this led to an advance of socialism anywhere? Where is the party that can show any real success from discarding and joining the bourgeoisie in denegrating the Soviet Union under Stalin? Such a party or movement simply doesn't exist- and never will, because once you have accepted the bourgeois assumptions on this period of history, you are stuck in their framework.

Likewise, if you slavishly defend Stalin at every turn, as Ludo Martens did to some extent, you are also falling for the bourgeois-constructed framework, which reduces everything down to Stalin; bad or good. Rational understanding of real-world socialism means putting Stalin in his role and place.

In some ways, the events of the Stalin era are irrelevant as well. Russia for example, is(thanks to Stalin and the Bolsheviks), already industrialized for the most part. Any de-industrialization is due to capitalism. Agriculture is no longer backward, and while farms ought to be collectivized in the Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, etc. We have entered a technological era where a collective farm community can be built that is indisputably far superior to private plots that exist today, even with their mechanical advances. Incidentily, it is also worth noting that a major reversal has occurred, largely in part due to Soviet socialism- in modern times, a great deal of support for socialists and Communists in the FSU, including Ukraine and Russia, comes from the peasants and farmers. This is key because agriculture was the weak point of the USSR, as Stalin admitted. [/b]
I think you are very right Comrade everyone things it was all Stalin they make Stalin seem like the one force ruling the entire country. A government is huge and complex you can't say that Stalin is responsible for all the "faults" or advancements in Soviet society. Same with Chairman Mao. Really those Revisionists disgust me and frankly Trotsky had the ice pick coming