Stalinism

[Tower of Bebel]

[I do not know if this is the best place to post a thread about this subject. But I guess you must start somewhere.]

It's all about the word stalinism. There is some critque on the use of the word stalinism or stalinist. Specially those who're called stalinists do not like it at all.

Nobody has a problem with the words like leninist, maoist, trotskyist, marxist, ... but stalinists seems to be a problem.

I do not believe that the word stalinism - on revleft - is used in the way as Khrushchev used it after the death of Stalin. I heard once of an alternative called: "anti-revisionist". I find it difficult to use this word. I do not think that there is anybody on the boards who is not against revisionism.

What do you think stalinism is, or, what is a stalinist on revleft? And do we need an alternative?

[Random Precision]

Stalinism is a term representing several different things.

As a governing style it implies an extensive use of propaganda to establish a personality cult around an absolute dictator, and the use of secret police to enforce stability and silence dissent. There is also present a monolithic Communist Party that supports the dictator and forms the greater part of a ruling bureaucracy.

As an economic system, it involves the control of a semi-bourgeoisie coordinator class over the means of production, with the absence of workers' democracy. Its economic policy most frequently includes rapid industrialization, while collectivizing agriculture to build toward that goal, all this supposedly to build an industrial socialist society. The building of the military is also quite important.

As a distinct socialist ideology its planks include the theory of socialism in one country, developed by Bukharin, and the aggravation of class struggle along with the development of socialism, which was the justification in Stalinist countries for the suppression of political opponents.

Historically, another important feature is its use of the worldwide communist movement in various ways to support the foreign policy aims of the USSR. Many times this lead into actual sabotage of socialist movements in different countries, for fear that there might emerge a socialist country to rival the Soviet Union.

I would argue that Stalinism is an ideology that generally stands in opposition to orthodox Leninism, as Lenin was in favor of keeping state influence low, whereras Stalin increased it substantially. In addition, Lenin sought to keep revolutionary democracy; his party contained many conflicting currents and had a great deal of healthy debate on policy matters. Stalin turned the party into a monolithic bloc charged mainly with carrying out his directives. While Lenin and Stalin both started campaigns of terror, Lenin's was much smaller in scale. He also allowed defeated opponents to go into exile and never attempted to have his Party comrades executed.

Generally, when I use the term "Stalinist" I mean by it one who upholds Stalin's rule over the the USSR. The currents of Stalinism are generally split over whether Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, or Hoxha's Albania was the most socialist. Fidel Castro's Cuba may be part of the mix as well, but not necessarily.

[Tower of Bebel]

When I see this word used to discribe semi-socialist regimes like the USSR and PRC, I also see that there are some doubts on Cuba. Cuba copied certain elements from the USSR and had to keep a close relationship with the USSR in order to survive. Yet I see many have doubts. Sometimes I think it is used as a negative term, and there is just to much appreciation for Cuba.

Or is Cuba a lot different than the former USSR, and therefor Stalinism cannot be used?

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:23 pm
When I see this word used to discribe semi-socialist regimes like the USSR and PRC, I also see that there are some doubts on Cuba. Cuba copied certain elements from the USSR and had to keep a close relationship with the USSR in order to survive. Yet I see many have doubts. Sometimes I think it is used as a negative term, and there is just to much appreciation for Cuba.

Or is Cuba a lot different than the former USSR, and therefor Stalinism cannot be used?
I don't have a really good answer for you, as I know little about the reality of Castro's regime. I would argue that it's essentially Stalinism with palm trees, however I know many Trotskyists used to see Castro as an "unconscious Trotskyist" who was threfore capable of establishing a genuine socialist country. I disagree, but once again others will know better.

[Random Precision]

On the term "Anti-Revisionism":

I also dislike that term for several reasons. The first is that even if one accepts the Stalinist definition of "revisionism", as represented concretely by Nikita Khruschev's reforms in the USSR and Deng Xiao Ping's reforms in China, this would make all other revolutionary socialists anti-revisionists as well. Therefore, the term is meaningless.

Secondly, I see "revisionism" in both the USSR and China as merely a further development of Stalinist policy in those countries. Stalinists, on the other hand, tend to believe that they suddenly turned into revisionist hellholes after Stalin's and Mao's deaths, before which each was supposedly a socialist paradise. This is a ridiculous and indefensible view of history.

There is also the problem of exactly how much was revised under their respective reigns. As g.ram points out, it wasn't much at all.

[catch]

I prefer "tankie".

[Vargha Poralli]

Marxists.org's definition of Stalinism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#stalinism) which I I find it very easy to understand.


Originally posted by Marxists.org+--> (Marxists.org)In contemporary parlance, the word “Stalinism” has come to embody a range of ideologies, specific political positions, forms of societal organization, and political tendencies. That makes getting at the core definition of “Stalinism” difficult, but not impossible.

First and foremost, Stalinism must be understood as the politics of a political stratum. Specifically, Stalinism is the politics of the bureaucracy that hovers over a workers' state. Its first manifestation was in the Soviet Union, where Stalinism arose when sections of the bureaucracy began to express their own interests against those of the working class, which had created the workers' state through revolution to serve its class interests.

Soviet Russia was an isolated workers' state, and its developmental problems were profound. The socialist movement–including the Bolshevik leaders in Russia–had never confronted such problems. Chief among these was that Russia was a backward, peasant-dominated country, the “weakest link in the capitalist chain,” and had to fight for its survival within an imperialist world. This challenge was compounded by the defeat of the revolution in Europe, particularly in Germany, and the isolation of the Soviet workers' state from the material aid that could have been provided by a stronger workers' state. But the pressures of imperialism were too great.

From a social point of view, then, Stalinism is the expression of these pressures of imperialism within the workers' state. The politics of Stalinism flow from these pressures.

The political tenets of Stalinism revolve around the theory of socialism in one country–developed by Stalin to counter the Bolshevik theory that the survival of the Russian Revolution depended on proletarian revolutions in Europe. In contradistinction, the Stalinist theory stipulates that a socialist society can be achieved within a single country.

In April 1924, in the first edition of his book Foundations of Leninism, Stalin had explicitly rejected the idea that socialism could be constructed in one country. He wrote: “Is it possible to attain the final victory of socialism in one country, without the combined efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries? No, it is not. The efforts of one country are enough for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. This is what the history of our revolution tells us. For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, especially a peasant country like ours, are not enough. For this we must have the efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries. Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution.”

In August 1924, as Stalin was consolidating his power in the Soviet Union, a second edition of the same book was published. The text just quoted had been replaced with, in part, the following: “Having consolidated its power, and taking the lead of the peasantry, the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society.” And by November 1926, Stalin had completely revised history, stating: “The party always took as its starting point the idea that the victory of socialism ... can be accomplished with the forces of a single country.”

Leon Trotsky, in The Third International After Lenin, called the Stalinist concept of “socialism one country” a “reactionary theory” and characterized its “basis” as one that“sums up to sophistic interpretations of several lines from Lenin on the one hand, and to a scholastic interpretation of the 'law of uneven development' on the other. By giving a correct interpretation of the historic law as well as of the quotations [from Lenin] in question,” Trotsky continued, “we arrive at a directly opposite conclusion, that is, the conclusion that was reached by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and all of us, including Stalin and Bukharin, up to 1925."

Stalinism had uprooted the very foundations of Marxism and Leninism.

From “socialism in one country” flow the two other main tenets of Stalinist politics. First is that the workers' movement–given the focus on building socialism in one country (i.e., the Soviet Union)–must adapt itself to whatever is in the best interests of that focus at any given moment. Hence we find the Stalinists engaged in “a series of contradictory zigzags” (Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed), from confrontation with imperialism to détente and from seeming support for the working-class struggle to outright betrayal of the workers. In other words, Russia's own economic development comes first, above an international policy of revolution–which was the Bolshevik perspective. The second is the idea of revolution in “stages” –that the “national-democratic revolution” must be completed before the socialist revolution takes place. This, too, runs contrary to Marxism. But because of this theory and as the expression of imperialism within the workers' state–and, by extension, within the world workers' movement–we find the Stalinists assigning to the national bourgeoisie a revolutionary role.

The case of Indonesia in 1965 affords an ideal illustration of the bankruptcy and treachery of the “two-stage theory.” As class tensions mounted among the workers and the peasantry, and the masses began to rise up against the shaky regime of President Sukarno, the Stalinist leadership in Beijing told the Indonesian masses and their mass organization the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) to tie their fate to the national bourgeoisie. In October, as many as 1 million workers and peasants were slaughtered in a CIA-organized coup led by General Suharto, which swept aside the Sukarno, crushed the rising mass movements, and installed a brutal military dictatorship.

The “two-stage theory” has also propelled the Stalinists into “popular fronts” with so-called“progressive”elements of the bourgeois class to “advance” the first revolutionary stage. Examples include Stalinist support (through the Communist Party, USA) to President Roosevelt 1930s. And, taking this orientation to its logical conclusion, the Communist Party in the United States consistently supports Democratic Party candidates for office, including the presidency.

The theory of “socialism in one country” and the policies that flowed from it propelled a transformation of Soviet foreign policy under Stalin. The Bolshevik revolutionary strategy, based on support for the working classes of all countries and an effort through the Communist International to construct Communist Parties as revolutionary leaderships throughout the world, gave way to deal-making and maneuvers with bourgeois governments, colonial “democrats” like Chiang Kai-shek in China, and the trade union bureaucracies.

In his 1937 essay “Stalinism and Bolshevism,” Trotsky wrote: “The experience of Stalinism does not refute the teaching of Marxism but confirms it by inversion. The revolutionary doctrine which teaches the proletariat to orient itself correctly in situations and to profit actively by them, contains of course no automatic guarantee of victory. But victory is possible only through the application of this doctrine.” At best, one can say that the Stalinist orientation has not been one of orienting “correctly."

In terms of the organization of a state, Stalinist policies are quite clear: democratic rights threaten the position of the bureaucracy, and hence democracy is incompatible with Stalinism. In basic terms on a world scale, the forces of Stalinism have done everything in their power to prevent socialist revolution.[/b]

Emphasis are mine.


Raccoon
I heard once of an alternative called: "anti-revisionist".

Well the problem with that term is it doesn't mean anything.

For one USSR during Stalin's rule did not have anything to do with Marxism or Socialism or Communism. And apart from removing Stalin's names and statues Khrushchev didn't "revise" anything - in other word the economic and political structure of USSR remained same as it was under Stalin.

Revisionism is just a meaningless term used by Mao to accuse Khrushchev and justify his alliance with US.

A thread where Stalinism's nature is (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41124&hl=Stalinism) discussed along with nature of Cuba.

And as popularly believed Stalinist is not a slur. It would be Stalinite if it had been.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:54 pm
[I do not know if this is the best place to post a thread about this subject. But I guess you must start somewhere.]

It's all about the word stalinism. There is some critque on the use of the word stalinism or stalinist. Specially those who're called stalinists do not like it at all.

Nobody has a problem with the words like leninist, maoist, trotskyist, marxist, ... but stalinists seems to be a problem.

I do not believe that the word stalinism - on revleft - is used in the way as Khrushchev used it after the death of Stalin. I heard once of an alternative called: "anti-revisionist". I find it difficult to use this word. I do not think that there is anybody on the boards who is not against revisionism.

What do you think stalinism is, or, what is a stalinist on revleft? And do we need an alternative?
ask this question those who survive GULAG

[Tower of Bebel]

It's all about the use of this word Hadjuk, not about crualties. Some stalinists on revleft don't feel confortable when they're called stalinists. So it's all about whether it is useful to find an alternative for the word stalinism, or not.

[Hiero]

Stalinists, on the other hand, tend to believe that they suddenly turned into revisionist hellholes after Stalin's and Mao's deaths, before which each was supposedly a socialist paradise.

No they don't. Go read Mao or Lin Biao 1966 onwards. Read Mao's critique of Stalin's "Economic Problems in the USSR". The idea and practice of cultural revolution refutes the idea that Stalinist believe that revisionism is sudden.

And no Communist has ever used the word socialist paradise. I have heard about making paradise on earth, but that refers to communism. If you read anything by Stalin or Mao you see constantly they bringing forward problems and errors in the USSR and PRC. This "socialist paradise" phrase seems to imposed on Communist by the bourgeois or often joked about on TV or movies, you have a guy mention a socialist paradise, and then show a derlict house in Cuba.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 11:13 am
It's all about the use of this word Hadjuk, not about crualties. Some stalinists on revleft don't feel confortable when they're called stalinists. So it's all about whether it is useful to find an alternative for the word stalinism, or not.
Raccon you cant find alternative word for GULAG

[catch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 11:13 am
It's all about the use of this word Hadjuk, not about crualties. Some stalinists on revleft don't feel confortable when they're called stalinists. So it's all about whether it is useful to find an alternative for the word stalinism, or not.
Tankie is fine.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tankie



The term derives from the fact that the divisions within the communist movement first arose when the Soviet Union sent tanks into communist Hungary in 1956, to crush an attempt to establish an alternative version of communism which was not embraced by the Russians. Most communists outside the eastern bloc opposed this action and criticised the Soviet Union. The "tankies" were those who said "send the tanks in".

The epithet has stuck because tankies also supported "sending the tanks in" in cases such as Czechoslovakia 1968, Afghanistan 1979, Bosnia and Kosovo/a (in the case of the Serbian state), and so on (whereas the rest of the communist movement has gravitated towards anti-militarism).

[Saint Street Revolution]

I personally use the word "Stalinism" alot, and I define it, in a simple manner, "The method of governing used by the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin's control", or even more simply put, "The views of Joseph Stalin".

[Led Zeppelin]

Yeah I prefer the term tankie.

Dumbass also suffices in most cases.

[Red Scare]

tankie works

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 11:44 am
No they don't. Go read Mao or Lin Biao 1966 onwards. Read Mao's critique of Stalin's "Economic Problems in the USSR". The idea and practice of cultural revolution refutes the idea that Stalinist believe that revisionism is sudden.
I have read into these issues a great deal. What Mao and Lin said doesn't change the fact that "revisionism" is nothing more than a line that Stalinists draw on a country's timeline after their favorite dictator dies.

As for the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution", it was neither great, nor proletarian, nor a revolution, and it didn't have anything cultural about it. It was more like a bureaucratic struggle by Mao to regain his power within the party. All supposedly revolutionary aspects of it were quickly crushed after that goal was achieved. The "idea" of cultural revolution proceeds from this.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:45 pm
tankie works
I'm suprised to see an affirmation of that term from a Maoist. I'm assuming you are a Maoist, because of the RCP link in your sig.

[Tower of Bebel]

I find tankie a bit difficult since it refers to Eastern European conflicts with the USSR between 1956 and 1989 (and maybe also the Tienamenh square). This is the periode of the so called "revisionists". Which means Stalin is excluded? It cannot be an alternative for stalinism.

This discussion might still be irrelevant.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:36 pm
I find tankie a bit difficult since it refers to Eastern European conflicts with the USSR between 1956 and 1989 (and maybe also the Tienamenh square). This is the periode of the so called "revisionists". Which means Stalin is excluded? It cannot be an alternative for stalinism.

This discussion might still be irrelevant.
True. I wonder why it is that many of them are perfectly content to be called "Maoists" or "Hoxhaists" but "Stalinist" is a no-no. Is it because they believe Mao or Hoxha, as the case may be, contributed more theoretically than Stalin did? I would disagree with this, because both Mao and Hoxha essentially only applied Stalin's example to their own countries. Or is it because they have problems with Stalin in whatever way? It would not seem so, because they fiercely defend him for the most part.

[stevensen]

i have been publishing in revleft for over 2 years now. i have never been ashamed to be called a stalinist. i am proud to be a stalinist. and i would disagree that people have no problems with the word 'trotskyst' i surely would feel insulted if i am addressed as such

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:36 pm
i have been publishing in revleft for over 2 years now. i have never been ashamed to be called a stalinist. i am proud to be a stalinist. and i would disagree that people have no problems with the word 'trotskyst' i surely would feel insulted if i am addressed as such
That's not the issue, dumbass.

[Tower of Bebel]

Maybe it's just because stalinism is used by both Trotsky and Khrustiev in a very negative way. Of course both had a different definition of stalinism.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:54 pm
Maybe it's just because stalinism is used by both Trotsky and Khrustiev in a very negative way. Of course both had a different definition of stalinism.
Well, yeah. Trotsky had an actual analysis of Stalinism and why it developed, whereas Khrushchev, a Stalinist himself, associated it only with Stalin. He was guilty of what Trotsky called "vulgar Stalinophobia".

But I don't see why any modern Stalinist would care what either Trotsky or Khruschev thought.

[Red Scare]

Originally posted by catbert836+August 28, 2007 03:32 pm--> (catbert836 @ August 28, 2007 03:32 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 03:45 pm
tankie works
I'm suprised to see an affirmation of that term from a Maoist. I'm assuming you are a Maoist, because of the RCP link in your sig. [/b]
i am somewhat of a maoist, the fact that I am marxist-leninist is set in stone

[Red Scare]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:05 pm
[QUOTE=tankie works
I'm suprised to see an affirmation of that term from a Maoist. I'm assuming you are a Maoist, because of the RCP link in your sig. [/quote]

and besides, just because somebody is a maoist does not mean they are a tankie

[Random Precision]

But is not Maoism a branch of Stalinism? Or is "tankie" a pejorative term that Stalinists use against one another as well?

[sanpal]

Originally posted by hajduk+August 28, 2007 12:03 pm--> (hajduk @ August 28, 2007 12:03 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 11:13 am
It's all about the use of this word Hadjuk, not about crualties. Some stalinists on revleft don't feel confortable when they're called stalinists. So it's all about whether it is useful to find an alternative for the word stalinism, or not.
Raccon you cant find alternative word for GULAG [/b]
MARS :lol:

Ask any member of this board what to do with former capitalists, semi-bourgeois elements, etc. after revolution and they will tell you to send the opposition to the planet Mars for reeducation ;)

[Red Scare]

not all maoists are stalinists, most are revolutionary marxist-leninists

[quirk]

I think the reason the word Stalinist is not liked is that Stalin did not make the same ideological contribution as say Lenin or Mao and in his only words was merely a disciple of Lenin thus most "Stalinists" would probably just refer to themselves as Marxist-Leninists. Someone who upholds Stalin is a Leninist in the same way that someone who upholds Engel's is a Marxist and not something different. Also others mostly use the word in a negative sense and this is what is implied when they label someone a Stalinist.

[stevensen]

hey catbert i did not insult u did i? the issue of stalinism is surely too small to be addressed in this forum or maybe u think u have already addressed it, in which case we can all see who the dumbass is. i was just responding to the original post particularly to the comment that nobody has a problem with trotsky. we stalinists surely do have but considering the intellectual level of the discussion on this forum it is useless to argue on that topic here, mainly because of people like you.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 04:41 pm
hey catbert i did not insult u did i? the issue of stalinism is surely too small to be addressed in this forum or maybe u think u have already addressed it, in which case we can all see who the dumbass is. i was just responding to the original post particularly to the comment that nobody has a problem with trotsky. we stalinists surely do have but considering the intellectual level of the discussion on this forum it is useless to argue on that topic here, mainly because of people like you.
The point was that not many have problem with the label "Trotskyist" for those who identify with Trotsky's politics. The same goes for those who identify with the politics of Marx, Mao, or whatever. But those who identify with Stalin's politics for some reason have problems with the term "Stalinist". NOT that no one had problems with Trotsky.

[Random Precision]

I think the reason the word Stalinist is not liked is that Stalin did not make the same ideological contribution as say Lenin or Mao and in his only words was merely a disciple of Lenin thus most "Stalinists" would probably just refer to themselves as Marxist-Leninists.

I have problems with calling them that term as well, because "Marxism-Leninism" would by its literal definition include Trotskyists as well as Stalinists. Many Trotskyists prefer to call themselves "Bolshevik-Leninists" for this reason, although I have some of the same problems with that term.


Also others mostly use the word in a negative sense and this is what is implied when they label someone a Stalinist.

So was "Trotskyist" originally.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:04 am
not all maoists are stalinists, most are revolutionary marxist-leninists
What exactly do you mean by "revolutionary Marxist-Leninists"? Because that is a rather broad term, at least on its face.

Could you provide some evidence that Maoists are not Stalinists?

[quirk]

So was "Trotskyist" originally.

Was it not Trotskyite that was used in a negative sense?

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:35 pm
Was it not Trotskyite that was used in a negative sense?
Yes, as well as "Trotskyist".

[quirk]

Trotskyists would claim that Trotsky made a large ideological contribution to communist theory as would Maoists claim Mao did, hence the terms Trotskyism and Maoism in recognition of this. Those who uphold Stalin I dont think would make the same claim about him.

[Red Scare]

just because i call myself a marxist leninist does NOT mean that I am a stalinist!!!!!!! i get tired of people associating the terms, i call myself a marxist leninist because I am mostly a marxist but also a leninist, and even that does not sum up my complicated communist viewpoint

[Janus]

Most Stalinists don't call themselves Stalinists these days but rather Marxism-Leninists not only because it is a more innocuous sounding label but also out of a desire to latch onto Lenin's eminence and authority. Since Stalin did not contribute much in the matter of political theory asides from "socialism within one country", it stands to reason that it wouldn't be necessary to add such a label when addressing non-USSR related issues.

More discussion on this topic:
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...58&hl=Stalinism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65458&hl=Stalinism)
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...03&hl=Stalinism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54903&hl=Stalinism)
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...02&hl=Stalinism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58102&hl=Stalinism)