The Stalinist Ideology.

[forever socialist]

What do you people on the left think of the Stalinist ideology??

I personaly think the guy was a monster. He mutated the ideal of socialism for his own benefit, to eliminate his poitical opponents etc. To me he exchangd one form of opprerssion for another.
Your thoughts??

[spartan]

What do you people on the left think of the Stalinist ideology??

I personaly think the guy was a monster. He mutated the ideal of socialism for his own benefit, to eliminate his poitical opponents etc. To me he exchangd one form of opprerssion for another.
Your thoughts??

I agree with you completly.

Here on revleft you will find that the majority of us are completly against Stalin.

Indeed Stalinists used to be restricted to the "Oppossing Ideologies" section of this forum.

Though i should point out there is a very vocal minority (Emphasis on the word "minority") called the "Hoxhaist Union" who think of him as a person who was wronged by everyone around him.

[bezdomni]

There are loads of threads on this website about Stalin already, if you want to really see what people have to say about him...you should go around and look for some of the many threads that already exist on Stalin.

Anyway, in regards to your question, I think there are two things that should be clarified.

First,"Stalinism" is not an ideology. Just like how you have Trotskyists and "Stalinists" who both uphold Lenin, you have a lot of different ideologies that uphold Stalin as a socialist leader. There is the general consensus that Stalin continued to apply the line and method of Marxism-Leninism, but after that it gets shaky. There are also lots of criticisms of Stalin coming from different ideological camps, although I would say the most historically noteworthy support and criticisms of Stalin came from Mao.

Second, you need to really apply the materialist method when you are studying Soviet history. You need to be able to differentiate between bourgeois distortions of history and try to really arrive at a correct understanding of what really happened in the Soviet Union. In response to what you said, I don't think that Stalin "mutated socialism for his own benefits" or tried incessantly to "eliminate political opponents". I think Stalin was too short-sighted in the way he handled contradictions in the party and that eventually led to the revisionists taking over the party, and I think he also misunderstood the differences between contradictions among the people and contradictions against the enemy.

Overall though, you have to ask "was the USSR under Stalin's leadership organized along the principles of the dictatorship of the proletariat and working toward the overall liberation of humanity"? I would say, yes...although there were many mistakes and setbacks along the way.

You also have to understand that the USSR was the first socialist country in history. There was no blueprint for them, no real historical experience to learn from. The USSR was really groping the dark, hoping that what they were doing was right...and I think overall, the socialist USSR (1917-1956) handled most things correctly, and that Stalin consistently upheld the revolutionary science of Marxism-Leninism.

And just to clarify, I am a Maoist. There are other people here who uphold Stalin but will disagree with me in a lot of what I said. So it goes.

[bezdomni]

I agree with you completly.

Here on revleft you will find that the majority of us are completly against Stalin.

Indeed Stalinists used to be restricted to the "Oppossing Ideologies" section of this forum.

Though i should point out there is a very vocal minority (Emphasis on the word "minority") called the "Hoxhaist Union" who think of him as a person who was wronged by everyone around him.

Do you make any worthwhile posts?

[spartan]

Do you make any worthwhile posts?

Yes just go back to the second post on this thread and you will see a great example of a worthwhile post.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What do you people on the left think of the Stalinist ideology??

I personaly think the guy was a monster. He mutated the ideal of socialism for his own benefit, to eliminate his poitical opponents etc. To me he exchangd one form of opprerssion for another.
Your thoughts??

I think Stalinism was harmful to the workrs movement directly and ideologically and is partially the reason the international left is as weak as it is today.

Internally, the idea of forcing socialism from above ended up recreating the horrors of capitalist privative accumulation (but in a much more rapid time-frame). Capitalism had slavery and the enclosures and conquest to boost accumulation, Stalin had work camps and gulags and conquest to force industrialization in Russia.

Internationally, Stalinism made Communist Parties (loyal to Russia because of the presige of the Russian Revolution) from all over the world abandon tactics and politics that would build the workers movements in those countries in favor of tactics which helped Russian policy needs. So in the US, the C.P., supported the Democratic Party during WWII and therefore had to stop their own union militants from going on strike because it would jeopardize the USSR's alliance with the US in WWII.

Ideologically, Stalinism made socialism synonymous with nationalization of industry by the state and one party rule rather than real socialism: worker's power.

I don't think Stalin set out to be a monster, but his bad politics and replacing worker's power with the power of the bureaucracy in order to create "Socialism in One Country" meant that he and the party had different interests than those of the working class - and since there were no real soviets or unions or organs of worker's power, the working class had no way to fight back and assert their power.

[kromando33]

I think your believing Western and Nazi bourgeois propaganda and basing that as your opinion.

Stalin did fundamentally what Marxist is all about, he empowered the proletariat through massive industrialization and fought against the bourgeois. 'Stalinism' is simply a mythical bogeyman for the naive Trots and their bourgeois masters. 'Stalinism' (essentially Marxism-Leninism) is nothing but the self-determination of the working masses, I suggest you use a but of self-criticism to correct your revisionist and deviationist views, and stop slandering comrade Stalin as a mouthpiece of imperialism.

[spartan]

and stop slandering comrade Stalin as a mouthpiece of imperialism.

"Comrade" LOL

Stalin doesnt deserve that term put before his name.

Doing so makes it look as pathetic as when modern day neo-Nazis go around calling themselves "comrade", it just simply isnt right.

[Red October]

I'm no fan of Stalin, but I'm getting tired of all these "I think Stalin was a douche" threads. Whether you think he was an awful person or not, you don't need to start new threads about it, we already have dozens. I don't mean to be overly harsh on a new member, but it seems like everyone wants to start a Stalin thread when they first register here. Is there a way we can put all the Stalin threads in one place for easy access?

[kromando33]

Well I think spartan that you should know where your sources and 'popular' misconceptions on Stalin come from, given that the Nazi's are the original source for most of the anti-communist info you cite against comrade Stalin, which was of course was quickly adopted in full by the future McCarthy camp under the guise of 'Americanism'. The actual 'communist exterminations' idea was actually developed by Dr. Goebbels himself and used by Hitler to refer to 'Bolshevism' as Jewish extermination policy against non-Jews, and called the Slavic race "Lebensunwertes Leben"(life unworthy of life). Infact it was the privately-owned German businesses which used proletarian 'dissidents' as slave labor to build bombs etc, most being worked to death, that's raw capitalism is practise friend.


Mainstream sources? I assume you mean bourgeois sources. As for the Moscow files, it's even widely acknowledged today Khrushchev falsified alot of info and exaggerated other parts, taking some out of context and placing them elsewhere etc, this was done to make his Secret Speech for valid and to slander comrade Stalin more. So with that in mind, it's not entirely outrageous to suggest that Brezhnev and his revisionist colleagues and successors fabricated Soviet documents to make the 'legacy' of Stalin bad and thus themselves the worst.

Gorbachev of course, whose avowed goal was to 'destroy communism' would certainly fit the picture for those kinds of activities, being that he support bourgeois social-democracy and wanted to make himself President of Russia and a new economic oligarch after Soviet assets were privatized, yet he didn't count on how much the Russian people hated him for betrayal of the workers.

[Raúl Duke]

I don't think Stalin was "the devil" or a "douche"...

He seemed like he was doing what he thought (although at some/most moments reached the wrong conclusions, actions, etc) was the right Marxist thing to do...

However, he let the power get in over his head and IMO there wasn't much workers control as it were in the era of the Petrograd Soviet (and other cities I bet). Thus, my problems with "democratic centralism" and such.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

I don't support, as I never have, many of the decisions Stalin made, especially involving his own personal conflicts which he chose to make into that of a political one. However, there were many situations, where, it is fair to say, that no one else (i.e. Trotsky) could have or would have done any differently. Not everything associated with Stalin was bad, and it can't even be said that anyone, under such circumstances, would never make a mistake of any sort. The such is impossible. Yes, many actions were uncalled for. Stalin did not carry out purges always in regard to political conflicts which threatened the proletarian state, but also his own personal conflicts, which only threatened himself.

It is very easy to blame Stalin, but how can anyone say someone else could have done better? If any revolutionary were in his position, they would be faced with the same issue(s). As a nation furthers into civil war and bloodshed the line between personal and political conflict fades. It is very easy to take the action out of context and blame the revolutionary associated with it, but Stalin didn't have a better choice than what he chose to do in many cases. He did many honorable things, one being during WWII. I don't think anyone can say they would have preferred a Nazi invasion.

Stalin wasn't a monster or a devil, and I highly doubt that anyone else in his position at the time would have acted differently upon the given circumstances. It was a time of struggle, there is not time to waste considering the best action, which makes it more difficult. The circumstances existed before Lenin died. When Stalin had to deal with them, they were just more developed and the conflicts were greater. It is impossible to say that anyone else would have done differently, so why waste time debating it. Stalin was not an idealist, by all means, and in some cases he took issues too far, but in times of struggle there is not time to waste to wait until something fully develops as a threat to eliminate it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think your believing Western and Nazi bourgeois propaganda and basing that as your opinion.

Stalin did fundamentally what Marxist is all about, he empowered the proletariat through massive industrialization and fought against the bourgeois. 'Stalinism' is simply a mythical bogeyman for the naive Trots and their bourgeois masters. 'Stalinism' (essentially Marxism-Leninism) is nothing but the self-determination of the working masses, I suggest you use a but of self-criticism to correct your revisionist and deviationist views, and stop slandering comrade Stalin as a mouthpiece of imperialism.

Who are you talking about? I wouldn't call the way Stalin industrialized "empowerment" of the working class, and how is that the goal of Marxism? Does that mean that the US in the 1870s was Marxist because it was undergoing industrialization?

The goal of the Marxism I read about in things like the communist manifesto is the self-emancipation of the working class and replacing the rule of capitalists with the rule of the working class. The working class had no power in the USSR because they didn't collectively control production - the party did and they did it on the backs of the working class.

You wanna talk collaboration with the capitalist class - what about the Stalin-Hitler pact? What about when the Stalinist CPs formed the "United Fronts" with the capitalist parties? Why was the Stalinist CP's slogan "Communism is 20th century Americanism" and tell workers to vote for FDR?

[Psy]

Stalin is the reason Hitler's armies was able to get so far into Russia. Stalin ignored intelligence of the German army mobilizing along the USSR's border and had the stupid idea that Hitler would wait till Russia was ready.

Hitler split his forces into 3 prongs across the massive border (thus spreading his forces thin), the German equipment was never designed to operate in the Russia thus the northern push got stuck in the muddy ground in that Baltic states, whole tanks got sucked into the mud, even Germany's large tank recovery vehicles got stuck in the muck trying to pull tanks out. To the south dust was causing the Germany army to stop every few hours to change air filters, those commanders that pushed on had their engines blow. All this before the Russian winter that made the stuck vehicles in the mud in the north become permanently stuck, German equipment failed in the extreme cold of winter, troops were not issued winter gear so they developed frost bite.

In other words the Germany invasion of the USSR was one big SNAFU yet at first it was working because Stalin plan for the defence of the USSR was a even bigger SNAU, Stalin ordered a counter attack when the Russian army was completely blind, not knowing where its forces are let alone the Germans.

One thing that would be difference with Totsky would be the poorly planned German invasion of the USSR would have been a total disaster for Germany with the pushes being surrounded before they got deep into Russia.

[kromando33]

Who are you talking about? I wouldn't call the way Stalin industrialized "empowerment" of the working class, and how is that the goal of Marxism? Does that mean that the US in the 1870s was Marxist because it was undergoing industrialization?

The goal of the Marxism I read about in things like the communist manifesto is the self-emancipation of the working class and replacing the rule of capitalists with the rule of the working class. The working class had no power in the USSR because they didn't collectively control production - the party did and they did it on the backs of the working class.

You wanna talk collaboration with the capitalist class - what about the Stalin-Hitler pact? What about when the Stalinist CPs formed the "United Fronts" with the capitalist parties? Why was the Stalinist CP's slogan "Communism is 20th century Americanism" and tell workers to vote for FDR?
Actually Stalin's foreign policy pretty much embodied what Marxism-Leninism is all about, practicality to building and protecting socialism in one country, pragmatism and dealing with 'idealism' with contempt. Stalin avoided the 'internationalist' Trotskyist menshevik position, which was just an ideological disguise for imperialism around the whole in the guise of 'world revolution'. Don't forget that during the negotiations with Germany in WWI, Trotsky wanted to declare 'revolutionary war' and invade all Europe, in reality it was a petty-bourgeois appeal to ultranationalism, and was a trick set up by the bourgeois powers to destroy the revolution. If Trotsky got the General Secratariat instead of Stalin, the USSR would have annexed during the 30's probably by Germany and the Western powers, Trotsky himself wanted to invade western Europe.

[Psy]

Actually Stalin's foreign policy pretty much embodied what Marxism-Leninism is all about, practicality to building and protecting socialism in one country, pragmatism and dealing with 'idealism' with contempt. Stalin avoided the 'internationalist' Trotskyist menshevik position, which was just an ideological disguise for imperialism around the whole in the guise of 'world revolution'. Don't forget that during the negotiations with Germany in WWI, Trotsky wanted to declare 'revolutionary war' and invade all Europe, in reality it was a petty-bourgeois appeal to ultranationalism, and was a trick set up by the bourgeois powers to destroy the revolution. If Trotsky got the General Secratariat instead of Stalin, the USSR would have annexed during the 30's probably by Germany and the Western powers, Trotsky himself wanted to invade western Europe.
Wrong, Trotsky protested the invasion of Poland, it was Lenin that said "The defensive period of the war with worldwide imperialism was over, and we could, and had the obligation to, exploit the military situation to launch an offensive war." In regards to the Polish-Soviet War. After the failure in Warsaw Trotsky pushed for peace talks.

[Leo]

I personaly think the guy was a monster. He mutated the ideal of socialism for his own benefit, to eliminate his poitical opponents etc. To me he exchangd one form of opprerssion for another. Your thoughts??

I think he was a counter-revolutionary, he was the head of an imperialist state and the representative of a brutal bourgeois regime which claimed to be socialist while being responsible for the murder of thousands of communists and revolutionary workers; the people who made the revolution. He related to the October Revolution only in being it's gravedigger.

[Dr Mindbender]

stalin arguably did more damage to the name of socialism and communism than 50 years of American propaganda.

[kromando33]

stalin arguably did more damage to the name of socialism and communism than 50 years of American propaganda.
Wow, you think bourgeois propaganda is valid...

[black magick hustla]

stalin was the figurehead of a counterrevolution catapulted by constant imperialist encirclment and isolation. the "crimes" of stalin are generally exaggerated, but it is no exaggeration that stalin was responsable for the death of many revolutionaries and communists. the trotskyist analysis of "degenerate workers state" is silly because economic and political power are intimately linked; you cant have one without the other.

no matter how decent was "stalinism" compared to fascism or western capitalism, ultimately, it iwasnt socialism.

[Sam_b]

to building and protecting socialism in one country

Because that's really been proven to work, hasn't it?

[kromando33]

stalin was the figurehead of a counterrevolution catapulted by constant imperialist encirclment and isolation. the "crimes" of stalin are generally exaggerated, but it is no exaggeration that stalin was responsable for the death of many revolutionaries and communists. the trotskyist analysis of "degenerate workers state" is silly because economic and political power are intimately linked; you cant have one without the other.

no matter how decent was "stalinism" compared to fascism or western capitalism, ultimately, it iwasnt socialism.
That's nothing but an opinion, and and ill sourced one. I suggest you read this rather than using bourgeois and Nazi propaganda (ie black book of communism) as your sources:
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

[black magick hustla]

That's nothing but an opinion, and and ill sourced one. I suggest you read this rather than using bourgeois and Nazi propaganda (ie black book of communism) as your sources:
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

actually i am one of the "anti-stalinists" here that holds a much more milder opinion about stalin. to put it bluntly, i dont really give a shit how much of a great man or great "leader" he was. you can argue how much "life expectancy rose", the fight he gave against the "fascists" etc, but a country where democracy was destroyed and where the old "revolutionaries" were persecuted cannot be socialist

[Comrade Rage]

stalin was the figurehead of a counterrevolution catapulted by constant imperialist encirclment and isolation. the "crimes" of stalin are generally exaggerated, but it is no exaggeration that stalin was responsable for the death of many revolutionaries and communists. the trotskyist analysis of "degenerate workers state" is silly because economic and political power are intimately linked; you cant have one without the other.

no matter how decent was "stalinism" compared to fascism or western capitalism, ultimately, it iwasnt socialism.
No offense, but that is absurd. When Stalin was hand-picked by Lenin for the post of General Secretary of the CPSU, there were no major policy changes and shifts. After Lenin's death in 1924 such changes failed to materialize. They DID materialize after Stalin's death in 1953, when numerous revisionist policies were adopted, and Lenin was 'de-emphasized.'
You won't take as evidence what he actually did, so there are a few things he DIDN'T do.

actually i am one of the "anti-stalinists" here that holds a much more milder opinion about stalin. to put it bluntly, i dont really give a shit how much of a great man or great "leader" he was. you can argue how much "life expectancy rose", the fight he gave against the "fascists" etc, but a country where democracy was destroyed and where the old "revolutionaries" were persecuted cannot be socialist
So you consider the czar, or the Kerensky 'democratic'?!

[Prairie Fire]

What do you people on the left think of the Stalinist ideology??

I personaly think the guy was a monster. He mutated the ideal of socialism for his own benefit, to eliminate his poitical opponents etc. To me he exchangd one form of opprerssion for another.
Your thoughts??


Close this thread. We aren't going to get to the bottom of anything here, and no one is going to change their mind or rethink their position. This is tantamount to saying " I think your ideology sucks, now what are you going to do about it?"

Red October:

I'm no fan of Stalin, but I'm getting tired of all these "I think Stalin was a douche" threads. Whether you think he was an awful person or not, you don't need to start new threads about it, we already have dozens. I don't mean to be overly harsh on a new member, but it seems like everyone wants to start a Stalin thread when they first register here. Is there a way we can put all the Stalin threads in one place for easy access?

THANK YOU!

I hav eto believe that by this point, even the anti-Stalin elements are sick and tired of these repetative ass threads, over and over again, into infinity


Isn't this exaclty what I've been saying, that creating an anti-stalin thread is a right of passage on revleft?

look, lets just have a thread on revleft always, called "Stalin: compare and contrast",
stuck in place, and then we can talk about other things.

This is beyond ridiculous, and very fatiguing.

[kromando33]

Marmot it seems you value 'democracy' and your other ultra-idealist sentiments more than you do proletarian power, which is what Marxism is all about, why do you mourn for dead counter-revolutionaries and class traitors? No good Marxist should.

[Zurdito]

What do you people on the left think of the Stalinist ideology??

I personaly think the guy was a monster. He mutated the ideal of socialism for his own benefit, to eliminate his poitical opponents etc. To me he exchangd one form of opprerssion for another.
Your thoughts??

I think you are correct. welcome to the forum

[spartan]

Marmot it seems you value 'democracy' and your other ultra-idealist sentiments more than you do proletarian power,

Last time i looked "Democracy" meant "peoples power" and seeing how the Proletarians form the majority of people, a Socialist state should have no problem being Democratic then.


which is what Marxism is all about,

"Democracy is the road to Socialism." Karl Marx


why do you mourn for dead counter-revolutionaries and class traitors? No good Marxist should.

What so all the old Bolsheviks, who were instrumental in the triumph of the Bolsheviks in the Russian revolution and were later executed by Stalin, were counter revolutionaries and class traitors were they?

The thing i dont get is, if they were counter revolutionaries and class traitors, then why didnt they betray the Russian revolution when it was at its weakest?

Why didnt Lenin have them killed if they were counter revolutionaries and class traitors?

Its funny how everyone suddenly became a counter revolutionary and class traitor when Stalin came into power.

If you ask me, these "counter revolutionaries" and "class traitors" were actually defending what was left of Socialism in the USSR from the rising Autocracy of Stalin and Oligarchy of his Bureaucracy.

[Ismail]

"Democracy is the road to Socialism." Karl MarxWe want democracy, true democracy for the workers. That may not fit in with your bourgeois view of democracy, but that doesn't matter.


The thing i dont get is, if they were counter revolutionaries and class traitors, then why didnt they betray the Russian revolution when it was at its weakest?Because they did side with the revolution. It's just that when things came to actual management stage they began to falter and support petty-bourgeois concepts. Of course Stalin didn't say "AH HAH! PETTY-BOURGEOIS! KILL HIM!" because he too believed that people could be set to the right path. This is why when Lenin wrote on Trotsky's mistakes he didn't end it with "Ergo Trotsky has chosen the path of wrongness and must die". However, Bukharin and such refused to give up their positions and eventually turned into even worse paths.


Why didnt Lenin have them killed if they were counter revolutionaries and class traitors?1. Lenin isn't telepathic
2. Look upwards
3. Why didn't Lenin (or, more accurately the party) declare Stalin a traitor and execute him?


If you ask me, these "counter revolutionaries" and "class traitors" were actually defending what was left of Socialism in the USSR from the rising Autocracy of Stalin and Oligarchy of his Bureaucracy.Explain how the kulaks moving into socialism peacefully has anything to do with class struggle.

[spartan]

We want democracy, true democracy for the workers. That may not fit in with your bourgeois view of democracy, but that doesn't matter.

My Bourgeois view of Democracy?

Who pissed in your brain?


Because they did side with the revolution. It's just that when things came to actual management stage they began to falter and support petty-bourgeois concepts.

No thats what they were accused of by Stalin and his Bureaucratic cronies.

The old Bolsheviks represented a major threat to the power of the emerging Bureaucracy under the control of Stalin.

Thus they were purged.


Of course Stalin didn't say "AH HAH! PETTY-BOURGEOIS! KILL HIM!" because he too believed that people could be set to the right path.

What?

He had the majority of old Bolsheviks executed!

No one man should have that amount of power in a Socilist state.


This is why when Lenin wrote on Trotsky's mistakes he didn't end it with "Ergo Trotsky has chosen the path of wrongness and must die".

Thats because Lenin wasnt a paranoid maniac seeking to become a Dictator.

Lenin, unlike Stalin, could, for the most part, take critiscism without resorting to assassination, executions, exiling or purging.


However, Bukharin and such refused to give up their positions and eventually turned into even worse paths.

Or so said Fuhrer Stalin.


3. Why didn't Lenin (or, more accurately the party) declare Stalin a traitor and execute him?

Like i said before, Lenin, for the most part, could take critiscism without resorting to all the usual Stalinist crap.

That is why The Bolsheviks made Stalin General Secretary, as they thought of it as an unimportant position which would keep him out of the way (They knew that he had ambitions for power as even Lenin warned against it).

Unfortunately the position of General Secretary allowed Stalin direct control over who comes into the party and who comes out.

So Stalin began filling the party with his own Loyalists who would later go on to form the core of his Bureaucracy when he established himself as leader.

Add to that the suppression of the old Bolsheviks (Who would have posed a threat to Stalins ambitions of power) when Stalin was establishing himself as leader, and you can see how the USSR went from a promising Socialist state to a State Capitalist Imperilaist Empire with Stalin as its Autocrat backed by his Oligarchic Bureaucracy.

[kromando33]

spartan, I am not going to ask again, I want proof of your claim that the administrative wing of the USSR (the bureaucracy) controlled the whole country, if your going to throw such conspiracy theories around I expect some evidence.

[bezdomni]

No thats what they were accused of by Stalin and his Bureaucratic cronies.

The old Bolsheviks represented a major threat to the power of the emerging Bureaucracy under the control of Stalin.

Thus they were purged.


If that's true, then shouldn't you be thankful to Stalin for killing all of those evil, class traitor bolsheviks?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you'd have supported anarchists killing bolsheviks....but when Stalin kicks some old bolsheviks out of the party (some for good reasons, others for bad), you whine and cry for almost a hundred years.

Anyway, you have to understand why some of those people *were* kicked out of the party. The left opposition (comprised heavily, although not exclusively of "old bolsheviks") had violated the principes of the party left and right.

You should read what comrade Stalin said about the opposition (and what the opposition was actually doing) if you want to really understand what went down.

http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/NOTE.html

That link goes to a collection of Stalin's writings and speeches (mostly to the Central Committee) about the opposition.



He had the majority of old Bolsheviks executed!

No one man should have that amount of power in a Socilist state.

lol, Stalin wasn't "judge, jury and executioner." No one person did have that amount of power in the Soviet Union.

Furthermore, I don't think any contemporary (serious) communists support Stalin's actions during the Kirov trials...and Maoists certainly do criticize the way Stalin handled the question of the left opposition.

The way we see it, Stalin should have relied on the masses to criticize the incorrect lines in the party and should have emphasized the political education of the proletariat and peasantry. Instead, Stalin dealt with the opposition bureaucratically and mechanically....not in a way consistent with Marxism-Leninism.

As I said before, we have to criticize these mistakes...but still ultimately support the socialist Soviet Union and understand why the mistakes were made in the first place. If we dismiss all of our historical experience, then we will not learn anything. Our movement will continue to get defeated in the future, as it has in the past.

A Marxist without an understanding of history is not a Marxist at all.


Or so said Fuhrer Stalin.

Do you really equate Stalin to Hitler?

There is almost nothing that pisses me off more than ignorant pricks using Hitler and Stalin interchangeably.

While Stalin thought (and did) lots of things that weren't "Marxist-kosher", he was absolutely not anywhere near being a fascist.


That is why The Bolsheviks made Stalin General Secretary, as they thought of it as an unimportant position which would keep him out the way.


LOL do you actually believe that? The bolsheviks thought the highest position in the Communist Party previously held by Lenin was an unimportant position that would shut him up?

[black magick hustla]

Marmot it seems you value 'democracy' and your other ultra-idealist sentiments more than you do proletarian power, which is what Marxism is all about, why do you mourn for dead counter-revolutionaries and class traitors? No good Marxist should.

i am not mourning "dead people". i am simply saying that a society that liquidated the old revolutionaries cannoit be socialist. or are you telling me the bloshevik revolution was lead, almost in its totality by counterrevolutionaries?

i dont value "democracy" in the sense you mean it. i hold the bordigist criticism of democracy as correct: democracy is only favorable for a class if it is intimately linked with economic power. however the opposite is true: there cannot be "proletarian power" without "political power". this is just a silly position, born out of "dialectical materialist" gymnastics.

you seem to misunderstand that communism is the project of the complete man: it goes beyond a vulgar base-superstructure argument. it is not merely a project of "survival" and raising "life-expectancy"--it transcends completely that. this is not my arbitrary ramblings, marx has always talked about alienation and the need to supersede it.

[spartan]

If that's true, then shouldn't you be thankful to Stalin for killing all of those evil, class traitor bolsheviks?

They were a threat to the un-Socialist ambitions of Stalin and his Bureaucracy.

Being the old guard of the party (And thus closer to Lenins beliefs) they could challenge Stalin and his Bureaucracy in their rise to power.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but you'd have supported anarchists killing bolsheviks....but when Stalin kicks some old bolsheviks out of the party (some for good reasons, others for bad), you whine and cry for almost a hundred years.

Compared to Stalin, the old Bolsheviks are the lesser of two evils.


Anyway, you have to understand why some of those people *were* kicked out of the party. The left opposition (comprised heavily, although not exclusively of "old bolsheviks") had violated the principes of the party left and right.

No that was what the authorities said.


You should read what comrade Stalin said about the opposition (and what the opposition was actually doing) if you want to really understand what went down.

http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/NOTE.html

That link goes to a collection of Stalin's writings and speeches (mostly to the Central Committee) about the opposition.

Talk about an unbiased source for the opposition against a Dictator:rolleyes:


lol, Stalin wasn't "judge, jury and executioner." No one person did have that amount of power in the Soviet Union.

You dont really believe that do you?


Furthermore, I don't think any contemporary (serious) communists support Stalin's actions during the Kirov trials...and Maoists certainly do criticize the way Stalin handled the question of the left opposition.

There are very few of Stalins actions which any sane person could support.


The way we see it, Stalin should have relied on the masses to criticize the incorrect lines in the party and should have emphasized the political education of the proletariat and peasantry. Instead, Stalin dealt with the opposition bureaucratically and mechanically....not in a way consistent with Marxism-Leninism.

Were these the same masses who were sent to Siberian gulags if they critiscised the party line?

The reason no one spoke out against it was because people were to scared to speak out against it.


As I said before, we have to criticize these mistakes...but still ultimately support the socialist Soviet Union and understand why the mistakes were made in the first place. If we dismiss all of our historical experience, then we will not learn anything. Our movement will continue to get defeated in the future, as it has in the past.

But what happened in the USSR had nothing to do with our movement.

First off you cant go from a Feudal society to a Socialist society.

And secondly the only thing that Socialists can learn from the USSR is that they should never trust a self appointed vanguard again.


A Marxist without an understanding of history is not a Marxist at all.

Good thing that the USSR had nothing to do with Marxism then.


Do you really equate Stalin to Hitler?

At times it seems as if they were practically twins seperated at birth.


While Stalin thought (and did) lots of things that weren't "Marxist-kosher", he was absolutely not anywhere near being a fascist.

Similarities between Nazi Germany and the USSR:

Both used labour camps as a way of imprisoning "enemies of the state" (Political prisoners).

Both used Nationalism as a way of justification for Imperialist ambitions in neighbouring countries.

Both were Militarist which placed a strong role of the military in their societies.

Both were one party states that didnt allow any opposition to the party.

Both had Autocratic leaders with personallity cults.

Both used a common theme or conspiracy (Nazi Germany used Jews whilst the USSR used Trotskyists amongst others) as a non existent threat to the nation, that gave them the justification to further limit freedoms and attack people who disagreed with what they were doing.

They are just some of the many similarities between Nazi Germany and the USSR.


LOL do you actually believe that? The bolsheviks thought the highest position in the Communist Party previously held by Lenin was an unimportant position that would shut him up?

By the time Stalin had became General Secretary, the position was considered symbolic with no real power.

It was even described as a rubber stamp job.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

They were a threat to the un-Socialist ambitions of Stalin and his Bureaucracy.

Being the old guard of the party (And thus closer to Lenins beliefs) they could challenge Stalin and his Bureaucracy in their rise to power.

What you are advocating here sounds like an aristocracy. And please tell us who Stalin's bureaucracy was exactly, and why he instigated the elections to throw many of these bureaucrats out of their positions.



Talk about an unbiased source for the opposition against a Dictator:rolleyes:

What kind of dictator tries to resign from his position almost immediately upon receiving it?



There are very few of Stalins actions which any sane person could support.

Real actions, actions actually done by Stalin, or made up stuff?



Were these the same masses who were sent to Siberian gulags if they critiscised the party line?

Someone has some reading to do. Were you not aware that many of Stalin's opponents who criticized him ceaseless remained totally untouched for almost 16 years, while he even promoted them from time to time?



The reason no one spoke out against it was because people were to scared to speak out against it.

Speculation, mind-reading. Goes against overwhelming eyewitness evidence.



But what happened in the USSR had nothing to do with our movement.

First off you cant go from a Feudal society to a Socialist society.

You don't get to choose the situation when the time comes.



And secondly the only thing that Socialists can learn from the USSR is that they should never trust a self appointed vanguard again.

That "appointed vanguard" was supported by the people in case you didn't know.



Good thing that the USSR had nothing to do with Marxism then.

A lie told 1,000 times is still a lie.

All those Marxist parties, all those 'socialist' revolutions, and you claim they had nothing to do with Marxism.

Do you know what the worker says to this? Fuck it- obviously too complicated. Fascists said they were Fascists, and had Fascist states, but apparently there can be a whole century of Marxist/socialist revolutions that according to you have nothing to do with Marxism.

'If that's the case,' the intelligent worker would say, 'why bother?'

Besides, you have no way of explaining how your system would somehow work better.




Similarities between Nazi Germany and the USSR:


First of all you could make a number of comparisons between Nazi Germany and any state. For example, Nazi Germany's racial policies were heavily inspired by American eugenics and immigration laws.



Both used labour camps as a way of imprisoning "enemies of the state" (Political prisoners).

The vast majority of Soviet prisoners were common-law criminals, and if you would actually do some research instead of adopting half-asses leftism you would have known that. Many countries had labor camps, and also had political prisoners as well, including the US at one time. The only reason why they didn't have more had a lot to do with the fact that the US had a bit more progressive constitution to start with.

The Nazi definition of an enemy of the state was quite different. If you were a Jew, you were automatically and enemy of the state, and the race laws determined whether or not you were a Jew. Eventually this would lead to outright extermination. There were no appeals, sentences were not commuted(perhaps there were a few extraordinary cases but nothing on par with the USSR).

I might also remind you that the US rounded up Japanese as enemies of the State.



Both used Nationalism as a way of justification for Imperialist ambitions in neighbouring countries.

What the hell are you talking about now? All the Soviet Union's acquisitions in 1939-40 were based on the need to provide a buffer zone against Nazi Germany. What do you think the outcome of WWII would have been had the Nazis' starting line been from the edge of Galychyna to the North of Lithuania in 1941?



Both were Militarist which placed a strong role of the military in their societies.

There is a vast difference between the two armies. Also that strong role of the military is the reason why Germany lost. The USSR had very good reason to have a strong military, since 1917. It was only during Khruschev's time that they started to seriously screw this up.



Both were one party states that didnt allow any opposition to the party.

Why should the party of the working class have opposition? It's called the Dictatorship of the Proletariat for a reason. Why must their be parties to have opposition and competition? Can people from the same party not disagree and have different policy ideas?



Both had Autocratic leaders with personallity cults.

False. Stalin's power is generally overstated, bourgeois historians wrecklessly labeling everything that happened in the USSR as "Stalin's" action. Stalin criticized the personality cult on numerous occasions, whereas it was encouraged in Nazi Germany.



Both used a common theme or conspiracy (Nazi Germany used Jews whilst the USSR used Trotskyists amongst others) as a non existent threat to the nation, that gave them the justification to further limit freedoms and attack people who disagreed with what they were doing.

This is what happens when you learn history from Animal Farm. Trotsky was not the threat that everyone was concerned about. The threat was the threat of imperialist/Fascist aggression. An invasion by 14 imperialist powers will do that kind of thing to you.



They are just some of the many similarities between Nazi Germany and the USSR.

Most of which are fallacious and all of which are irrelevant since we could come up with tons of similarities between any state and Nazi Germany.



By the time Stalin had became General Secretary, the position was considered symbolic with no real power.

It was even described as a rubber stamp job.

And yet somehow he was the all-powerful dictator huh?

[spartan]

That "appointed vanguard" was supported by the people in case you didn't know.

Really?

I seem to remember that a civil war followed their taking of power.


Besides, you have no way of explaining how your system would somehow work better.

Well for one, we would do that oh so Socialist of things by letting the workers control their workplace.


The vast majority of Soviet prisoners were common-law criminals, and if you would actually do some research instead of adopting half-asses leftism you would have known that.

Well the USSR must have had huge social problems then.

I am not surprised as only real Socialism (Something the USSR didnt have) can eliminate most crime.


I might also remind you that the US rounded up Japanese as enemies of the State.

And where exactly did i defend that action?


What the hell are you talking about now? All the Soviet Union's acquisitions in 1939-40 were based on the need to provide a buffer zone against Nazi Germany.

Never mind what the neutral countries and all its citizens feel about it.

Face it those invasions were just typical Russian Imperialism dressed up as a defence against Fascism.


Why should the party of the working class have opposition?

Why shouldnt they?

Hierarchal bodies without opposition tend to let power go to their heads.


It's called the Dictatorship of the Proletariat for a reason.

The Proletariat is a class, not a party.


Why must their be parties to have opposition and competition?

I never said that there should be parties.

In an ideal Socialist state there would be no parties at all because the people would be running things for themselves, instead of relying on a self appointed hierarchal body with unlimited powers.

False. Stalin's power is generally overstated, bourgeois historians wrecklessly labeling everything that happened in the USSR as "Stalin's" action. Stalin criticized the personality cult on numerous occasions, whereas it was encouraged in Nazi Germany.
When are you going to drop the "Bourgeoisie lies" shit?

Besides if Stalin didnt approve of the personallity cult then why didnt he get rid of it?

His critiscism was probably to make it look like he wasnt associated with it and its state sponsored growth, when we know this not to be true.

And yet somehow he was the all-powerful dictator huh?
The point was that Stalin made it into the powerful position that it eventually became.

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

Really?

I seem to remember that a civil war followed their taking of power.

Yeah and who won that?



Well for one, we would do that oh so Socialist of things by letting the workers control their workplace.

And do you think that workers who have never been given such rights, have been conditioned all their life to simply follow orders, can immediately take up that task upon having a revolution, especially in a country where many people were illiterate and much of the proletariat was recruited from former peasants? Plus there needs to be some form of centralization even if there is worker control, to coordinate with the national and international economy. Decentralizing the economy under Khruschev created huge problems where enterprise owners had a ***** of a time trying to get the materials they needed from other enterprises. Also the Soviet economy was very decentralized from the beginning in the sense that factories which made components for one type of product could sometimes be located in different SSR's. Naturally the downfall of the USSR made this a massive problem for countries that could make say, tractor parts with their factories, but not whole tractors.



Well the USSR must have had huge social problems then.

I am not surprised as only real Socialism (Something the USSR didnt have) can eliminate most crime.

Again, ignoring the conditions of what Russian society was like. Do you have any idea for example, what the situation in Central and East Asia was at the time of the revolution and Civil War? Many areas hadn't even been mapped yet. Though it's not great, you should read Peter Hopkirk's Setting the East Ablaze to give you an idea of what life in the fringes of the fledgling USSR was like. Bandits, thieves, brigands, etc.

Also if you had taken the time to look at the statistics for the GULAG system, you would find that not only did political prisoners always make up the minority(and keep in mind political prisoner doesn't automatically mean the guy just said something unpopular), you would find several other facts:

1. Political prisoners were usually sentences for less than five years, and were often sent to the better work colonies.

2. Most importantly, the percentage of the adult population in jail in Stalin's Soviet Union never exceeded the percentage of the adult population that is in prison in the USA even to this day. Again, this is percentages so you can't claim that population is the factor.




And where exactly did i defend that action?

I never suggested you did. I am simply suggesting that rounding up "enemies of the state" is nothing unique to the USSR or even Nazi Germany, it is what was done with those prisoners that makes a difference. In Nazi ideology, it wasn't so much about being an enemy of the state. Jews were to be removed, period. Politics or previous deeds meant nothing.



Never mind what the neutral countries and all its citizens feel about it

Face it those invasions were just typical Russian Imperialism dressed up as a defence against Fascism.

Imperialism? How do you think those countries were separated during the civil war in the first place? Halychyna and Western Belarus fell victim to Polish imperialism, Bessaarabia and northern Bukovina fell victim to the Romanians.



Why shouldnt they?

Hierarchal bodies without opposition tend to let power go to their heads.

The opposition comes from individuals, not opposing factions.



The Proletariat is a class, not a party.

Yes, and it needs and organized party to fight for its rights. Conflicts should be worked out within the party.




In an ideal Socialist state there would be no parties at all because the people would be running things for themselves, instead of relying on a self appointed hierarchal body with unlimited powers.

Emphasis on the world "ideal". And furthermore I would say that describes a Communist state, not a socialist state. Ideal situations rarely exist. Even if any of your theories were remotely right, they would have been largely based on the experience of the USSR and its allies, and so even in that case they would have contributed greatly to the cause of socialism. Of course based on "ideal" situations, they cannot possibly be but a dream.



When are you going to drop the "Bourgeoisie lies" shit?

When they stop lying.



Besides if Stalin didnt approve of the personallity cult then why didnt he get rid of it?

Because he wasn't as all powerful as people like you think.



His critiscism was probably to make it look like he wasnt associated with it and its state sponsored growth, when we know this not to be true.

All the old John Edwards Stalin Psychic mind-reading technique. Yes, whatever Stalin did or didn't do, you can always be assured that it was for cynical, hidden sinister reasons. If he spoke out against something, he really supported it. If he didn't speak out against something, he supported it. If it was someone else's idea and he approved it, it was really his idea.

http://rationalred.blogspot.com/2007/08/guide-to-anti-communism.html

[kromando33]

spartan, evidence for your claim that the administrative wing of the USSR controlled the country? I am not going to ask again, and quoting Trotsky doesn't count.

[S R]

Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist and a defender of the working class and people of the USSR and the world over. There is no "Stalinist" ideology.

The Soviet State during the time of Stalin did not at all raise any banner or ideology under the name "Stalinism".

"Stalinism" was the name in which the enemies(such as Trotskyism) of Marxism-Leninism used to discredit the advances of the Soviet Union at that time. Who was Stalin and what ideology did he represent?

Stalin constantly throughout his life countered such a term as "Stalinist" and was a student of Marxism-Leninism. He, like Lenin, helped to assist the Soviet working class in the period of capitalist encirclement along the revolutionary path of Marxism-Leninism. What is Leninism?

" Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular. " (J V Stalin, The Foundations of Leninism)

And it was this path of Marxism-Leninism in which the Soviet Union played a decisive role in smashing fascism in its time period. If I had enough posts I would send you links about Stalin's role in defending the proletarian socialist revolution, but unfortunately I am unable to.

[Q]

I am not going to ask again, and quoting Trotsky doesn't count.
Of course it doesn't.

:lol: @ this Stalin lovers thread.

[redarmyfaction38]

Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist and a defender of the working class and people of the USSR and the world over. There is no "Stalinist" ideology.

The Soviet State during the time of Stalin did not at all raise any banner or ideology under the name "Stalinism".

"Stalinism" was the name in which the enemies(such as Trotskyism) of Marxism-Leninism used to discredit the advances of the Soviet Union at that time. Who was Stalin and what ideology did he represent?

Stalin constantly throughout his life countered such a term as "Stalinist" and was a student of Marxism-Leninism. He, like Lenin, helped to assist the Soviet working class in the period of capitalist encirclement along the revolutionary path of Marxism-Leninism. What is Leninism?

" Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular. " (J V Stalin, The Foundations of Leninism)

And it was this path of Marxism-Leninism in which the Soviet Union played a decisive role in smashing fascism in its time period. If I had enough posts I would send you links about Stalin's role in defending the proletarian socialist revolution, but unfortunately I am unable to.

unfortunately your attack on "trotskyists" doesn't hold water; trotsky defended the gains of the russian revolution for the working class, the planned economy and the nationalised industries etc. in the face of "liberal socialists" that declared the soviet union "state capitalist".
he referred to the soviet union as a "defrormed workers state".
the abscence of workers control over the planning of economic production leadingto the deformity.

uncle joe ruled the "soviet union" with a fist of steel, he neither tolerated or was interested in workers control of the economy, let alone differing ideas of how best to serve the iunterests of the working class or any kind of "democracy", that is why trotsky opposed him.

[careyprice31]

"And do you think that workers who have never been given such rights, have been conditioned all their life to simply follow orders, can immediately take up that task upon having a revolution, especially in a country where many people were illiterate and much of the proletariat was recruited from former peasants?"

Yes they can and they did.

February 1917 was the work of the people, women started rioting first, and the various socialst/marxist/capitalist parties had very little to do with it actually

Lenin, Zinoviev and Co. actually were out of country when it happened and they got taken by surprise. Stalin Kamenev and Sverdlov, were in exile,Bukharin and Trot were in the US

About Stalin some say that Lenin knew that he had a hard personality and promoted him to all the high positions including Gensek (general secretary) because he was a hard worker and loyal. When Lenin became ill in 1922 he it was who asked Stalin to supply him with poison because he knew Stalin would not have many qualms about it while the others were more softer than Stalin.

In 1921 the tenth congress voted to abolish the factionalism within the party but that does not make him responsible for what Stalin did later. Lenin went to a great deal of trouble to dismiss or threaten to dismiss some of the Party members but they were permitted back in and they were not imprisoned or killed and Lenin was undoubted more tolerant of criticism and debates within the party.

I am not a leninist, do not like the man much, but even I know this.

[INDK]

Alright, like most I really can't fucking stand these threads so I'll just provide a small amount of input and leave it alone:

Stalin wasn't as much of a douche as Trots and even we Anarchists have made him out to be. Even if he made major mistakes, it is the fault of subsequent misinterpretations of Marx and most importantly Lenin's writings (which were, in the case of Lenin, pretty poor anyway) and that is why no one can really call stalin a pseudo-Leninist, because in reality he worked on Leninist principles, though they were a bit twisted. There's no such thing as 'Stalinism' because Stalin did not offer new or revolutionary ideas to Leninism and thusly Stalin can only be called some Marxist-Leninist who had faults and who had ideological and even physical triumphs such as economic growth and industrialization of Russian civilization. Furthermore, Stalin has written he follows Communist (classless, stateless society) principles. See these remarks on the abolition of the State:


"The abolition of classes is not achieved by the extinction of the class struggle, but by its intensification. The state will wither away, not as a result of weakening the state power, but as a result of strengthening it to the utmost, which is necessary for finally crushing the remnants of the dying classes and for organising defence against the capitalist encirclement that is far from having been done away with as yet, and will not soon be done away with. As a result of fulfilling the five-year plan we have succeeded in finally ejecting the last remnants of the hostile classes from their positions in production; we have routed the kulaks and have prepared the ground for their elimination..." (Stalin, Works, Volume 13)


" Further, with the abolition of the old apparatus of state administration, bureaucracy was smashed, but the bureaucrats remained. They disguised themselves as Soviet officials and installed themselves in our state apparatus, and, taking advantage of the inadequate experience of the workers and peasants, who had only just come to power, they started their old tricks for pilfering state property, introduced the old bourgeois habits and customs. That was the second circumstance which was the basis of shortcomings in our state apparatus..." (Ibid., Volume 4)


". The malicious wrecking activities of the top stratum of the bourgeois intelligentsia in all branches of our industry, the brutal struggle of the kulaks against collective forms of farming in the countryside, the sabotage of the Soviet government¹s measures by bureaucratic elements in the state apparatus, who are agents of our class enemy‹such, so far, are the chief forms of the resistance of the moribund classes in our country. Obviously, these circumstances cannot facilitate our work of reconstructing the national economy..." (Ibid., Volume 12)


" Here is what Lenin said on this score: ³We must strive to build up a state in which the workers retain their leadership of the peasants, in which they retain the confidence of the peasants, and, by exercising the greatest economy, remove every trace of extravagance from our social relations. ³We must bring our state apparatus to the utmost degree of economy. We must remove from it all traces of extravagance, of which so much has been left over from tsarist Russia, from its bureaucratic and capitalist apparatus..." (Ibid., Volume 13)

So, was he a good guy? Nah. Was his heart, perhaps, somewhere near the right place? He tried. Bottom line is, I don't oppose him because he was a tyrant or anything of the sort; I oppose him because I am also opposed to the line of V.I. Lenin, a line that I believe they shared.

Fuck 'em and stop *****ing about Stalin and the Soviet past in general.