Stalinists are traitors

[A New Era]

Just look at the history of stalinists. Take, for instance, USSR robbing the Republican side during the spanish civil war for gold, practically it's only really valuable resource.

Or Mao closing the Shanghai commune. Or Mao ordering the halt of the Hundred Flowers Campaign.

That revolutionaries are willing to cooperate with these people is beyond me. They are reactionaries, whether they like it or not, despite their red flags.

[Comrade Rage]

Troll.

[A New Era]

Why don't you ComradeCrum contribute to the discussion in one way or another instead of spamming?

[Comrade Rage]

Spamming is what you are doing. You join up, post a bunch of crap that demeans a large number of leftists, is flame-bait, and provide little justification. Our methods (Leininsts') are time-honored and have been proven to success. Was the October Revolution perfect? No, but it accomplished a lot. You, on the other hand spew anti-Communist rhetoric with revisionist history about the Spanish anarchists. Like it or not, Spanish anarchism fell flat on it's face.

[Prairie Fire]

Crum, let it go Comrade;this is just a rite of passage for new revlefters.

I said the same stupid shit at one time too.

A for you A New Era, perhaps you should contribute something useful to the discussion to start with, like for instance a source on the "USSR stole gold from the republicans" remark you just made.

[A New Era]

Of course the Hoxhaists eagerly joined the debate. The source: The Battle for Spain-The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939 by Antony Beevor.


Crum, let it go Comrade;this is just a rite of passage for new revlefters.Don't patronize. I am not new.


You join up, post a bunch of crapI post facts. What do you?


Our methods (Leininsts') are time-honored and have been proven to success.Great success in the Soviet Union, DDR, Poland, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos? How many of the leninist states are left?


You, on the other hand spew anti-Communist rhetoric
Anti-stalinist.


with revisionist history about the Spanish anarchists.What?


Like it or not, Spanish anarchism fell flat on it's face.Whether true or not, it doesn't change the fact that the USSR pretty much used the conflict in Spain to its own advantage, and not for workers liberation.

[A New Era]

Antony Beevors writes, among other things (I am translating from another language back to english, the original language the book was written):


Nothing was free, and many of the costs seem to be excessive, to put it mildly. The USSR claimed the credits it received in 1938, the republic had received goods and services to a value of 661 million dollars, while only 518 in gold had been sent to Moscow. In a time where the currency of rubel vs dollar was 5,5 to 1, the Soviet Union used the relationship of 2,5 to 1, a difference that created a substantial profit.

[black magick hustla]

I think Stalinism was a concrete counterrevolution that ravaged the whole Comintern, destroying internationalism and moving the pole from the left wings of the Communist parties to the right wings.

However, I don't think some stalinists themselves are "traitors". There are good communist militants that happen to be "stalinist", that have their heart in the right place.-

[A New Era]

There are good communist militants that happen to be "stalinist", that have their heart in the right place.-I agree.

But their relation in this world is reactionary. Some of them might think they support something good, and many of them genuinly believe in class struggle in favor of the proletariat, but stalinism in itself is reactionary, and thus they have a reactionary position, despite the good intention.

[Lenin II]

You need to read this:
http://rationalred.blogspot.com/2008/02/anarchists-trotskidiots-liberals-oh-my_09.html

[Wanted Man]

I agree.

But their relation in this world is reactionary. Some of them might think they support something good, and many of them genuinly believe in class struggle in favor of the proletariat, but stalinism in itself is reactionary, and thus they have a reactionary position, despite the good intention.
Well, you've already backpeddled from your original post a little. Today, I was at a protest against the demolition of social housing. There were speakers and rappers and the like, and one of the rappers said: "Find out more in the Red Dawn paper" (which is basically the Maoist group here). There was also trotskyists, squatters and us. But I guess we were all actually having "a reactionary position", and that the trots and the squatters should no longer "be willing to cooperate with us reactionaries". :lol:

Not that the protest was very big or ground-breaking. But it does nicely to illustrate how ridiculous it is to brand a bunch of people (who, in this case, were mostly just folks who were protesting the demolition of their social housing) as traitors (despite the "good intentions" disclaimer) who should not be worked with.

[black magick hustla]

(who, in this case, were mostly just folks who were protesting the demolition of their social housing) as traitors (despite the "good intentions" disclaimer) who should not be worked with.

I think on the sphere of class struggle we can work with stalinists. But I don't think we should be in the same organization, etc

[A New Era]

You have also democratic socialists who are so liberalized that, despite believing they are progressive, they are actually reactionary. They too, I would say, are reactionary. As materialists, we shouldn't check so much people have good intentions. For all we know, Dick Cheney might have good intentions. The important thing is, what role does the person, class, institution or organisation have?

And yes, a better title would be "Stalinists are reactionary". But a good deal of the stalinists are traitors: All the stalinists experiments have showed one very important thing:

The party bigwigs will supress actual workers power, the political apparatus will not be in control of the people, but the state. And the means of production has been in the hands of the state, not the people.

And they have discredited the workers movement to such a great degree that people think we are loonies. No other political group has done so much damage to the workers movement as the stalinists.

[Wanted Man]

A New Era: what? Are you going to respond to my post, or just rant and rave? I already told you that your "good intentions" note is irrelevant. Answer straight: are workers who wage class struggle "reactionary" if they belong to the "wrong" organization? Apparently, they're not traitors, because you just backpedalled again! ;)

Also, I still don't see why the bourgeois media would not "discredit" Trotskyism and anarchism, if (that's a pretty big if) they ever formed a threat to their institutions.

Marmot: fair enough, I don't claim such. Many communist groups' founding documents include a notice where they strongly associate or disassociate with a specific piece of history of the communist movement, they'll never agree with each other! :laugh:

[Comrade Rage]

Of course the Hoxhaists eagerly joined the debate. The source: The Battle for Spain-The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939 by Antony Beevor.

Don't patronize. I am not new.
You have 2 or 3 posts.


Anti-stalinist.
Anti-communists frequently say that they are Anti-Stalinists. Reagan did, but so do many contemporary leftists...for the benefit of the movement of course.:glare:

[RNK]

There's lots of talk about "thinking they're doing the right thing", "have their heart in the right place", etc. These are wholly unscientific claims to make. Socialism, the liberation of the proletariat, is not merely some morally-guided opinion; it is the product of scientific analysis and the relations of production, material conditions of suffering and exploitation.

And what is a "Stalinist", anyway? I never liked labels, especially ones used so arbitrarily. An authoritarian? All communists are authoritarian - we all want to smash the ruling class, cripple their state, and impose worker's rule. That's quite authoritarian. So again, the moral objection to authoritarian action is idiotic.

Beauraucratic authoritarianism? The rule of the party? These are issues that seperate communism from anarchism, not Trotskyism from Marxism-Leninism. We all know state power is necessary (except anarchists) - state power which must be under the control of the workers. No Stalinist I know is against this.

I think it all boils down to the belief that Stalin "betrayed" the Bolshevik revolution, took control, and transformed Soviet Russia into his own personal Empire; and the subsequent belief that all Stalinists want to do the same, due simply to their acceptance of Stalin's role in the history of revolution. So long as I do not profess a deep, overwhelming hatred of Stalin, I'll always be viewed, no matter what I say, as a snake-in-the-grass who at the earliest possible moment will spring up, poison the revolutionary movement, and try to take it over and pervert it into authoritarian dictatorship.

Uh huh. That's real believable, that there exists a large group of men and women wandering around like sleeper agents, waiting for that sign that will trigger all of them to take over any revolutionary movement and bury worker's democracy.

[black magick hustla]

I think Stalininism, as a concrete counterrevolution, did represent a set of trends. For one, the moving of the pole of most Communist Parties to the right. Siding with factions of the bourgeosie in united, popular, or anti-fascist fronts. The rejection of proletarian internationalism, and the bureacratization of the Comintern parties to the point that they become satellite parties for Moscow.

I

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm not attacking modern Stalinists. I will, however, attack their already-revisionist (http://struggle.net/ben/2007/cargo-9-foundations.htm) ideology, in spite of their self-professed "anti-revisionism."

Stalinism is revisionist on the question of democratic centralism and especially the broader "freedom of discussion, unity in action" (hence the excessively bureaucratic nature of the regimes of Stalin, those inspired by him, and his also-revisionist successors).

Stalinism is revisionist on the question of class conflict ("non-antagonistic classes" under socialism, "popular fronts" with liberal bourgeois factions, as opposed to limiting class alliances to the petit-bourgeoisie).

[RNK]

For one, the moving of the pole of most Communist Parties to the right.

Can you be more substantive?


Siding with factions of the bourgeosie in united, popular, or anti-fascist fronts.

Like the Alliance with capitalism against Nazism?


The rejection of proletarian internationalism

This accusation has been repeatedly proven false.


and the bureacratization of the Comintern parties to the point that they become satellite parties for Moscow

First, how does beauraucratization lead to a party becoming strict adherants to the Moscow line?

Second, can you prove this occured?

Third, doesn't that disprove the claim that the CPSU was anti-international?

Does any of this have to do with the often-misunderstood term "socialism in one country"?

[RNK]

"popular fronts" with liberal bourgeois factions).

How is this revisionist, unless you are attempting to claim that Marx, Engels and Lenin were also revisionists for concluding the same necessity?

[A New Era]

are workers who wage class struggle "reactionary" if they belong to the "wrong" organization?If they are in the end against workers liberation and workers control of society (also the result in the USSR, China, North Korea etc.), then yes.


Apparently, they're not traitors, because you just backpedalled again!One usually think of a traitor as a bad guy who turn sides and is now against the side he or she once supported. But if you support the state having control of the means of production, and support the state being controlled by a few men, and will in the end supress the effort of the proletariat to gain real control of society, you are indeed reactionary. Many of the stalinists think they are fighting for the workers, when in the end they are really infecting the workers movement. And the workers movement is ailing due to this infection.

No other political group ha done as much damage to the struggle for workers liberation as the stalinists. Their method is disastreous. The history of their so-called "socialist states" are proof enough. And so they are are a great, great danger and a very real infection to our struggle for our liberation.

They have banged our head in the wall again and again and we are bleeding and suffering heavily due to their insanity, and after the collapse of state capitalism all over the world, they say, let's bang our head in the wall again, you'll get your freedom if you do it long enough!

[Die Neue Zeit]

RNK, class alliances with PETIT-bourgeois elements for a CAPITALIST revolution (with a "revolutionary-democratic" political superstructure instead of a bourgeois one) is fundamentally different from allying with national HAUTE bourgeoisie.

This is something that the Mensheviks (and their Stalinist-under-Stalin students) and the Social-Revolutionaries (and their Maoist students) never understood.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Stalin's dead

stop raping his corpse

[A New Era]

Stalinists support in general the same model of the USSR under Stalin (ie state capitalism), so the actions of Stalin is very much relevant.

[Comrade Rage]

Stalinists support in general the same model of the USSR under Stalin (ie state capitalism), so the actions of Stalin is very much relevant.Much like your support for capitalism.

[RNK]

RNK, class alliances with PETIT-bourgeois elements for a CAPITALIST revolution (with a "revolutionary-democratic" political superstructure instead of a bourgeois one) is fundamentally different from allying with national HAUTE bourgeoisie.



In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie. - Communist Manifesto, Position Of The Communists In Relation To The Various Existing Opposition Parties

Quite revisionist of you to try and say that Marx ever claimed that an alliance with the petit-bourgeois was ok (under some circumstances) while an alliance with the haute bourgeoisie was not. Communists can and should make and break alliances whenever the benefit to the working class is greatest.

And this in no way contradicts the Block Of Four Classes theory and New Democracy (ie, creating an alliance of Peasant, Proletariat, Petit-Bourgeoisie and Bourgeoisie under Proletarian rule) in a fuedal or peasant society. Since it is impossible for a classless society to exist in pre-industrialized conditions, it makes senses that any industrialization, any industrial revolution would preferably fall under the direction of the proletariat rather than be under the full control of capitalists and bourgeoisie.

[A New Era]

Much like your support for capitalism.

You are flaming, using personal attacks and posting claims that are untrue. Comrade Crum haven't done anything in this thread except trying to sabotage the discussion.

[Comrade Rage]

You are flaming, using personal attacks and posting claims that are untrue. Comrade Crum haven't done anything in this thread except trying to sabotage the discussion.You're the one flaming, and calling me a 'state-capitalist'. I'm just returning the favor.

[black magick hustla]

Can you be more substantive?

A lot (or if not most) of the old Communist Parties were dominated by a "Left" wing. From the famous "childish" ultraleftist parties, like the German, Dutch, or Italian Communist Parties, to some other that weren't as famous as the Mexican Communist Party.

Gramsci and Togliatti, under the influences of Moscow, seized control of the Italian Communist Party and subordinated its role to the antifascist bourgeosie and eschewed the pursue of world revolution. Same with the Mexican Communist Party, which was founded by both Anarchists and Marxists. Mexican Anarchists came from a solid, communistic, class struggle background, and took an internationalist position on the question of WWI, contrary to a lot of other "socialists". The Mexican Communist Party purged its left wing and anarchist elements and become another organ of Moscow.

Its also important to remind that the most "ultraleft" parties came from the countries with most solid class struggle tradition. Like Germany and Italy.

Another example could be Spain. Stalinists did help to move the pole from left to right by allying themselves with the liberal bourgeosie and destroying the autonomy of working class organs like the CNT and POUM. Both organizations were forced to join the Popular front due to the sabotage of a power that obviously had more economic resources than them.




[Qoute]Like the Alliance with capitalism against Nazism? [/Quote]

Nazism is capitalism. Comintern parties cheered for the millions and millions of workers sent to die for bourgeois democrats.




This accusation has been repeatedly proven false.

I don't mean socialism "in one country". I mean more concrete trends like supporting millions to die for their bourgeois masters in WWII, or pushing against working class revolution in Spain.




First, how does beauraucratization lead to a party becoming strict adherants to the Moscow line?

Second, can you prove this occured?

Third, doesn't that disprove the claim that the CPSU was anti-international?

Parties became strict adherents to the Moscow line because the right wing, which terminated in dominating the left wing, was supported by a nation willing to finance it.

I think, you as a Maoist, already understand that "orthodox communist parties" became simply organs of Moscow. Except that you think it had noithing to do with Stalin and everything with Kruschev.

Anyway, I think the most stellar example is the Spanish Communist Party and the International Brigades, which were financed by the CPSU and did take over the Left.

[RNK]

Another example could be Spain. Stalinists did help to move the pole from left to right by allying themselves with the liberal bourgeosie and destroying the autonomy of working class organs like the CNT and POUM. Both organizations were forced to join the Popular front due to the sabotage of a power that obviously had more economic resources than them.

Basically, the Soviet Union (and Stalin, naturally) destroyed the Civil war in Spain by supporting who they believed were the more progressive, worthwhile sections?


I think, you as a Maoist, already understand that "orthodox communist parties" became simply organs of Moscow. Except that you think it had noithing to do with Stalin and everything with Kruschev.

Actually, no.. as a "Maoist" I am privy to my own beliefs and opinions based on my own knowledge which are not forced to conform to some imaginary mass line. Of all "Maoists" I know I am one of the most critical of the USSR; I just believe in placing blame where it's due, and not in blaming the USSR for everything from the failure of the anarchists to win the Civil War to the boogyman to the Challenger disaster.

[black magick hustla]

Basically, the Soviet Union (and Stalin, naturally) destroyed the Civil war in Spain by supporting who they believed were the more progressive, worthwhile sections?

It doesn't matter what were their motives. What matters its that it represented a counterrevolution and a subordination of workers to bourgeois liberals.

[RNK]

Actually, it does; failing to grasp the potential motivation for an act is a grievous error. Sometimes people kill others to defend themselves; sometimes they do it as an outright act of murder. Punishing both instances as the same is stupid.

What I find silly is that even though the Soviet Union was supporting the war against Franco and his fascism, you still see it as counter-revolutionary because they did not support the "right section' of the anti-Franco alliance.

[black magick hustla]

Actually, it does; failing to grasp the potential motivation for an act is a grievous error. Sometimes people kill others to defend themselves; sometimes they do it as an outright act of murder. Punishing both instances as the same is stupid.

What I find silly is that even though the Soviet Union was supporting the war against Franco and his fascism, you still see it as counter-revolutionary because they did not support the "right section' of the anti-Franco alliance.

I dont really care about their motives, because I cant never know them. I think it had more to do with the USSR's geopolitics than for real belief in workers revolution though.

I see it as counterrevolutionary, because again, it subordinated class struggle to bourgeois liberals. Supporting the "right sections" is what communists do, because we support communist revolution. If partie sstarted supporting bourgeois liberals instead of communism then there is a clear counterrevolution.

[spartan]

What I find silly is that even though the Soviet Union was supporting the war against Franco and his fascism, you still see it as counter-revolutionary because they did not support the "right section' of the anti-Franco alliance.

It was counter revolutionary because the Stalinists suppression of the most popular sects of the revolutionary militias, parties and trade unions led to an easy victory for Franco and his Monarcho-Catholic-Fascists!

You Stalinists seem to conveniantly forget that it was Anarchist militias and trade unions who were the first to demanded that the government give them arms to defend the Republic from the rebellious Franco (The government had previously refused).

You also seem to forget that the overwhelming majority of people holding the line against Franco at the start of the war were members of Anarchist militias raised by Anarchist trade unions!

Things only started to go wrong when the Popular Army (Armed with brand spanking new Mosin Nagant rifles and with Russian tanks and aeroplanes) forced the militias to become apart of the new PA.

This soon followed with the reintroduction of ranks and hierarchies in a society that had previously successfully abolished both.

[Sky]

Just look at the history of stalinists.

How about the history of the Trotskyists?

During the Revolution of 1905-07, Trotskyists, distorting Marx's idea of permanent revolution, propounded their own theory of permanent revolution, which they opposed to Lenin's doctrine of the hegemony of the proletariat in the bourgeois democratic revolution and the doctrine of the transformation of this revolution into a socialist revolution. Trotskyists repudiated the revolutionary nature of the peasant masses as well as the proletariat's ability to establish a firm alliance with the peasantry; they ignored the bourgeois democratic tasks of the first Russian revolution and put forth the voluntaristic idea of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat as a result of the bourgeois democratic revolution.

During World War I, Trotskyism was a component of international centrism, a social democratic trend that wavered between social chauvinism and petit bourgeois pacifism. Trotksyists rejected Lenin's conclusion that it was possible in the period of imperialism for the proletarian revolution to triumph first in a few countries or even in a single country. In opposition to Lenin's slogan transforming the imperialist war in to a civil war, Trotsky advanced the slogan "Neither victory nor defeat," which essentially meant that everything would remain as before; consequently, even tsarism would be preserved.

After the February Revolution of 1917, just as in 1905, the Trotskyists confused the bourgeois democratic stage of the revolution in Russia with the socialist stage; failing to recognize the bourgeois democratic stage, they demanded the immediate creation of a "true workers' government," the leading role in which they assigned to conciliatory parties.

The Trotkskyists opposed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and foild the timely conclusion of the negotiations, thus exposing the still weak Soviet republic to the threat of German imperialist aggression. As a result, the Soviet government was compelled to sign a peace treaty at a later date under worse conditions.

During the 1968 general strike in France, Trotskyists and other "ultrarevolutionaries" supported the adventuristic idea of an immediate armed uprising. In Japan the Trotskyists gave the reactionary forces a pretext for the bloody suppression of the demonstrations in Shinjuku in October 1968 and in Yokosuka in January 1969. Trotskyists have engaged in similar activities in other countries as well. Schismatic efforts of the Trotskyists in Chile aided the fascist coup there.

[RNK]

Oh, I'm sorry, I hadn't realized that the anarchists with their old hunting rifles and home-made weapons were on the verge of victory, and that the establishment of conventional armed forces with tanks, airplanes and modern weapons somehow led to a counter-revolution.

It's easy enough to use the Soviet Union as the scapegoat. Afterall, the war was lost only after the Soviet Union got involved (which is, I suppose, a turn-around from the original claim that the Soviet Union rejected internationalism). There could, therefore, be no other reason for the defeat of the revolutionary forces in Spain other than the Soviet Union's involvement.

This, my friends, is called "circumstantial evidence" which at most shows that the re-organization of the revolutionary forces, with the Soviet Union's help, inadvertently led to a victory for Franco. It in no way whatsoever proves that the Soviet Union's activities were "counter-revolutionary", let alone show that the Soviet Union acted maliciously and purposely to help Franco. You weak lot are simply using the USSR as a scapegoat, someone to blame for the failure.

[Nusocialist]

Just look at the history of stalinists. Take, for instance, USSR robbing the Republican side during the spanish civil war for gold, practically it's only really valuable resource.

Or Mao closing the Shanghai commune. Or Mao ordering the halt of the Hundred Flowers Campaign.

That revolutionaries are willing to cooperate with these people is beyond me. They are reactionaries, whether they like it or not, despite their red flags.

Yeah because those were the worst bits about Stalin and Mao, not the amazing loss of life.

[spartan]

Oh, I'm sorry, I hadn't realized that the anarchists with their old hunting rifles and home-made weapons were on the verge of victory, and that the establishment of conventional armed forces with tanks, airplanes and modern weapons somehow led to a counter-revolution.

So what your saying is that its okay to suppress the workers, and their hard fought for control, so long as it creates a sense of Bourgeois stability?


It's easy enough to use the Soviet Union as the scapegoat. Afterall, the war was lost only after the Soviet Union got involved (which is, I suppose, a turn-around from the original claim that the Soviet Union rejected internationalism).

The only reason the USSR got involved in this conflict was because their Bourgeois allies France wanted them to kill off any workers revolution, because France (A Bourgeois state) didnt like the idea of having a truely workers run state as a neighbour, especially when they had their own militant workers to deal with (Who could use the example of the success that was Anarchist run Spain, to attract French workers to their cause).

Add to that the Spanish Bourgeois, who were willing to pay lots of money (Which they did) for the USSR's crushing of workers revolution services, and you can see that Stalin and the USSR were more than willing to help out his Bourgeois allies for money and sell the workers out to Fascist rule (What a great example of a Socialist there folks).

[black magick hustla]

Oh, I'm sorry, I hadn't realized that the anarchists with their old hunting rifles and home-made weapons were on the verge of victory, and that the establishment of conventional armed forces with tanks, airplanes and modern weapons somehow led to a counter-revolution.

It's easy enough to use the Soviet Union as the scapegoat. Afterall, the war was lost only after the Soviet Union got involved (which is, I suppose, a turn-around from the original claim that the Soviet Union rejected internationalism). There could, therefore, be no other reason for the defeat of the revolutionary forces in Spain other than the Soviet Union's involvement.

This, my friends, is called "circumstantial evidence" which at most shows that the re-organization of the revolutionary forces, with the Soviet Union's help, inadvertently led to a victory for Franco. It in no way whatsoever proves that the Soviet Union's activities were "counter-revolutionary", let alone show that the Soviet Union acted maliciously and purposely to help Franco. You weak lot are simply using the USSR as a scapegoat, someone to blame for the failure.

I never said anarchists had the capabiliy to win or not. The issue isn't that though. THe real issue is that the USSR funded bourgeois liberals.

[Wanted Man]

If they are in the end against workers liberation and workers control of society (also the result in the USSR, China, North Korea etc.), then yes.
So a person's ideas are more important than their objective position in the class struggle?

[A New Era]

Yeah because those were the worst bits about Stalin and Mao, not the amazing loss of life.

I purposly focused on the party bigwigs fear of workers power.

[mac1905]

The think I never forgot Stalin is that he ordered to execute leaders of Communist Party of Poland in 1938, as well as transfering members of KPD and KPO that ran from Hitler back to him.:glare:

[A New Era]

Exactly. And there are so many similar examples. Isn't that proof enough that stalinism is reactionary and that the prime stalinist experiment, the USSR, was a reactionary state?

[mac1905]

Despite the opinions about Stalin I think that it none of communists could say USSR was reactionary.

[Invader Zim]

Anthony Beevor isn't a historian likely to gain you much credence with the Stalinists here A New Era, they think bad politics must entail bad history; which is not always true.

[Dros]

Yeah because those were the worst bits about Stalin and Mao, not the amazing loss of life.

Go read something.

[Led Zeppelin]

Uh huh. That's real believable, that there exists a large group of men and women wandering around like sleeper agents, waiting for that sign that will trigger all of them to take over any revolutionary movement and bury worker's democracy.

That's what Hoxhaists believe, actually.

Read up on the "hidden revisionists" theory.

[Herman]

Just look at the history of stalinists. Take, for instance, USSR robbing the Republican side during the spanish civil war for gold, practically it's only really valuable resource.

Or Mao closing the Shanghai commune. Or Mao ordering the halt of the Hundred Flowers Campaign.

That revolutionaries are willing to cooperate with these people is beyond me. They are reactionaries, whether they like it or not, despite their red flags.

Ah, well researched facts here folks! You should think about becoming a historian. Perhaps aspire to the Nobel prize while you're at it?

Seriously, if you want to criticize someone, whoever it is, you should actually show proper arguments and sources.

[ArabRASH]

I think we should stop throwing the word reactionary around...it's used too loosely, and can refer to a plethora of things...

[Luís Henrique]

There are good communist militants that happen to be "stalinist", that have their heart in the right place.-

Yes, this is evidently true. They are subjectively revolutionary.

And there is one problem with Stalinism - it fosters the idea that being subjectively revolutionary is not enough. For them, Trotskyists, for instance, or anarchists, may well be subjectively revolutionary, but are objectively reactionary; and being objectively reactionary is as bad, if not worse, than being subjectively treasonous.

So, no, we shouldn't consider Stalinists necessarily traitors. But we should demand from them that they apply to others - Trotkyists, anarchists, social-democrats, left-communists - the same standards that they would like to be applied to them.

Their monopoly of moral judgement within the left was based on brute force - State force. But now that we can paraphrase their icon, and ask "but how many armoured divisions do the Stalinists have?", that is over...

Luís Henrique

[Colonello Buendia]

The Stalinists or Anti Revisionists as they like to call themselves defend an Idea based on oppressive control and destruction of the so called workers state, the Soviet government under Stalin was corrupt, elitist genocidal. the state apparatus made the life of the proletarians hell. The system was undemocratic and however many elections there are they still have a dictatorial system. I mean "you're allowed to vote, but theres only one party and one candidate per constituency." that is what Stalin and many left-wing governments did(with exceptions of Chavez and Allende and the Spanish Republic)

[black magick hustla]

Yes, this is evidently true. They are subjectively revolutionary.

And there is one problem with Stalinism - it fosters the idea that being subjectively revolutionary is not enough. For them, Trotskyists, for instance, or anarchists, may well be subjectively revolutionary, but are objectively reactionary; and being objectively reactionary is as bad, if not worse, than being subjectively treasonous.
Luís Henrique

In some aspects it is enough, but most of the time it is not. We are not liberals Luis, and I really dislike the fact that the radical left is dominated by people who are supporting factions of the bourgeosie.

[A New Era]

Ah, well researched facts here folks! You should think about becoming a historian. Perhaps aspire to the Nobel prize while you're at it?

^ Personal attack.


Seriously, if you want to criticize someone, whoever it is, you should actually show proper arguments and sources.That Mao closed the Shanghai People's Commune and the Hundred Flowers Campaign is common knowledge, is it not?

[Luís Henrique]

In some aspects it is enough, but most of the time it is not. We are not liberals Luis, and I really dislike the fact that the radical left is dominated by people who are supporting factions of the bourgeosie.

And, if it is not enough when concerning anarchists or social democrats, it is also not enough concerning Stalinists. The fact that they have their hearts on the right side still doesn't mean that they have their heads there too.

If they can call others traitors, then others can call them traitors too. If for no other reason, because they systematically support factions of the bourgeoisie...

Luís Henrique

[Dros]

The Stalinists or Anti Revisionists as they like to call themselves defend an Idea based on oppressive control and destruction of the so called workers state, the Soviet government under Stalin was corrupt, elitist genocidal.

Care to back that up with a real argument?

Or you can just crawl back into your hole and shut up.

[Herman]

Personal attack.

My bad, I was having a bad day.


That Mao closed the Shanghai People's Commune and the Hundred Flowers Campaign is common knowledge, is it not?

You don't actually explain how it was reactionary for Mao to close them both down. If you had gone in depth then it would have actually been a proper argument. Merely saying "look, he did closed down a commune! that makes him reactionary!" is not a good way to criticize someone, especially form a class perspective.

[Die Neue Zeit]

[/I]

Quite revisionist of you to try and say that Marx ever claimed that an alliance with the petit-bourgeois was ok (under some circumstances) while an alliance with the haute bourgeoisie was not. Communists can and should make and break alliances whenever the benefit to the working class is greatest.

But we're not talking about an outright socialist revolution, are we? :glare:

We are talking about the DEMOCRATIC revolution, in which case a "firm alliance" with the petit bourgeoisie (including peasants) is absolutely necessary. That is, unless you subscribe to Trotsky's "permanent revolution" and the absurd idea of merely "leaning" on the petit-bourgeoisie. :lol:


creating an alliance of Peasant, Proletariat, Petit-Bourgeoisie and Bourgeoisie under Proletarian rule

All "fine and dandy," except that:

1) Peasants are petit-bourgeois (why separate the former from the latter?); and
2) No sane haute bourgeois would EVER capitulate to proletarian rule, EVEN for the DEMOCRATIC tasks.

[careyprice31]

I think that Stalinists are honestly scary. :(

[Comrade Qwatt]

Actually the modern 'anti-Stalinist left' are almost the textbook definition for the kind of 'reactionary socialism' explained by Marx in the last area of the Communist Manifesto.

[Winter]

Leave the Anti-Revisionists alone!!! :crying:

[Psy]

How about the history of the Trotskyists?

During the Revolution of 1905-07, Trotskyists, distorting Marx's idea of permanent revolution, propounded their own theory of permanent revolution, which they opposed to Lenin's doctrine of the hegemony of the proletariat in the bourgeois democratic revolution and the doctrine of the transformation of this revolution into a socialist revolution. Trotskyists repudiated the revolutionary nature of the peasant masses as well as the proletariat's ability to establish a firm alliance with the peasantry; they ignored the bourgeois democratic tasks of the first Russian revolution and put forth the voluntaristic idea of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat as a result of the bourgeois democratic revolution.

Even Lenin abandoned the idea of stages, stating it was impossible in Russia due to the Russian bourgeois being too reactionary to play any progressive role in Russia. Meaning Lenin eventually sided with Trotsky on that issue and this proves Stalinist are anti-Leninist, they are against Lenin's theories when he returned to Russia and instead focus on his earlier works, while Lenin over time shifted more toward the theories of Trotsky (and away from his earlier theories that Stalinist prescribe to)



After the February Revolution of 1917, just as in 1905, the Trotskyists confused the bourgeois democratic stage of the revolution in Russia with the socialist stage; failing to recognize the bourgeois democratic stage, they demanded the immediate creation of a "true workers' government," the leading role in which they assigned to conciliatory parties.

Again even Lenin sided with Trotsky on this, all you are doing is showing how anti-Lenin Stalin was.



The Trotkskyists opposed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and foild the timely conclusion of the negotiations, thus exposing the still weak Soviet republic to the threat of German imperialist aggression. As a result, the Soviet government was compelled to sign a peace treaty at a later date under worse conditions.

The Germans didn't honour the treaty of Brest-Litovsk (and never intended to) so history proved Brest-Litovsk irrelevant. If the treaty was signed sooner nothing would have changed.




During the 1968 general strike in France, Trotskyists and other "ultrarevolutionaries" supported the adventuristic idea of an immediate armed uprising.

Which was correct, the France government was deploying the army yet there was a window where the French state had little organized defence.