The Purges and Moscow Trials

[Rabble Rouser]

I am having a difficult time finding an accurate and balanced account of the purges in the Soviet Union during the 1930s (often referred to as the 'Great Purge', though in fact a convergence of separate phenomena). Was there any genuine reason for these historic events? Was it nothing more than a cynical power grab by Stalin, who sought to eliminate the opposition? I am currently of the opinion that these events were in part an effort by Stalin to consolidate power, but that there were genuine concerns and that Stalin wasn't merely seizing power for power's sake. One thing that I still don't know is why, if the trials were staged, did international lawyers deem them fair? Did Stalin actually become personally involved in the trials? To what extent were ordinary people, not just higher officials, affected? I would appreciate it if anyone who knows more about this period in Soviet history could shed light on the true nature of the purges and trials.

[careyprice31]

I know a great deal about this time period, actually.

One thing I can say is that to simply assume that stalin was a power freak is too simplistic. Likewise to say that he was crazy, or insane, is also simplistic. His actions in planning the political demise of his opponenets, not to mention taking advantage of an opportunistic chance via the Kirov Murder of december 1934, clearly shows not insanity but a man who clearly was far from stupid or sick. Yet they are two possible reasons given by people to explain the purges. I personally do not buy them.

The reasons more likely are these ones. Stalin was acting not from cruelty or a mere lust for power, but from the conviction that all real or potential opposition must be uprooted. He was a believer that the ends justify the means, and that to create a powerful Russia, a superpower, damage will be done, he knew, but he viewed that as unavoidable. Even without Hitler, who did not come to power until 1933, Stalin wanted a strong Russia.

Another reason why Stalin unleasshed the purges might have come from his study of history. He knew that there had been many periods where Russia had been powerful for a time and then had relapsed into weakness. He knew that Russia had faced many many countless invasions over the millennium and that in a weak state it would be possible for her to be attacked again. He particularly admired Tsar Ivan the Terrible for his destruction of the five great feudal families and his unleashing of terror which appeared to solve the problem he had, and he admired Tsar Pyotr Romanov (Peter the Great) for his great transformation of Russia particularly building St Petersburg, and Russia became a super power under him.

This may not be the answer for everything, but it is a start.

[Holden Caulfield]

i think that is lust for power no matter how calculated he is about it, and an extremely nationalists view, let the people starve to make the country stronger,

as a Bukharinite do you think that he was justified at all purging Bukharin, etc? do you think this is for the better of the country? i think it is for his own lust for power and therefore hatred and fear of other potentially influential and important men

[careyprice31]

I do not think anyone deserves to die. I am an opponent of the capital punishment.

No, neither Bukharin nor anyone else deserved to die. They were also in addition by no means guilty of what they were accused of at the Moscow Show Trials and before them.

I think it was not better for the country or the party or anything else to have all the people suffer. In contrast, it shows how far humans have sunk when they implement the death penalty (this is how I feel about the US or any other country who has capital punishment)

and a country does no need famine, nor forced collectivization, nor capital punishment, in order to build a super power.

I think also that Stalin had an inferiority complex. He disliked intellectuals because he wasnt one. He was intelligent but compared to the party members he had killed he had not their education nor had he travelled much outside of the USSR and he spoke only russian and georgian. In addition his participation in the events of the reolutions were very small at best and he spent the war WWI inside Russia. in exile in siberia.

It is interesting to note that all the ones stalin approved of.....Voroshilov, Kalinin, Molotov, Kirov for example, had spent the war years in russia while the ones who died were very intellectual (Bukharin even said he could not get over the nagging feeling that the dull Molotov had never in his life said a intelligent word and he always called him a blockhead) and had spent the war years as well as long before the revolution outside of Russia.

[Intelligitimate]

The most objective account of the purges I've read is J. Arch Getty's Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, 1933-1938. Getty thoroughly demolishes the Cold War view of the purges as some sort of cartoonish plot of an omniscient, omnipotent evil dictator, and provides a much more convincing analysis in its place.

Grover Furr provides a similar, compatible view of the purges. I recommend reading Getty first and comparing and contrasting the two views.

http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html
http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr2.html

[Intelligitimate]

They were also in addition by no means guilty of what they were accused of at the Moscow Show Trials and before them.

There is more than enough evidence, apart from their confessions, to convince an unbiased person of the guilt of the main defendants of the Moscow Trials. Take, for example, the comments of Bukharin's Swiss friend Jules Humbert-Droz in his autobiography, written while safely in Switzerland and long after Stalin was already dead:


Before leaving I went to see Bukharin for one last time not knowing whether I would see him again upon my return. We had a long and frank conversation. He brought me up to date with the contacts made by his group with the Zinoviev-Kamenev fraction in order to coordinate the struggle against the power of Stalin. I did not hide from him that I did not approve of this liaison of the oppositions. ‘The struggle against Stalin is not a political programme. We had combatted with reason the programme of the trotskyites on the essential questions, the danger of the kulaks in Russia, the struggle against the united front with the social-democrats, the Chinese problems, the very short-sighted revolutionary perspective, etc. On the morrow of a common victory against Stalin, the political problems will divide us. This bloc is a bloc without principles which will crumble away before achieving any results.’

Bukharin also told me that they had decided to utilise individual terror in order to rid themselves of Stalin. On this point as well I expressed my reservation: the introduction of individual terror into the political struggles born from the Russian Revolution would strongly risk turning against those who employed it. It had never been a revolutionary weapon. ‘My opinion is that we ought to continue the ideological and political struggle against Stalin. His line will lead in the near future to a catastrophe which will open the eyes of the communists and result in a changing of orientation. Fascism menaces Germany and our party of phrasemongers will be incapable of resisting it. Before the debacle of the Communist Party of Germany and the extension of fascism to Poland and to France, the International must change politics. That moment will then be our hour. It is necessary then to remain disciplined, to apply the sectarian decisions after having fought and opposed the leftist errors and measures, but to continue to struggle on the strictly political terrain’.

Bukharin doubtlessly had understood that I would not liase blindly with his fraction whose sole programme was to make Stalin disappear. This was our last meeting. Manifestly he did not have confidence in the tactic that I proposed.This is referring to events that took place in 1929. So as early as 1929, Bukharin had wanted to kill Stalin. The Riutin Platform, written by the Bukharinist Riutin, also openly advocates the violent overthrow of the government. Rykov admitted, outside of the trial and in front of the party, to knowing about the existence of the platform and telling no one. This would be like someone in the Bush administration knowing of an internal coup plot against him and telling no one. One of Bukharin's face-to-face denouncers, Astrov, lived to be nearly a hundred and did not retract anything significant about his testimony against Bukharin (stating he was not tortured and was treated with respect by his interrogators).

On the contrary, there is zero evidence Bukharin was tortured and threatened into confessing. None. The anti-communist version of history assumes as an axiom the innocence of Bukharin and the other major defendants of the Moscow Trials. Anti-communists simply don't deal with the evidence, preferring fantasy like Koestler's Darkness at Noon to reality. Moreover, they can not deal with the evidence, as their position is one of faith and indoctrination. The faith of anti-communism, indoctrinated into people by the bourgeois mass media and public education system, doesn't allow one to even attempt to deal with the evidence. The mind just shuts down. Simply getting anti-communists on this forum to even read it, let alone try to deal with evidence in an even limited matter, is a task that requires usually several posts.

[S R]

I am having a difficult time finding an accurate and balanced account of the purges in the Soviet Union during the 1930s (often referred to as the 'Great Purge', though in fact a convergence of separate phenomena). Was there any genuine reason for these historic events? Was it nothing more than a cynical power grab by Stalin, who sought to eliminate the opposition? I am currently of the opinion that these events were in part an effort by Stalin to consolidate power, but that there were genuine concerns and that Stalin wasn't merely seizing power for power's sake. One thing that I still don't know is why, if the trials were staged, did international lawyers deem them fair? Did Stalin actually become personally involved in the trials? To what extent were ordinary people, not just higher officials, affected? I would appreciate it if anyone who knows more about this period in Soviet history could shed light on the true nature of the purges and trials.

If Stalin were to consolidate power for himself he would have gone directly against what the Soviet working class and people have worked long and hard for. This notion of STalin consolidating his position runs counter to the logic of defending the right of the collectives right to exist and to flourish. There is a lot of information about why the Purges and the Trials came into being. One might want to find the actual documents of the Trials themselves. They are not secret, although the anti-communists like to portray they are and have people rely on their testimony rather than find out themselves. Mission to Moscow is an excllent source as well as the Christian clergyman who was friendly to the Soviet Union and Stalin, Hewlett Johnson. They do a great job in puttting the Purges and the Trials into proper historical context.

[Psy]

If Stalin were to consolidate power for himself he would have gone directly against what the Soviet working class and people have worked long and hard for. This notion of STalin consolidating his position runs counter to the logic of defending the right of the collectives right to exist and to flourish. There is a lot of information about why the Purges and the Trials came into being. One might want to find the actual documents of the Trials themselves. They are not secret, although the anti-communists like to portray they are and have people rely on their testimony rather than find out themselves. Mission to Moscow is an excllent source as well as the Christian clergyman who was friendly to the Soviet Union and Stalin, Hewlett Johnson. They do a great job in puttting the Purges and the Trials into proper historical context.
Then you have the problem of Trotsky, Zinoviev and their followers being purged and the purges in Leningrad after WWII were highly secretive. Looking at the facts Stalin purged everyone that wasn't a loyal yes man.

[careyprice31]

"Bukharin's Swiss friend Jules Humbert-Droz in his autobiography, written while safely in Switzerland and long after Stalin was already dead:


Quote:
Before leaving I went to see Bukharin for one last time not knowing whether I would see him again upon my return. We had a long and frank conversation. He brought me up to date with the contacts made by his group with the Zinoviev-Kamenev fraction in order to coordinate the struggle against the power of Stalin. I did not hide from him that I did not approve of this liaison of the oppositions. ‘The struggle against Stalin is not a political programme. We had combatted with reason the programme of the trotskyites on the essential questions, the danger of the kulaks in Russia, the struggle against the united front with the social-democrats, the Chinese problems, the very short-sighted revolutionary perspective, etc. On the morrow of a common victory against Stalin, the political problems will divide us. This bloc is a bloc without principles which will crumble away before achieving any results.’

Bukharin also told me that they had decided to utilise individual terror in order to rid themselves of Stalin. On this point as well I expressed my reservation: the introduction of individual terror into the political struggles born from the Russian Revolution would strongly risk turning against those who employed it. It had never been a revolutionary weapon. ‘My opinion is that we ought to continue the ideological and political struggle against Stalin. His line will lead in the near future to a catastrophe which will open the eyes of the communists and result in a changing of orientation. Fascism menaces Germany and our party of phrasemongers will be incapable of resisting it. Before the debacle of the Communist Party of Germany and the extension of fascism to Poland and to France, the International must change politics. That moment will then be our hour. It is necessary then to remain disciplined, to apply the sectarian decisions after having fought and opposed the leftist errors and measures, but to continue to struggle on the strictly political terrain’.

Bukharin doubtlessly had understood that I would not liase blindly with his fraction whose sole programme was to make Stalin disappear. This was our last meeting. Manifestly he did not have confidence in the tactic that I proposed. "

I find that hard to believe. Admittedly i do not know much about Droz but I do know Ryutin and he was a possible supporter of terror, I believe he was close to getting ready to believe in it, but Bukharin was not a believer of individual terror.

I also know about Valentin Astrov, he was one of the interrogators.

I am going to read more on Droz if I can find about him then come back .

But Bukharin had never been a supporter of terror, either individual terror or the Cheka's terror (he protested against their excesses during the Red Terror of 1918+ after Lenin was shot)

I just finds it hard to believe.

Confessions.......They were fabricated. They were made to confess. For example, Fyodor Raskolnikov (the Bolshevik who lived at Kronstadt) knew that Pyatakov had confessed to secretly meeting Trot in Norway. Actually Rask. well knew that Pyatakov had been in Germany at the time referred to and had never seen Trot. There is documentary evidence to prove that the trials were nothing but a fabrication. The confessions cannot be used as evidence to prove Bukharin was a terrorist.

[Intelligitimate]

I find that hard to believe.
Droz had no reason to lie about the incident. Bukharin wanted to kill Stalin, with the cooperation of the Trotskyist-Zinovievist bloc.




I also know about Valentin Astrov, he was one of the interrogators.
Correction, Astrov was a face-to-face accuser. Astrov admitted to playing a part in the Rightest conspiracy, and accused Bukharin, to his face in front of the party, that he knew Bukharin was also involved. Astrov, living to nearly 100, didn't ever say he made this up. He said he wasn't tortured, and was treated with respect by his interrogators.



But Bukharin had never been a supporter of terror
Droz proves otherwise.



Confessions.......They were fabricated. They were made to confess.
There is no proof of this. None.



For example, Fyodor Raskolnikov (the Bolshevik who lived at Kronstadt) knew that Pyatakov had confessed to secretly meeting Trot in Norway. Actually Rask. well knew that Pyatakov had been in Germany at the time referred to and had never seen Trot.
I can find no evidence of this. Raskolnikov's “Open Letter” makes no mention of any special knowledge about Pyatakov, nor is any of this brought in the Dewey Commission (which we know Trotsky lied to. We have his papers from the Trotsky archive proving it). I think you may have misremembered your 'evidence'. In any case, there was a witness at the trial, Bukhartsev, who testified to arranging the flight for Pyatakov. (I can't at this time determine much about the witness. It appears he was also involved in some capacity with US ambassador Martha Dodd). [edit: according to one source on google books, Dodd was informed Bukhartsev was shot in Feburary 1937]



There is documentary evidence to prove that the trials were nothing but a fabrication.
Then provide it.

[careyprice31]

"Droz had no reason to lie about the incident. Bukharin wanted to kill Stalin, with the cooperation of the Trotskyist-Zinovievist bloc."

I just looked him up now for about 2 hours and a bit of last night. I never found anything, except what he said and some of stalin's men like kaganovich (which would make it questionable there) no proof that Bukharin was ever a terrorist or believed in it. There is evidence that he did not fully criticize the Cheka's use of force in the Red Terror of 1918 and he supported that somewhat but thought it was excessive but none that he wanted to kill Stalin. Despite him being somewhat afraid of Stalin he was stalin's friend and he was also on good terms wirh Dzhugashvili (stalin)'s wife and children. In all of my approximately 15 years I have studied Soviet/Russian history I have never come across any evidence that showed Bukharin was a terrorist or had ever believed in it.



Quote:
I also know about Valentin Astrov, he was one of the interrogators.
"Correction, Astrov was a face-to-face accuser. Astrov admitted to playing a part in the Rightest conspiracy, and accused Bukharin, to his face in front of the party, that he knew Bukharin was also involved. Astrov, living to nearly 100, didn't ever say he made this up. He said he wasn't tortured, and was treated with respect by his interrogators."

Astrov when interviewed for a documentary on Stalin said that he did not betray the people by his actions.....but in a sense he did betray them by what he did as his job and it tore him up inside.




Quote:
But Bukharin had never been a supporter of terror
"Droz proves otherwise."

It doesnt really provide proof of anything. U can say one is the Pope, it doesnt make them the Pope. The only people who had ever made claims like that were Stalin's bureaucracy and some people who may have hated Bukharin. Droz appears to have been alone in his assertions, no other Bukharin sympathizer had ever said anything like that.



Quote:
Confessions.......They were fabricated. They were made to confess.
"There is no proof of this. None."

No? What about all those people who survived to tell their tales of arrest and survival in the Gulag? not to mention NKVD members who defected and lived to tell their stories. When you have all these thousands of people telling of the same thing.....

Quote:
For example, Fyodor Raskolnikov (the Bolshevik who lived at Kronstadt) knew that Pyatakov had confessed to secretly meeting Trot in Norway. Actually Rask. well knew that Pyatakov had been in Germany at the time referred to and had never seen Trot.
"I can find no evidence of this. Raskolnikov's “Open Letter” makes no mention of any special knowledge about Pyatakov, nor is any of this brought in the Dewey Commission (which we know Trotsky lied to. We have his papers from the Trotsky archive proving it). I think you may have misremembered your 'evidence'. In any case, there was a witness at the trial, Bukhartsev, who testified to arranging the flight for Pyatakov. (I can't at this time determine much about the witness. It appears he was also involved in some capacity with US ambassador Martha Dodd). [edit: according to one source on google books, Dodd was informed Bukhartsev was shot in Feburary 1937]"

It is documented in several historical books where historians actually consulted archives in Russia, secret archives.



Quote:
There is documentary evidence to prove that the trials were nothing but a fabrication.
"Then provide it."

I gave one example.....Raskolnikov. He knew the trials were a lie. Actually why am I answering this? I wish sometime that you could get the chance to speak to former gulag victims, and tell them that they deserved all that they got and their trials werent made up. See what kind of a reaction you would get.

I'd advise you to read Eugenia Ginzburg's story of her 18 years in the Gulag. Or what about the memoirs of ex NKVD worker Alexander Orlov?
They knew what was going on in the country.

by the way you are a Stalinist arent you.

[spartan]

No? What about all those people who survived to tell their tales of arrest and survival in the Gulag? not to mention NKVD members who defected and lived to tell their stories. When you have all these thousands of people telling of the same thing.....

The first thing that you should learn about our resident Stalin apologists on revleft svetlana is that to them the truth is a lie and ignorance truely is strength.

To them our evidence and sources are "Bourgeois propaganda" and "lies" whilst their "evidence" and "sources" are Gods own incorruptible words (Never mind that it usually comes straight from the mouth of one of Stalins yes men, who i am sure arent going to be a bit biased in the least:rolleyes:).

Now the response that you will get from the Stalin apologists will be "Give us evidence that these gulags existed" or something along those lines.

Now what you will notice from responses like that is how alike Stalin apologists and Holocaust deniers are.

Both demand huge (And i mean huge) amounts of evidence to prove that their chosen subject was in fact a reality and not a made up lie created by an outside source (In Stalin apologists case this outside source is the Bourgeoisie, whilst for Holocaust deniers it is the Jews), and both call any evidence, to prove that what we say was indeed true, lies (Stalin apologists call it "Bourgeois lies" whilst Holocaust deniers call it "Jewish lies").

Speaking from experience i suggest that you not bother arguing with the Stalin apologists as it is tantamount to arguing with a brick wall (Nothing will change).

The term "ignorance is bliss" comes to mind whenever i think about revlefts resident Stalin apologists.

[Psy]

The first thing that you should learn about our resident Stalin apologists on revleft svetlana is that to them the truth is a lie and ignorance truely is strength.

To them our evidence and sources are "Bourgeois propaganda" and "lies" whilst their "evidence" and "sources" are Gods own incorruptible words (Never mind that it usually comes straight from the mouth of one of Stalins yes men, who i am sure arent going to be a bit biased in the least:rolleyes:).

Now the response that you will get from the Stalin apologists will be "Give us evidence that these gulags existed" or something along those lines.

Now what you will notice from responses like that is how alike Stalin apologists and Holocaust deniers are.

Both demand huge (And i mean huge) amounts of evidence to prove that their chosen subject was in fact a reality and not a made up lie created by an outside source (In Stalin apologists case this outside source is the Bourgeoisie, whilst for Holocaust deniers it is the Jews), and both call any evidence, to prove that what we say was indeed true, lies (Stalin apologists call it "Bourgeois lies" whilst Holocaust deniers call it "Jewish lies").

Speaking from experience i suggest that you not bother arguing with the Stalin apologists as it is tantamount to arguing with a brick wall (Nothing will change).

The term "ignorance is bliss" comes to mind whenever i think about revlefts resident Stalin apologists.

There is a mountain of documentation of the purges in the archives in Moscow (and if fake why would anyone bother making up such fake documents just to seal in the archives for decades?), there is more proof from the Turkey police forces of Stalinist goons whacking off Bolsheviks that were exiled to Turkey and then there was the ice pick in Trotsky's head from a Stalinist goon that killed him in Mexico (I could be wrong but Mexico even then was far outside the borders of the USSR).

I would think even the most staunchest Stalinist would have to at least address the possibility.

[Intelligitimate]

I just looked him up now for about 2 hours and a bit of last night. I never found anything, except what he said and some of stalin's men like kaganovich (which would make it questionable there) no proof that Bukharin was ever a terrorist or believed in it . . . in all of my approximately 15 years I have studied Soviet/Russian history I have never come across any evidence that showed Bukharin was a terrorist or had ever believed in it.


Except for now, eh? And apparently you just want this bit of evidence to go away, because it doesn't fit neatly with your idealistic picture of Bukharin.



It doesnt really provide proof of anything. U can say one is the Pope, it doesnt make them the Pope. The only people who had ever made claims like that were Stalin's bureaucracy and some people who may have hated Bukharin. Droz appears to have been alone in his assertions, no other Bukharin sympathizer had ever said anything like that.


Except Droz didn't hate Bukharin, and plenty of Bukharin's friend said exactly that. At the trial.



No? What about all those people who survived to tell their tales of arrest and survival in the Gulag? not to mention NKVD members who defected and lived to tell their stories. When you have all these thousands of people telling of the same thing.....


It doesn't matter if everyone says something if they're just repeating hearsay and rumor. What would these people know about the innocence or guilt of the main trial defendants in the Moscow Trials anyway?



It is documented in several historical books where historians actually consulted archives in Russia, secret archives.


Name these historians. Cite their books. Give archive references.



I gave one example.....Raskolnikov.


Except your citation appears wrong and/or garbled. He makes no mention of knowing anything about the wereabouts of Pyatakov in his “Open Letter to Stalin”. Unless you're thinking of something else he may have authored, I can only assume you've misremembered your 'evidence'.



Or what about the memoirs of ex NKVD worker Alexander Orlov?


Orlov is extremely unreliable, and 50 years out of date anyway. See Getty's discussion of source material in the appendixes of his Origins.



by the way you are a Stalinist arent you.


The word “Stalinist” is just a term of abuse. It means nothing.

[careyprice31]

"
Except for now, eh? And apparently you just want this bit of evidence to go away, because it doesn't fit neatly with your idealistic picture of Bukharin."

Its an isolated statement. If it was true, why did not any of Bukharin's other many friends say anything? People who also knew him personally. Bukharin literally had about 100 friends maybe more. If he really believed in terrorism someone else would have brought it up inevidably. Just Like Plekhanov once believed in terrorism before he formed the Black Repartition side of the 1870's 'land and freedom' group. It would be hard to escape these things, especially for a famous politician/revolutionary who's every movement is scrutinized.

Stephen H. Cohen, the American historian who knew the Bukharin family personally, left out the Droz comment in his book about Bukharin. Why did he do this? Its possible that things did not make sense to him either.



"xcept Droz didn't hate Bukharin, and plenty of Bukharin's friend said exactly that. At the trial."

"I'm not doubting he did. Many people liked Bukharin.





"It doesn't matter if everyone says something if they're just repeating hearsay and rumor. What would these people know about the innocence or guilt of the main trial defendants in the Moscow Trials anyway?"

Just repeating hearsay and rumor? many of these people knew the Moscow Trial defendants personally. Again, I would just love to see you talk with a victim of the gulag, who suffered from false confession and the like. and say all of this to their face. I can just imagine the reaction.




"Name these historians. Cite their books. Give archive references."

Edvard Radzinsky, "Stalin, the Explosive new biography based on newly discovered archives from Russia's secret archives" Published 1996

Ian Grey "Stalin: Man of History" 1979

"Orlando Figes "A people's tragedy: The russian revolution 1890-1917" published 1996

Robert Service: "A History of 20th Century Russia" published 1997

I've also read works by Robert Conquest and Roy Medvedev although there is some scepticism on the part of some other historians because they both have an obvious bias.

Amy Knight, I've read works by her

Adam Ulam is anopther one I've read on

Harrison E Salisbury

George Leggett who wrote his book on the Cheka

I've read Service's book on Lenin, his large biography

I have honestly read a lot. I don't even remember most of the works I've read about Russia, they are too many. But I've read probably closer to 100 books articles, accounts, reminiscences by people who have actually lived it, and so on. Maybe I've read closer to 150 different ones.


"xcept your citation appears wrong and/or garbled. He makes no mention of knowing anything about the wereabouts of Pyatakov in his “Open Letter to Stalin”. Unless you're thinking of something else he may have authored, I can only assume you've misremembered your 'evidence'."

Obviously if he didnt write it in his letter he had it somewhere else.





"rlov is extremely unreliable, and 50 years out of date anyway. See Getty's discussion of source material in the appendixes of his Origins."

Doesnt matter if he wrote about torture 250 years ago. It still existed. The time at which he wrote it wouldnt make it any more or less true. The truth is still the truth.





"he word “Stalinist” is just a term of abuse. It means nothing."

Stalinist is abusive?

[careyprice31]

Rabble Rouser: "One thing that I still don't know is why, if the trials were staged, did international lawyers deem them fair? Did Stalin actually become personally involved in the trials? To what extent were ordinary people, not just higher officials, affected? I would appreciate it if anyone who knows more about this period in Soviet history could shed light on the true nature of the purges and trials."

Foreignrezssa bought into them because when they visted the the USSR they were only allowed to see the model of a society which "socialist realism" wanted people to think of it as moving towards socialism. If anything such as famine conflicted with that notion the foreignres who visited say the Ukraine were only permitted to see what today would be known as "Potemkin villages" (in reference to Catherine the Great's lover, Grigori Potemkin; she used to build pretend villages which she'd then let people see so they would not know how bad the situations in the country was) Its interesting to note the ones who spoke out most favorable about Stalin were in fact foreigners. Beatrice and Sydney Webb come to mind here. They denied that totalitarianism of any kind existed in the USSR and they said that is was in fact socialist.

Show trials were used as a method of "proving " that enemies were everywhere., they were also a method of giving the people scapegoats on which to direct their anger when things were going wrong in the country. Lenin did it, and so did Stalin. They wanted to distance themselves from any of it, saying it was their men who were responsible for setting this all up and not they themselves.

At the plenum of December 1936. Yezhov was allowed to accuse Bukharin directly of anti revolutionary activity. Stalin then said "lets not be too hasty we must gather more evidence first".

Ordinary people were indeed affected, how could they not be? many of them believed what their governments said about the 'vrag naroda' Others were glad that the Bolsheviks who they hated were glad they were getting what they deservedm and didnt care whether they were guilty or not.

[Intelligitimate]

Its an isolated statement. If it was true, why did not any of Bukharin's other many friends say anything? People who also knew him personally. Bukharin literally had about 100 friends maybe more. If he really believed in terrorism someone else would have brought it up inevidably. Just Like Plekhanov once believed in terrorism before he formed the Black Repartition side of the 1870's 'land and freedom' group. It would be hard to escape these things, especially for a famous politician/revolutionary who's every movement is scrutinized. How many of his 'friends' would you expect to have discussed trying to kill Stalin with? Why do you think that would be something he would just share with anyone who would listen?


And people did bring it up other than Droz, namely the people we would expect Bukharin to have talked about it with: his previous associates that were brought to the face-to-face interrogations before he was ever arrested, as many 20 in a single day, and all the people who testified against him at the trials.



Stephen H. Cohen, the American historian who knew the Bukharin family personally, left out the Droz comment in his book about Bukharin. Why did he do this? Its possible that things did not make sense to him either. Anti-communist historians are routinely dishonest. Cohen is no exception, and is, in fact, incredibly dishonest and incompetent.



Just repeating hearsay and rumor? many of these people knew the Moscow Trial defendants personally. Like who, and why would you suppose they had any special knowledge about their innocence or guilt?



Edvard Radzinsky, "Stalin, the Explosive new biography based on newly discovered archives from Russia's secret archives" Published 1996

Ian Grey "Stalin: Man of History" 1979

"Orlando Figes "A people's tragedy: The russian revolution 1890-1917" published 1996

Robert Service: "A History of 20th Century Russia" published 1997

I've also read works by Robert Conquest and Roy Medvedev although there is some scepticism on the part of some other historians because they both have an obvious bias.

Amy Knight, I've read works by her

Adam Ulam is anopther one I've read on

Harrison E Salisbury

George Leggett who wrote his book on the Cheka

I've read Service's book on Lenin, his large biography

I have honestly read a lot. I don't even remember most of the works I've read about Russia, they are too many. But I've read probably closer to 100 books articles, accounts, reminiscences by people who have actually lived it, and so on. Maybe I've read closer to 150 different ones. With the exception of Ian Grey, all of these people are extreme anti-communists, many outright liars, and mostly incompetent (Radzinsky is so stupid he supports the old "Stalin was an agent of the Okhrana" conspiracy). If this is the example of the kind of 'scholarship' you follow, you are no doubt profoundly misinformed on many topics. I would recommend you read the scholarship of the likes of Getty, Manning, Wheatecroft, Thurston, etc, basically the “Revisionist” school.


In any case, this list misses the point of my request. In asking you to “Name these historians. Cite their books. Give archive references,” I am asking you to provide documentation for your claims. It is not a request for you to tell me what books you have read, or even what scholars may happen to agree with you. It is a request for actual evidence.



Obviously if he didnt write it in his letter he had it somewhere else. Then you should be able to cite the source, because on the face of it, it looks like he had no knowledge of the sort, nor did he claim he did.



Doesnt matter if he wrote about torture 250 years ago. It still existed. The time at which he wrote it wouldnt make it any more or less true. The truth is still the truth. Orlov didn't write the truth to begin with. He wasn't in Moscow at all during the purges. He reports nothing more than self-serving gossip. There is even the idea he was never a true defector at all, because of the fact Orlov makes no mention of many things that he supposedly did in Spain (supported by the authors of Deadly Illusions, though I personally think the idea is crap). Again, read Getty's discussion of primary sources in his appendixes of Origins.



Stalinist is abusive? That's right. It's just a meaningless political swearword.

[careyprice31]

Its an isolated statement. If it was true, why did not any of Bukharin's other many friends say anything? People who also knew him personally. Bukharin literally had about 100 friends maybe more. If he really believed in terrorism someone else would have brought it up inevidably. Just Like Plekhanov once believed in terrorism before he formed the Black Repartition side of the 1870's 'land and freedom' group. It would be hard to escape these things, especially for a famous politician/revolutionary who's every movement is scrutinized.
"How many of his 'friends' would you expect to have discussed trying to kill Stalin with? Why do you think that would be something he would just share with anyone who would listen?"

He shared his thoughtas with Kamenev, didnt he, in 1928 about kamenev being correct about stalin, and he didnt even trust kamenev. Why would he only tell one of his friends.


"And people did bring it up other than Droz, namely the people we would expect Bukharin to have talked about it with: his previous associates that were brought to the face-to-face interrogations before he was ever arrested, as many 20 in a single day, and all the people who testified against him at the trials."

The people you speak of were the later Trial of the Seventeen (Jan 1937 trial) defendants who at that time they confronted Bukharin had already been arrested and were under duress. That doesnt prove anything, what you said.



Quote:
Stephen H. Cohen, the American historian who knew the Bukharin family personally, left out the Droz comment in his book about Bukharin. Why did he do this? Its possible that things did not make sense to him either.
"Anti-communist historians are routinely dishonest. Cohen is no exception, and is, in fact, incredibly dishonest and incompetent."

Really. Prove they lie about Stalin. Prove he with his doctorate of history and all of his years of education and research and him being a professor, that all he does is tell lies.

Quote:
Just repeating hearsay and rumor? many of these people knew the Moscow Trial defendants personally.
"Like who, and why would you suppose they had any special knowledge about their innocence or guilt?"

Anna Larina, Karl Radek's wife Rosa, Eugenia Ginzburg didnt but she could testify from her own experience that confessions were a fabrication




Quote:
Edvard Radzinsky, "Stalin, the Explosive new biography based on newly discovered archives from Russia's secret archives" Published 1996

Ian Grey "Stalin: Man of History" 1979

"Orlando Figes "A people's tragedy: The russian revolution 1890-1917" published 1996

Robert Service: "A History of 20th Century Russia" published 1997

I've also read works by Robert Conquest and Roy Medvedev although there is some scepticism on the part of some other historians because they both have an obvious bias.

Amy Knight, I've read works by her

Adam Ulam is anopther one I've read on

Harrison E Salisbury

George Leggett who wrote his book on the Cheka

I've read Service's book on Lenin, his large biography

I have honestly read a lot. I don't even remember most of the works I've read about Russia, they are too many. But I've read probably closer to 100 books articles, accounts, reminiscences by people who have actually lived it, and so on. Maybe I've read closer to 150 different ones.
"With the exception of Ian Grey, all of these people are extreme anti-communists, many outright liars, and mostly incompetent (Radzinsky is so stupid he supports the old "Stalin was an agent of the Okhrana" conspiracy). If this is the example of the kind of 'scholarship' you follow, you are no doubt profoundly misinformed on many topics. I would recommend you read the scholarship of the likes of Getty, Manning, Wheatecroft, Thurston, etc, basically the “Revisionist” school."

anti-communist doesnt equal liar. You dont mean anti- communist. You mean anti Stalin and Stalin was not a communist, for example under him the state merely grew all the stronger and did not wither away. Thats one example. Again prove these people lie.




"In any case, this list misses the point of my request. In asking you to “Name these historians. Cite their books. Give archive references,” I am asking you to provide documentation for your claims. It is not a request for you to tell me what books you have read, or even what scholars may happen to agree with you. It is a request for actual evidence."

You mean like footnote it, exactly where I got my knowldge, like an essay?



Quote:
Obviously if he didnt write it in his letter he had it somewhere else.
"Then you should be able to cite the source, because on the face of it, it looks like he had no knowledge of the sort, nor did he claim he did."

I cant remember. How the heck am I supposed to remember where I got my knowldge of Russia in 15 years, from the time I was a teenager, reading 150 things and seeing who knows how many Russia documentaries. I didnt bother to collect all the sources I have ever looked at, all the documentaries I have seen, especially to cite them all to some Stalinist who doesnt even believe what is right in front of his/her face. I only know I read it somewhere. The evidence is all there if you would look for it.

Spartan is right. Its like trying to give evidence to a holocaust denier. They wont believe nor listen to you no matter what you say or give them. I'm wasting my time with you.



Quote:
Doesnt matter if he wrote about torture 250 years ago. It still existed. The time at which he wrote it wouldnt make it any more or less true. The truth is still the truth.
"Orlov didn't write the truth to begin with. He wasn't in Moscow at all during the purges. He reports nothing more than self-serving gossip. There is even the idea he was never a true defector at all, because of the fact Orlov makes no mention of many things that he supposedly did in Spain (supported by the authors of Deadly Illusions, though I personally think the idea is crap). Again, read Getty's discussion of primary sources in his appendixes of Origins."

wtf? he wasnt in Moscow, that means he lied? what have being in or outside of moscow have to do with anything. He worked for the NKVD. He would have known if they used torture or not to force a confession. You brought up some irrelevant point.



Quote:
Stalinist is abusive?
"That's right. It's just a meaningless political swearword."

I dont mind. You people are scary individuals, you believe and support everything that Stalin did. You must be his left leg or something. I'd hate you see you lot over here in Canada. I'd be the first one you would throw into a Gulag then say I deserved what I got.

and yes if I sound rather irked its because I am. Most people get irked with Stalinists.

[careyprice31]

Also, I noticed yesterday that it didnt take you long to reply to what I wrote, you replied almost immediately as opposed to me who took part of a night, which was hours, and some hours the next morning researching on Droz before replying. It didnt take you long to reply and call every historian I named who wrote anything about the Stalin era as a liar.

[S R]

Then you have the problem of Trotsky, Zinoviev and their followers being purged and the purges in Leningrad after WWII were highly secretive. Looking at the facts Stalin purged everyone that wasn't a loyal yes man.

In 1936-39, what was the issue with Trotsky, Zinoviev and such - in essence, what was the role they played in consolidating socialism and the political power of the proletariat? Stalin and the CPSU(B) reported on what was taking place, internationally and internally, as a matter of social responsibility to the Soviet working class and people. In that sense, Stalin and the Soviet Leadership did not rise above the dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR, but defended and held affirm that the Soviet working class dictated the course of their destiny. The Soviet leadership had the responsibility of defending the sovereignty of the working class and people and history shows they did just that. It was the bourgeoisie ruling classes that made a ruckus, without so much as investigation, over the matter in order to dupe the working class and people into relying on their lies rather than think for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

The situation was that anti-Soviet terrorists were organizing against the sovereignty of the working class and people and Trotsky and Zinoviev and others that were purged and tried were found responsible for organizing these actions. Crimes were commited against the Soviet working class and people. These crimes were brought out in the Trials as well as who organized them and assisted the reactionaries.

[Psy]

In 1936-39, what was the issue with Trotsky, Zinoviev and such - in essence, what was the role they played in consolidating socialism and the political power of the proletariat? Stalin and the CPSU(B) reported on what was taking place, internationally and internally, as a matter of social responsibility to the Soviet working class and people. In that sense, Stalin and the Soviet Leadership did not rise above the dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR, but defended and held affirm that the Soviet working class dictated the course of their destiny. The Soviet leadership had the responsibility of defending the sovereignty of the working class and people and history shows they did just that. It was the bourgeoisie ruling classes that made a ruckus, without so much as investigation, over the matter in order to dupe the working class and people into relying on their lies rather than think for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

The situation was that anti-Soviet terrorists were organizing against the sovereignty of the working class and people and Trotsky and Zinoviev and others that were purged and tried were found responsible for organizing these actions. Crimes were commited against the Soviet working class and people. These crimes were brought out in the Trials as well as who organized them and assisted the reactionaries.
But who has more credibility Stalin or Trotsky?

We know Stalin re-written history, doctoring photos, made historical people disappear and fabricated documents to alter history of the revolution to his liking. Stalin still had the incorrect stages theory when Lenin came back from exile in 1917, Stalin was still thinking in terms of supporting the progressive bourgeoisie so they could carry out their historic role and Lenin had to force Stalin (and those like him) to correct their thinking. It is incorrect that Lenin though the theory of permanent revolution was wrong as Lenin came to a similar conclusions, and though Trotsky and Lenin did differ in some areas Lenin never thought of purging him (or his kind) as Lenin had some respect for Trotsky as it was Trotsky that was the most vocally defending Lenin in 1917 when Lenin was being called a German agent by people in the party.

Then there is the question why Stalin was purging exiles in Turkey and why did they off Trotsky when he fled to Mexico to get away from Stalin's goons? Turkey and Mexico were not part of the USSR. The only logical reason was that these people being alive meant Stalin couldn't completely re-write history.

The fact Stalin was re-writing history is also anti-Marxist. Neo-Cons believe in re-writting history (look at Leo Stauss theory of noble lies and deadly truths) while Marx never said we have to lie to the proletariat, truth is radical, it is the capitalists that have to spin the truth not Marxist. Thus since Stalin spun the truth it must mean Stalin was a anti-Marxist.

[S R]

But who has more credibility Stalin or Trotsky?

It is not who has more credibility, but what exactly establishes credibility of both these individuals. Objectively, it can be seen that Trotsky was not credible in the eyes of the Soviet working class and people. If he was credible, he would have been able to openly declare his politics and agenda to the working class and people - but rather instead, he hid his agenda from the working class and people.


It is incorrect that Lenin though the theory of permanent revolution was wrong as Lenin came to a similar conclusions, and though Trotsky and Lenin did differ in some areas Lenin never thought of purging him (or his kind) as Lenin had some respect for Trotsky as it was Trotsky that was the most vocally defending Lenin in 1917 when Lenin was being called a German agent by people in the party.

Could you please cite where Lenin came to the same conclusion as Trotsky on the Theory of Permanent Revolution? Secondly, the time period in which Lenin lived was quite different than the time period in which Stalin guided the USSR in the mid-1935s and the actions of Trotsky and others were beginning to surface.

Also, could please provide some resources on Turkey and Mexican communists being purged by Stalin?

[S R]

Here is a reference for those investigating the Trials and why they happened. You might have to bookfinder.com it or see if the library carries this. In any way you may be able to find it, this report is indispensable for those investigating into the issue:


Published by the

People's Commisariat of Justice of the USSR

Report of Court proceedings in The Case of the Anti-Soviet "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" - Verbatim Report

Heard before the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR, Moscow - March 2-13, 1938

[Psy]

It is not who has more credibility, but what exactly establishes credibility of both these individuals. Objectively, it can be seen that Trotsky was not credible in the eyes of the Soviet working class and people. If he was credible, he would have been able to openly declare his politics and agenda to the working class and people - but rather instead, he hid his agenda from the working class and people.

Why are we relying on the ignorant masses to decide who was more credible? The average Russian at the time had no understanding that there was divides in the party let alone could provide a educated option.



Could you please cite where Lenin came to the same conclusion as Trotsky on the Theory of Permanent Revolution? Secondly, the time period in which Lenin lived was quite different than the time period in which Stalin guided the USSR in the mid-1935s and the actions of Trotsky and others were beginning to surface.

First lets look at the theory of permanent revolution vs the theory of stages. At first like mainstream Marxism at the time Lenin believed in the stages theory, first you build capitalism then you build socialism. This was first countered not by Trotsky but by Rosa Luxembourg (but she didn't give it a fancy name so we go by Trotskies terms of "permanent revolution"), Rosa Luxembourg (later Trotsky) theory there was no progressive bourgeoisie since as soon as capitalism got in trouble the same "progressive bourgeoisie" becomes reactionary. When the so called socialists backed World War one, Lenin saw he was wrong about the stages theory, when he came back to Russia in 1917 instead of supporting the provisional government (that Stalin supported as at the time Stalin still believed in the stages theory) Lenin declared that the only reason the bourgeoisie came to power in Russia was the ignorance of the Russian proletriat and it was the duty of the Bolshivks not to help build a progressive bourgeoisie state so sometime in the future they could start talking about socialism but they needed to educate the masses to take the reins of power. Guess what, what Lenin did during the October revolution was the idea of permanent revolution, espcially since after that Lenin looked to Europe to spread the revolution.

As for it being a different time, it doesn't matter since Stalin was adopting a different policy then Lenin how are we suppose to know Stalin was right and Trotsky was wrong? Stalin didn't let questions of policy get debated even though the idea of Democratic Centralism is not that everyone follows the great leader but once policy is decided on it is expected people to carry it out.



Also, could please provide some resources on Turkey and Mexican communists being purged by Stalin?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5682182894483738693&q=trotsky&total=635&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[Intelligitimate]

He shared his thoughtas with Kamenev, didnt he, in 1928 about kamenev being correct about stalin, and he didnt even trust kamenev. Why would he only tell one of his friends. He did tell more than one of his friends, according to all his former associates that confronted him before the trial, and the defendants testified to it during the trial. Your question is nonsense; you’re asking why we don’t have anything from people Bukharin didn't try to involve in his conspiracy.

And your example is nonsense anyway, because Kamenev confessed to contact with the Rightists, which again implicates Bukharin’s involvement in the Rightist conspiracy.


"In 1932," he says, "I personally conducted negotiations with the so-called 'Leftist' group of Lominadre and Shatsky. In this group I found enemies of the Party leadership quite prepared to resort to the most determined measures of struggle against it. At the same time, I myself and Zinoviev maintained constant contact with the former 'Workers' Opposition' group of shlyapnikov and Medvedyev. In 1932, 1933 and 1934 I personally maintained relations with Tomsky and Bukharin and sounded their political sentiments. They sympathized with us. When I asked Tomsky about Rykov's frame of mind, he replied: 'Rykov thinks the same as I do.' In reply to my qestion as to what Bukharin thought, he said: 'Bukharin thinks the same as I do, but is pursuing somewhat different tactics: he does not agree with the line of the Party, but is pursuing tactics of persistently enrooting himself in the Party and winning the personal confidence of leadership.'”


The people you speak of were the later Trial of the Seventeen (Jan 1937 trial) defendants who at that time they confronted Bukharin had already been arrested and were under duress. That doesnt prove anything, what you said. Prove they were under duress. You can’t, as there isn’t the slightest shred of evidence they were. It is just assumed as an axiom.


Really. Prove they lie about Stalin. Prove he with his doctorate of history and all of his years of education and research and him being a professor, that all he does is tell lies. I have an extremely long document in my possession dealing directly with Cohen, but I’m really not at liberty to distribute it, and I doubt you’d read it anyway.


Anna Larina, Karl Radek's wife Rosa, Eugenia Ginzburg None of these people have any special knowledge about the guilt of innocence of the defendants of the Moscow Trials.


anti-communist doesnt equal liar. You dont mean anti- communist. You mean anti Stalin and Stalin was not a communist, for example under him the state merely grew all the stronger and did not wither away. Thats one example. Again prove these people lie. Indeed, anti-communist and anti-Stalin doesn’t equal liar. Ian Grey and all the people I mentioned are anti-communist and anti-Stalin, but they’re not dishonest historians. The people you mentioned are, but that doesn’t really matter. Even incompetent liars can sometimes produce useful stuff. The point is you need to provide evidence. A list of names is evidence of jack shit. I wouldn't give a shit even if the people I mentioned say something if they can’t provide evidence for what they claim.


You mean like footnote it, exactly where I got my knowldge, like an essay? Even beyond that, to the actual primary sources whoever wrote the essay is using. You often can’t depend on anti-communist historians to even accurately summarize the contents of their sources, or analyze them in a competent fashion.

But in the case of primary sources regarding the innocence of the defendants of the Moscow Trials, you can’t provide any of this. This is because actual evidence doesn’t exist to prove their innocence. It is literally an axiom of the totalitarian paradigm. If there was any proof of the innocence of the accused, it would be presented for all to see. There isn’t any. We’re just supposed to substitute anti-communist fantasy for reality.


I cant remember. How the heck am I supposed to remember where I got my knowldge of Russia in 15 years, from the time I was a teenager, reading 150 things and seeing who knows how many Russia documentaries. I didnt bother to collect all the sources I have ever looked at, all the documentaries I have seen, especially to cite them all to some Stalinist who doesnt even believe what is right in front of his/her face. I only know I read it somewhere. The evidence is all there if you would look for it. In other words, you make claims you can’t substantiate, and are indignant when someone calls you on it. The fact of the matter is the only thing Raskolnikov ever wrote that anyone bothers to read is his famous “Open Letter to Stalin” and it makes no mention of anything like what you claim it does. Like your other examples, you just list people who didn’t believe the confessions, and think this counts as some sort of evidence. It is clear from the Raskolnikov’s “Open Letter” that he didn’t believe Pyatakov meet Trotsky, and this is why you bothered mentioning it in the first place. What is immediately clear however, is that Raskolnikov doesn’t say anything about having any special knowledge regarding this matter, which is what you claimed was the case. What I originally said about your misremembering your ‘evidence’ is probably false though: it seems you have no idea what evidence even is.


Spartan is right. Its like trying to give evidence to a holocaust denier. They wont believe nor listen to you no matter what you say or give them. I'm wasting my time with you. A list of people who believe X is not evidence of X. Millions of educated people believe in God. That doesn’t make God real. Now those same X people could give reasons and/or evidence for X, which may or may not be convincing. You haven’t provided anything like.


wtf? he wasnt in Moscow, that means he lied? I never said that. What I said was he “reports nothing more than self-serving gossip,” meaning he provides no direct knowledge of anything. But yes, he is also a liar, though not for that reason.


what have being in or outside of moscow have to do with anything. He worked for the NKVD. He would have known if they used torture or not to force a confession. You brought up some irrelevant point. Again, it shows he has no direct knowledge on the topic. He is not reporting things he knows to be true, but rumors. That is the extent of the evidence Orlov provides on this topic.


I dont mind. You people are scary individuals, you believe and support everything that Stalin did. This is your imagination, as I’ve never stated or implied any such nonsense.

[careyprice31]

"It is not who has more credibility, but what exactly establishes credibility of both these individuals. Objectively, it can be seen that Trotsky was not credible in the eyes of the Soviet working class and people. If he was credible, he would have been able to openly declare his politics and agenda to the working class and people - but rather instead, he hid his agenda from the working class and people. "

That is a lie! Trot didnt hide who he was from his fellow people. Thats why they disliked him so much. He was arrogant and had a militaristic authoritarian type of personality. That scared people like Kamenev, Bukharin, Zinoviev, and others. They didnt like his personality and was a big factor why they chose to side with stalin over him.

It was Stalin who hid his real own self from the Party and why Lenin promoted him to such high positions. They thought of him as this quiet meek little Georgian fellow who seemed Harmless. Thats why they underestimated him. And compared to them Stalin had less education, came from peasant origins, and only spoke Russian and Georgian while the others spoke Russian and German and English and French......I heard Trot speak in a documentary I watched. He spoke English extremely well. This all helped to show why they chose Stalin over him because stalin seemed harmless compared to the energetic animated Trot.

Also, it is a fact that Trot spoke with an animation, with lots of character and personality. Stalin had a low speaking voice more monotone than anything (and get tapes of the two of them speaking and you'll know what I'm talking about). It all helped to foster the notion that Trot was more dangerous than Stalin.

Intelligitimate I'm wasting my time when I write to you. You expect me to be able to get the actual primary documents from the actual archives and show them to you? wtf, Im a student at university, and Im poor as dirt, and I just cant fly to Russia and pick them up. Your statements are totally insane ! but I gave u the names of people who could and did do the actual research.

Annd then when I told you I cant do it, you dismiss me and said I never proved jack shit. I've had it. Just had it, with you. I've had enough.

Seriously, when you write like this, you're acting like an idiot.

[Psy]

That is a lie! Trot didnt hide who he was from his fellow people. Thats why they disliked him so much. He was arrogant and had a militaristic authoritarian type of personality. That scared people like Kamenev, Bukharin, Zinoviev, and others. They didnt like his personality and was a big factor why they chose to side with stalin over him.

Good point, but it is true Trotsky didn't address the masses on the split till it was too late to get the masses up to speed. As for arrogant and having authoritarian type of personality, bit harsh, he was the founder of the Red Army and played a key role in turning the civil-war around.



It was Stalin who hid his real own self from the Party and why Lenin promoted him to such high positions. They thought of him as this quiet meek little Georgian fellow who seemed Harmless. Thats why they underestimated him. And compared to them Stalin had less education, came from peasant origins, and only spoke Russian and Georgian while the others spoke Russian and German and English and French......I heard Trot speak in a documentary I watched. He spoke English extremely well. This all helped to show why they chose Stalin over him because stalin seemed harmless compared to the energetic animated Trot.

Also, it is a fact that Trot spoke with an animation, with lots of character and personality. Stalin had a low speaking voice more monotone than anything (and get tapes of the two of them speaking and you'll know what I'm talking about). It all helped to foster the notion that Trot was more dangerous than Stalin.
Lets not forget Trotsky wrote far more then Stalin. As for the notation that Trotsky was more dangerous while probably true this image existed, Trotsky hated the bureaucracy and the bureaucracy knew it. Trotsky played with the idea that that militarizing trade unions (using a highely disciplined trade unions taking over the role of the bureaucracy) might be better then the bureaucracy.

[Intelligitimate]

Intelligitimate I'm wasting my time when I write to you. You expect me to be able to get the actual primary documents from the actual archives and show them to you? wtf, Im a student at university, and Im poor as dirt, and I just cant fly to Russia and pick them up. Your statements are totally insane ! but I gave u the names of people who could and did do the actual research.

I don’t expect you to produce archival documents. I mean, even if I did, it isn’t such a monumental task as you’re trying to convey it is. There are plenty of books that produce translations of archival documents. For instance, Getty’s The Road to Terror. And as a university student, you should have access to a database that contains the entire book, even in a searchable format. I have produced such documents on this forum, and so have other opponents of my views. It is not something impossible to do.

What you did was basically name-dropping bullcrap. If you were serious, you would go back to your secondary sources and find where they talk about it, summarize or even type up the relevant passage, and cite it. Even better, you could then cite the primary sources your secondary source is using, if any. For many of the authors you name, I have their books, and I can check for myself. Then we could discuss actual evidence.

But you don’t do this. What you do is argue from authority. Not only do you argue from authority, but really awful authorities at that. I have every right to point out your authorities are mostly incompetent liars. Proving they are, which you asked me to do, is beside the point, because even incompetent liars can sometimes say true things. I’m not going accept your lame argument from incompetent, lying ‘authorities’. We can still, however, discuss the evidence and analysis they give for anything they claim, independent of whether or not they are incompetent and/or dishonest.


Annd then when I told you I cant do it, you dismiss me and said I never proved jack shit. I've had it. Just had it, with you. I've had enough.

You didn’t prove anything. You made a list of books you’ve allegedly read. This means nothing. And from someone allegedly so interested in Russian history, you should be more than eager to actually go beyond talking about secondary sources, and be able to actually analyze and debate the relevant primary material yourself. That you don't want to do this shows you're probably not as familiar with field as you portray yourself.

[careyprice31]

Good point, but it is true Trotsky didn't address the masses on the split till it was too late to get the masses up to speed. As for arrogant and having authoritarian type of personality, bit harsh, he was the founder of the Red Army and played a key role in turning the civil-war around.


Lets not forget Trotsky wrote far more then Stalin. As for the notation that Trotsky was more dangerous while probably true this image existed, Trotsky hated the bureaucracy and the bureaucracy knew it. Trotsky played with the idea that that militarizing trade unions (using a highely disciplined trade unions taking over the role of the bureaucracy) might be better then the bureaucracy.

I know he was founder of the red army and the reds wouldnt have won without him. But its true alo that military people are a bit authoritarian in character and like discipline. There has to be discipline in a army.

Maybe he wasnt as authoritarian as his character seemed to be though.

btw illigitimate or whever your forum name is, dwelling on you just drives me nuts. Most of the primary actual documents historians rely on when they write their books are in Russia. How am I supposed to get them (and practically fly to where u live and literally shove them in your face because thats what it would take for you to see 'evidence' that you are wrong) when im a poor uni student, dont have student loans to go anywwhere and the documents are in fuckin russia? and some in fuckin USA because George F. Kennan attended some of the Moscow Trials?

Is it possible to make less sense than what you are making now? I have seen many people write as though they were thicker than two planks, but you, sir, really take the cake.

We have archives in our university, we dont have anything like what you describe. Our archives are canadian and Newfoundland history.

I could try what you said but just from talking to you it isnt worth it. Its not.

I named historians who have done the research. You can look it up.

I had a friend who denied everything once just like you and liked stalin. Until he heard about what happened to Tukhachevsky who he likes. (but i suppose you'll deny that as well that things were forged by nazis in his case and you would also say that hes an enemy of the people as well.)

No man. It just isnt worth it. I hate stalinists too much and you cant prove anything to them.

Its also impossible for me to get every bit of info I retained from my study of the ussr since i was 14. I just dont remember. i learned stuff from when i was 14 that you dont agree with, about the purges and the moscow trials, am I supposed to be able to spout that up where I learned it in my grade 9 class and I dont even remember what book it was from it was too long ago??

Its just being as thick as two planks to post like that. Jeez. Its really is.

[Intelligitimate]

btw illigitimate or whever your forum name is, dwelling on you just drives me nuts. Most of the primary actual documents historians rely on when they write their books are in Russia.

For many of the books you mentioned, this simply isn't even true. Most of Conquest's sources, for instance, is memoir material that has been translated into English. Most of Ian Grey's sources are also not beyond the ability of someone to confirm. And, for more recent literature, they often produce the documents they are commenting on, or quote large sections of it.


How am I supposed to get them (and practically fly to where u live and literally shove them in your face because thats what it would take for you to see 'evidence' that you are wrong) when im a poor uni student, dont have student loans to go anywwhere and the documents are in fuckin russia? and some in fuckin USA because George F. Kennan attended some of the Moscow Trials?Again, as already explained (apparently you didn't read it, so I'll just copy and paste my response):


I don’t expect you to produce archival documents. I mean, even if I did, it isn’t such a monumental task as you’re trying to convey it is. There are plenty of books that produce translations of archival documents. For instance, Getty’s The Road to Terror. And as a university student, you should have access to a database that contains the entire book, even in a searchable format. I have produced such documents on this forum, and so have other opponents of my views. It is not something impossible to do. . . If you were serious, you would go back to your secondary sources and find where they talk about it, summarize or even type up the relevant passage, and cite it. Even better, you could then cite the primary sources your secondary source is using, if any. For many of the authors you name, I have their books, and I can check for myself. Then we could discuss actual evidence.


Is it possible to make less sense than what you are making now? I have seen many people write as though they were thicker than two planks, but you, sir, really take the cake. What you are doing is throwing a temper-tantrum because you realize you can’t actually backup anything you claim.

[Intelligitimate]

I had a friend who denied everything once just like you and liked stalin. Until he heard about what happened to Tukhachevsky who he likes. (but i suppose you'll deny that as well that things were forged by nazis in his case and you would also say that hes an enemy of the people as well.)I think he was also guilty, and that the circumstantial evidence against him is convincing and only supports his confession and the confessions of those that implicated him. Here is a paper that mentions a lot of it:

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/English/furr/tukh.html

[careyprice31]

For many of the books you mentioned, this simply isn't even true. Most of Conquest's sources, for instance, is memoir material that has been translated into English. Most of Ian Grey's sources are also not beyond the ability of someone to confirm. And, for more recent literature, they often produce the documents they are commenting on, or quote large sections of it.

Again, as already explained (apparently didn't read it, so I'll just copy and paste my response):



What you are doing is throwing a temper-tantrum because you realize you can’t actually backup anything you claim.

I know Ian Grey does this and so do other historians. But is it really worth it for me to go look for these (such as Svetlana Alliluyeva's book which Grey quotes from so often in his stalin book) and other history sources and put them here? You havent given me any indication you would believe me even if I did that. If that is the case all of my time is wasted on this when I can be working towards my convocation in October of this year. Plus, its just an internet forum. I really seriously do not need to do this.
Also, Alliluyeva said in he book that "in the cellars of the nkvd, XY and Z could be made to testify and confess to anything. That was the domain of Yezhov and Beria whom nature had endowed with a special nature for that kind of thing." Would you believe the work of Stalin's daughter? she even said that confessions were forced.

btw that is a direct quote from her book Twenty Letters to a Friend, which I own and which Grey used as a source for his stalin book which I also own. I went some of the way for you.

And I knew you would believe in Tukhachevsky's guilt.

[Intelligitimate]

I know Ian Grey does this and so do other historians. But is it really worth it for me to go look for these (such as Svetlana Alliluyeva's book which Grey quotes from so often in his stalin book) and other history sources and put them here?

If you want to be taken seriously, you would.


You havent given me any indication you would believe me even if I did that. If that is the case all of my time is wasted on this when I can be working towards my convocation in October of this year. Plus, its just an internet forum. I really seriously do not need to do this.It doesn't matter whether or not I would believe you. Your evidence would be convincing to someone if it was any good. As of now you have nothing. And if you don't care about some argument on a message board, then that's fine. Just don't pretend like you've presented any sort of evidence for your claims.


Also, Alliluyeva said in he book that "in the cellars of the nkvd, XY and Z could be made to testify and confess to anything. That was the domain of Yezhov and Beria whom nature had endowed with a special nature for that kind of thing." Would you believe the work of Stalin's daughter? she even said that confessions were forced.Why would she have any special knowledge about the NKVD? You seem to have a fundamentally wrong understanding of what counts as evidence. Svetlana saying something about her personal knowledge is one thing, her making statements about things we couldn't possibly expect her to have direct knowledge of is quite another. Her Twenty Letters to a Friend and her Only One Year are remarkably different documents, the latter reflecting the more anti-Stalin attitude she acquired from her new Western friends.

[Psy]

I know he was founder of the red army and the reds wouldnt have won without him. But its true alo that military people are a bit authoritarian in character and like discipline. There has to be discipline in a army.

Maybe he wasnt as authoritarian as his character seemed to be though.

Yes military officers (that Trotsky was) like discipline and order but that doesn't really mean they are highly authoritarian. For example Chavez is also a military officer and while simply a reformist Chavez is not a dictatorial tyrant. Yet Trotsky did hate the growing bureaucracy not getting things done, seeing the bureaucracy as undisciplined Trotsky probably would have cracked down on on the bureaucracy (giving the bureaucracy a good reason to not trust Trotsky), yet here was see Trotsky's theoretical solution was not purging bureaucrats but the idea of disciplined trade unions taking over the functions of the bureaucrats.

[careyprice31]

If you want to be taken seriously, you would.

It doesn't matter whether or not I would believe you. Your evidence would be convincing to someone if it was any good. As of now you have nothing. And if you don't care about some argument on a message board, then that's fine. Just don't pretend like you've presented any sort of evidence for your claims.

Why would she have any special knowledge about the NKVD? You seem to have a fundamentally wrong understanding of what counts as evidence. Svetlana saying something about her personal knowledge is one thing, her making statements about things we couldn't possibly expect her to have direct knowledge of is quite another. Her Twenty Letters to a Friend and her Only One Year are remarkably different documents, the latter reflecting the more anti-Stalin attitude she acquired from her new Western friends.

My evidence appears to be all right except to you. I don't hear anybody else here complaining that I suck or that my 'evidence' sucks.

[S R]

Why are we relying on the ignorant masses to decide who was more credible? The average Russian at the time had no understanding that there was divides in the party let alone could provide a educated option.

One has no conception nor appreciation for what the working classes has created nor built since the Great October Socialist Revolution and the formation of the USSR, in terms of leading it and being the decisive factor, such as the arrangement of how Soviet society was going to be organized and the collective decisions which had to be made and were carried out, on the basis of democratic centralism. In this case, Soviet jurisprudence.

Ignorant masses are not capable of leading the revolution, but an organized conscious working class and people, in a word an organized force, must lead the socialist proletarian revolution. This decisive factor became crucial in smashing the Whites, the wreckers in the service of foreign intervention, the "rights" and "lefts" tendencies, and of course in leading the fight against nazism and fascism. The saying that the working class must lead and the Party makes them conscious is true in the case of the Soviet Union under the guidance of Lenin and Stalin, just as it is true today.

Anti-communists try to spin this around by saying that the Party must lead and the working class must follow and remain unreliable and have no role in the course of their affairs. Revisionists, also anti-communists, take this further by saying the working class is an unreliable force in the construction of socialism and communism, therefore the Party must lead and construct socialism and communism for the working class. Pish posh. That is anti-Marxist-Leninist.


First lets look at the theory of permanent revolution vs the theory of stages. At first like mainstream Marxism at the time Lenin believed in the stages theory, first you build capitalism then you build socialism. This was first countered not by Trotsky but by Rosa Luxembourg (but she didn't give it a fancy name so we go by Trotskies terms of "permanent revolution"), Rosa Luxembourg (later Trotsky) theory there was no progressive bourgeoisie since as soon as capitalism got in trouble the same "progressive bourgeoisie" becomes reactionary. When the so called socialists backed World War one, Lenin saw he was wrong about the stages theory, when he came back to Russia in 1917 instead of supporting the provisional government (that Stalin supported as at the time Stalin still believed in the stages theory) Lenin declared that the only reason the bourgeoisie came to power in Russia was the ignorance of the Russian proletriat and it was the duty of the Bolshivks not to help build a progressive bourgeoisie state so sometime in the future they could start talking about socialism but they needed to educate the masses to take the reins of power. Guess what, what Lenin did during the October revolution was the idea of permanent revolution, espcially since after that Lenin looked to Europe to spread the revolution.

I would like to investigate your claims, such as one's claim that Lenin was wrong on the issue of how you are presenting it, the theory of Permanent Revolution vs the theory of stages. Yet one has not provided much on that question in terms of references. If you want me to be convinced of your argument, please provide at least a citation or two of the sources you are relying on, as a matter of looking into it together. In essence my question is, what exactly and what sources are you relying on for your view and for your argument? You mention Lenin and you mention Rosa Luxembourg, but where in their writings can I find what it is you are referring to? I would like to read it myself and draw my own conclusions.

Based on what I've read above, it seems as if one is confounding theory with that of tactics, as if it this was the contradiction. The main contradiction of the period in terms of theory was between the theory of Permanent Revolution which Trotsky advocated and the Theory of Socialism in One Country in which Lenin and Stalin defended. (please research On the Opposition and Foundations of Leninism, JVS)


As for it being a different time, it doesn't matter since Stalin was adopting a different policy then Lenin how are we suppose to know Stalin was right and Trotsky was wrong? Stalin didn't let questions of policy get debated even though the idea of Democratic Centralism is not that everyone follows the great leader but once policy is decided on it is expected people to carry it out.

In all of Stalin's writings, never once did he ask the working classes to follow him. In fact all of the decisions and resolutions that Stalin re-iterated was a reflection of the collective and of upholding democratic centralism.

Yes, as the period of Stalin was different than the period in which Lenin led the party. It doesn't mean policy is static. In a war in which the the division of classes were fighting out who was to lead and decide the future, applying a tactic for all the battles being waged would spell defeat for that class. That is to say policy isn't static and because changes in the development of various forces, productive, military, etc, and the dangers capitalism and fascism was posing, different tactics had to be used in order for the Soviet working class to survive and to stand on their feet. So tactics of waging the class struggle is absolutely necessary, especially in responding to the conditions that was taking place at that time.

Ill bookmark the google video on Leon Trotsky, as I dont have an hour to watch it right now. What other sources do you have regarding Stalin "purging" outside the USSR?

[Psy]

One has no conception nor appreciation for what the working classes has created nor built since the Great October Socialist Revolution and the formation of the USSR, in terms of leading it and being the decisive factor, such as the arrangement of how Soviet society was going to be organized and the collective decisions which had to be made and were carried out, on the basis of democratic centralism. In this case, Soviet jurisprudence.

Ignorant masses are not capable of leading the revolution, but an organized conscious working class and people, in a word an organized force, must lead the socialist proletarian revolution. This decisive factor became crucial in smashing the Whites, the wreckers in the service of foreign intervention, the "rights" and "lefts" tendencies, and of course in leading the fight against nazism and fascism. The saying that the working class must lead and the Party makes them conscious is true in the case of the Soviet Union under the guidance of Lenin and Stalin, just as it is true today.

Anti-communists try to spin this around by saying that the Party must lead and the working class must follow and remain unreliable and have no role in the course of their affairs. Revisionists, also anti-communists, take this further by saying the working class is an unreliable force in the construction of socialism and communism, therefore the Party must lead and construct socialism and communism for the working class. Pish posh. That is anti-Marxist-Leninist.

I never stated the masses were too ignorant to lead, I simply point out that masses of Russian were totally ignorant of what was going on in the party at the time. My question was why does the lack of the Russian stand with Trotsky proof of Stalin's creditability? Trotsky didn't even engage the masses on the issue till Stalin already was crushing decent. Also the party doesn't make them conscious, the party educates them so they can conscious. Lets remeber it was Trotsky that one saying the masses were not playing an active enough role.


I would like to investigate your claims, such as one's claim that Lenin was wrong on the issue of how you are presenting it, the theory of Permanent Revolution vs the theory of stages. Yet one has not provided much on that question in terms of references. If you want me to be convinced of your argument, please provide at least a citation or two of the sources you are relying on, as a matter of looking into it together. In essence my question is, what exactly and what sources are you relying on for your view and for your argument? You mention Lenin and you mention Rosa Luxembourg, but where in their writings can I find what it is you are referring to? I would like to read it myself and draw my own conclusions.

Based on what I've read above, it seems as if one is confounding theory with that of tactics, as if it this was the contradiction. The main contradiction of the period in terms of theory was between the theory of Permanent Revolution which Trotsky advocated and the Theory of Socialism in One Country in which Lenin and Stalin defended. (please research On the Opposition and Foundations of Leninism, JVS)

Theory of Socialism in One Country didn't exist at that time you idiot!!!!! Learn the time-line. It was developed in 1925, Lenin died in 1924 how the hell could Lenin believe in a theory that was developed after he was dead?

At that time, it was not Permanent Revolution vs Theory of Socialism in One Country. It was the question of stages that dominated the debates in the party when Lenin was alive.



In all of Stalin's writings, never once did he ask the working classes to follow him. In fact all of the decisions and resolutions that Stalin re-iterated was a reflection of the collective and of upholding democratic centralism.

You are proud that Stalin didn't ask the working class to follow him? Democratic centralism didn't mean you ignore workers.



Yes, as the period of Stalin was different than the period in which Lenin led the party. It doesn't mean policy is static. In a war in which the the division of classes were fighting out who was to lead and decide the future, applying a tactic for all the battles being waged would spell defeat for that class. That is to say policy isn't static and because changes in the development of various forces, productive, military, etc, and the dangers capitalism and fascism was posing, different tactics had to be used in order for the Soviet working class to survive and to stand on their feet. So tactics of waging the class struggle is absolutely necessary, especially in responding to the conditions that was taking place at that time.

And why are we to assume Stalin had the correct policies?



Ill bookmark the google video on Leon Trotsky, as I dont have an hour to watch it right now. What other sources do you have regarding Stalin "purging" outside the USSR?


If you watched the video you'll see the Stalin's spies confessed to trying to kill Trotsky in Turkey.

[S R]

That is a lie! Trot didnt hide who he was from his fellow people. Thats why they disliked him so much. He was arrogant and had a militaristic authoritarian type of personality. That scared people like Kamenev, Bukharin, Zinoviev, and others. They didnt like his personality and was a big factor why they chose to side with stalin over him.

It was Stalin who hid his real own self from the Party and why Lenin promoted him to such high positions. They thought of him as this quiet meek little Georgian fellow who seemed Harmless. Thats why they underestimated him. And compared to them Stalin had less education, came from peasant origins, and only spoke Russian and Georgian while the others spoke Russian and German and English and French......I heard Trot speak in a documentary I watched. He spoke English extremely well. This all helped to show why they chose Stalin over him because stalin seemed harmless compared to the energetic animated Trot.

Also, it is a fact that Trot spoke with an animation, with lots of character and personality. Stalin had a low speaking voice more monotone than anything (and get tapes of the two of them speaking and you'll know what I'm talking about). It all helped to foster the notion that Trot was more dangerous than Stalin.

Intelligitimate I'm wasting my time when I write to you. You expect me to be able to get the actual primary documents from the actual archives and show them to you? wtf, Im a student at university, and Im poor as dirt, and I just cant fly to Russia and pick them up. Your statements are totally insane ! but I gave u the names of people who could and did do the actual research.

Annd then when I told you I cant do it, you dismiss me and said I never proved jack shit. I've had it. Just had it, with you. I've had enough.

Seriously, when you write like this, you're acting like an idiot.

Svetlana,

It is not a lie. It was a fact that members of the so called "Left-Opposition" organized terrorism against the Soviet working class and people, organized against the sovereignty of the USSR, along with aid and succour from foreign imperialist powers such as Britian, Germany and Japan, and the evidence for theis horrific crimes were brought out in the Trials. It had nothing to do with personalities as one is making it out.

In fact Vyshinksy, chief prosecutor of those who stood trial in the 1938 Trials, in his closing statements said:

"...The trial has exposed and proved absolutely, definitely the fact that the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" represented a veritable agency of the intelligence services of certain foreign states, which through this bloc, through this conspiratorial group, were effecting espionage, wrecking and diversive acts, terrorism, the undermining of the military power of the U.S.S.R., that this "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" attempted to provoke armed attack of these states on the U.S.S.R., with the aim of overthrowing the Socialist system existing in the U.S.S.R., restoring capitalism and the power of the bourgeoisie in the U.S.S.R., dismembering the U.S.S.R and severing from it the Ukraine, Byelorussia, the Central Asiatic Republics, georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Maritime Region for the benefit of the states mentioned.

It has been established at this trial that the real masters of this bloc were Trostky and the foreign intelligence services, that all its criminal activities were carried on under the immediate direction and in accordance with plans drawn up by the General Staffs of Japan, Germany and Poland." (Report of the Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet "Bloc of Rights and Tortskyites")

Where does this show, in this statement or in the overall trial report proceedings, that Stalin solely wanted to consolidate his position and power? No where does it say that because that wasn't a fact whatspever. What was fact was that crimes were committed which violated the law of the land. In fact the trials showed that it was the Soviet Leadership and the working classes upholding rule of law and seeking justice for the crimes committed, especially in the dangerous international situation of growing fascism and capitalist encirclement which was attacking the working class in all capitalist countries and poised against the Soviet Union. One must remember and note that these closing remarks were made after the confessions of those who were charged and stood trial. These trials were made public and open to the foreign press to see for themselves that each person charged was given his rights according to Soviet Socialist Law.

The Trials strengthened the resolve of the Soviet working class and people which was a necessary condition in order for the Soviet working class and people to be decisive in oncoming battles against brutal fascism.

Stalin certainly didn't hide his views from the working class, as he was responsible for reporting on the developments to the working class. One only needs to read the works of J V Stalin to corroborate this.

[Psy]

Svetlana,

It is not a lie. It was a fact that members of the so called "Left-Opposition" organized terrorism against the Soviet working class and people, organized against the sovereignty of the USSR, along with aid and succour from foreign imperialist powers such as Britian, Germany and Japan, and the evidence for theis horrific crimes were brought out in the Trials. It had nothing to do with personalities as one is making it out.

In fact Vyshinksy, chief prosecutor of those who stood trial in the 1938 Trials, in his closing statements said:
"...The trial has exposed and proved absolutely, definitely the fact that the "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" represented a veritable agency of the intelligence services of certain foreign states, which through this bloc, through this conspiratorial group, were effecting espionage, wrecking and diversive acts, terrorism, the undermining of the military power of the U.S.S.R., that this "bloc of Rights and Trotskyites" attempted to provoke armed attack of these states on the U.S.S.R., with the aim of overthrowing the Socialist system existing in the U.S.S.R., restoring capitalism and the power of the bourgeoisie in the U.S.S.R., dismembering the U.S.S.R and severing from it the Ukraine, Byelorussia, the Central Asiatic Republics, georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Maritime Region for the benefit of the states mentioned.

It has been established at this trial that the real masters of this bloc were Trostky and the foreign intelligence services, that all its criminal activities were carried on under the immediate direction and in accordance with plans drawn up by the General Staffs of Japan, Germany and Poland." (Report of the Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet "Bloc of Rights and Tortskyites")
Where does this show, in this statement or in the overall trial report proceedings, that Stalin solely wanted to consolidate his position and power? No where does it say that because that wasn't a fact whatspever. What was fact was that crimes were committed which violated the law of the land. In fact the trials showed that it was the Soviet Leadership and the working classes upholding rule of law and seeking justice for the crimes committed, especially in the dangerous international situation of growing fascism and capitalist encirclement which was attacking the working class in all capitalist countries and poised against the Soviet Union. One must remember and note that these closing remarks were made after the confessions of those who were charged and stood trial. These trials were made public and open to the foreign press to see for themselves that each person charged was given his rights according to Soviet Socialist Law.

The Trials strengthened the resolve of the Soviet working class and people which was a necessary condition in order for the Soviet working class and people to be decisive in oncoming battles against brutal fascism.

Stalin certainly didn't hide his views from the working class, as he was responsible for reporting on the developments to the working class. One only needs to read the works of J V Stalin to corroborate this.
Why should we believe these trials? Stalin re-written history, meaning Stalin must have believed the non-Marxist theory of the Noble Lies and Deadly Truths, meaning we can't believe anything Stalin or his followers said, instead of standing on the Marxist idea that Truth is radical Stalin stood on the idea that you have to lie to the masses and withhold the truth in order to mold them into a coherent society. We know Stalin doctored photos, we know Stalin re-written documents, we know Stalin was a pathological liar.

[S R]

[/size][/font][/color]My question was why does the lack of the Russian stand with Trotsky proof of Stalin's creditability?

.... Also the party doesn't make them conscious, the party educates them so they can conscious....

...At that time, it was not Permanent Revolution vs Theory of Socialism in One Country. It was the question of stages that dominated the debates in the party when Lenin was alive.

You are proud that Stalin didn't ask the working class to follow him? Democratic centralism didn't mean you ignore workers.


Credibility lies with those who uphold the arrangements that were agreed upon, arrangements that held the working class as the decisive force in history and defended the rights of the workers and toilers on all aspects concerning their affairs. Who created these arrangements? It was the Soviet working class and their allies who created them, out of the need to have them through waging class struggle. Trotsky at one point did share his views to the working people, but when it was rejected, he hid his agenda from the working class. The role of the party is to make the working class conscious through education and informing them on the basis of common information. This was done in the collectives and Stalin also had to abide by these decisions and by the collective. He had no right nor power to make decisions outside the collective. In fact it was the collective decision that made the policies and argued out what tactics to pursue and so forth. Trotsky neglected to abide by the arrangements that the Soviet working class and people had created and tried to circumvent these arrangements. Credibility is not on individuals testimony alone, but by what the collective decided upon and what was carried out and who is able to defend the collective and uphold the rights of the collective.

Insofar as the Theory of Permanent Revolution and Socialism in One Country, it was the main contradiction in theory in the late 20s and early 30s, closer to the time period in which the Trials were concerned, than the contradiction in theory of the one you have presented. Let us not forget it is the Purges and Trials in which we are talking about. As far as your opinions on stages of revolution is concerned, one still hasn't provided any reference to back up your claims. How can I make out that they are true facts, rather than mere claims? One can't make claims without the facts. Present your facts, present your sources. It will help and aid this discussion farther if you are able to do so.

Stalin didn't need followers. Stalin knew who the real masters of society were and it was the working class. And in that case, Stalin certainly did not ignore the workers, in fact he paid very much attention to them.

[S R]

Why should we believe these trials?

Who am I to tell you what you should believe? I am not going to convince you to believe anything. That task I will leave alone to you. I will however provide sources that back up my claims and in this case of the Trials, the Report Proceedings is essential for anyone wanting to know what the issues were. What was the issue? One poses that the issue of the Trials were to consolidate Stalin's position in the Party and that Stalin set out to wipe out all the "communists" and "dissent". Well if that is the case, then the Report Proceedings of the actual trials should reflect this maneuver on the part of Stalin. So what does the Report Proceedings actually have to say about the matter? The only way you will know is by finding the source I provided and investigate it and draw your own conclusion.

Why does one suspect these trials to be other than what they are, public trials of those charged with committing crimes? The report includes all the testimony, cross-examination of the accused and a record of all that was said between the prosecution and those that defended [or rather attempted to defend] themselves. It wasn't a secret trial, as they were open to the public so that even international observers [including those not friendly to socialism and communism] could see it for themselves and warrant their own conclusions. If anything, the trials and the testimony, especially by the accused, should be carefully considered if one is to truly investigate this time period. If one is serious in having a definite and well-informed view of the facts, then the trials themselves can only be part of the research of all the material that is available. To dismiss it, is to really reject what exists and what did exist at that time period. To dismiss anything, without investigation is unscientific, and provides no basis for which one can speak about an issue.

[Psy]

Credibility lies with those who uphold the arrangements that were agreed upon, arrangements that held the working class as the decisive force in history and defended the rights of the workers and toilers on all aspects concerning their affairs.

Read the April Theses and show me were Stalin followed Lenin. Lenin ordered the forming of the Third International and Stalin disbanded it please the imperialists.

Lenin calls for "the salaries of all officials, all of whom are elective and displaceable at any time, not to exceed the average wage of a competent worker." Stalin did the exact opposite and we see a growing class division.

Lenin states "it is not our immediate task to 'introduce' socialism, but only to bring social production and the distribution of products at once". This means Lenin believed it was impossible for a backward country like Russia to become socialist as Marx stated socialism has to start in the advanced industrial nations.

Thus Stalin was not simply carrying out the ideas of Lenin thus we need proof that Stalin theories are sound yet Stalin shut down debate even though he was basing policy on theories radically different then that of Lenin.



Who created these arrangements? It was the Soviet working class and their allies who created them, out of the need to have them through waging class struggle. Trotsky at one point did share his views to the working people, but when it was rejected, he hid his agenda from the working class. The role of the party is to make the working class conscious through education and informing them on the basis of common information. This was done in the collectives and Stalin also had to abide by these decisions and by the collective. He had no right nor power to make decisions outside the collective. In fact it was the collective decision that made the policies and argued out what tactics to pursue and so forth. Trotsky neglected to abide by the arrangements that the Soviet working class and people had created and tried to circumvent these arrangements. Credibility is not on individuals testimony alone, but by what the collective decided upon and what was carried out and who is able to defend the collective and uphold the rights of the collective.
The workers were oblivious to the debate and Stalin lied, we know Stalin lied due to the doctored photos under his administration. Since Stalin lied at that scale we can't trust anything he ever said in life, since we known Stalin re-written history, then it means he probably fabricated the case against his opposition.



Insofar as the Theory of Permanent Revolution and Socialism in One Country, it was the main contradiction in theory in the late 20s and early 30s, closer to the time period in which the Trials were concerned, than the contradiction in theory of the one you have presented. Let us not forget it is the Purges and Trials in which we are talking about. As far as your opinions on stages of revolution is concerned, one still hasn't provided any reference to back up your claims. How can I make out that they are true facts, rather than mere claims? One can't make claims without the facts. Present your facts, present your sources. It will help and aid this discussion farther if you are able to do so.

Stalin didn't need followers. Stalin knew who the real masters of society were and it was the working class. And in that case, Stalin certainly did not ignore the workers, in fact he paid very much attention to them.
The problem is how do we know Stalin theories were sound? They were not the theories of Lenin. Okay so it is a different era, but Stalin didn't democratically decide the path of Russia. Democratic Socialism doesn't mean the leader barks orders and everyone obeys, it means you democratically come to a conclusion and the party members are expected to follow through till the next debate.



Why does one suspect these trials to be other than what they are, public trials of those charged with committing crimes?
Because we know Stalin fabricated history, we know he doctored photos meaning everything his administration did has extremely low credibility.

[careyprice31]

"Why should we believe these trials? Stalin re-written history, meaning Stalin must have believed the non-Marxist theory of the Noble Lies and Deadly Truths, meaning we can't believe anything Stalin or his followers said, instead of standing on the Marxist idea that Truth is radical Stalin stood on the idea that you have to lie to the masses and withhold the truth in order to mold them into a coherent society. We know Stalin doctored photos, we know Stalin re-written documents, we know Stalin was a pathological liar."

I would have said something like that.

btw where are all these stalinists coming from:confused:

[Comrade Rage]

btw where are all these stalinists coming from:confused:I don't know about everyone else, but I came from the evil Stalinland, where human rights are nonexistent, the only TV shows are show-trials of Trots, and the streets are lined with barbed wire.:D:tongue_smilie:

[Invader Zim]

I don't know about everyone else, but I came from the evil Stalinland, where human rights are nonexistent, the only TV shows are show-trials of Trots, and the streets are lined with barbed wire.:D:tongue_smilie:

Thats not really very funny or orgional.

On the question though, it is odd; we once had a whole group of Stalinists here, then they for various reasons became inactive. Now we are seemingly witness to a revival.

[careyprice31]

Thats not really very funny or orgional.

On the question though, it is odd; we once had a whole group of Stalinists here, then they for various reasons became inactive. Now we are seemingly witness to a revival.

Funny though

There were no Stalinists who replied to this topic when it was posted. It was here for a while.

Then I replied to it.....

and bam ! all the Stalinists come crawling out from Stalinland :lol:

[Comrade Rage]

Thats not really very funny or orgional.
I wasn't going for originality, as that was the 23784346923423rd time that question has been asked

On the question though, it is odd; we once had a whole group of Stalinists here, then they for various reasons became inactive. Now we are seemingly witness to a revival.When did they join?

[Comrade Rage]

Funny though

There were no Stalinists who replied to this topic when it was posted. It was here for a while.

Then I replied to it.....

and bam ! all the Stalinists come crawling out from Stalinland :lol:We don't crawl so much as slither...

[careyprice31]

We don't crawl so much as slither...


Ok that cracked me up :lol:

[Psy]

Funny though

There were no Stalinists who replied to this topic when it was posted. It was here for a while.

Then I replied to it.....

and bam ! all the Stalinists come crawling out from Stalinland :lol:

Must be your avatar, I mean Nikolia Bukharin was arrested in 1938 by Stalin for "conspiring to overthrow the Soviet state" and if Stalin said it, it must be true :glare:

[Invader Zim]

I wasn't going for originality, as that was the 23784346923423rd time that question has been asked
When did they join?

Dunno, about the same kind of time I did. They then left after a while. A few years later we had a similar scenario, and I guess this is the latest Stalinist influx. I prefered the first group; some of those guys were smart, well read and pleasant to chat to; I even met a one of them back in the summer of 2003, and a Maoist from this board, in London for a few pints.

[careyprice31]

Must be your avatar, I mean Nikolia Bukharin was arrested in 1938 by Stalin for "conspiring to overthrow the Soviet state" and if Stalin said it, it must be true :glare:

Ye the name Bukharin or his pic must be like pollen which attarcts bees......

unlike the bees though the stalinists come to condemn bukharin while the bees come to help pollinate and help the flower.....

Is the latest stalinist influx my fault or did this start before i joined?

[S R]

Read the April Theses and show me were Stalin followed Lenin. Lenin ordered the forming of the Third International and Stalin disbanded it please the imperialists.

Lenin calls for "the salaries of all officials, all of whom are elective and displaceable at any time, not to exceed the average wage of a competent worker." Stalin did the exact opposite and we see a growing class division.

Lenin states "it is not our immediate task to 'introduce' socialism, but only to bring social production and the distribution of products at once". This means Lenin believed it was impossible for a backward country like Russia to become socialist as Marx stated socialism has to start in the advanced industrial nations.

Thus Stalin was not simply carrying out the ideas of Lenin thus we need proof that Stalin theories are sound yet Stalin shut down debate even though he was basing policy on theories radically different then that of Lenin.

Let's look at the April Theses within the context of the period. In fact Lenin goes through much of the class character of the period in The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution - a draft report that followed his outline of The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution (aka The April Theses). The working class and people found itself faced with a situation in which there was a bourgeois democratic system of governance in the Provisional Government, which was for continued participation in the imperialist war. What the April Theses points out very distinctly was what the tactics and furthermore the role the Communists were to have to wage the revolutionary struggle to further the strategy of bringing the proletariat to power. The Theses dealt with the then present situation. Furthermore, in July of the same year, the tactics of how the Party and the working classes were to go about waging the class struggle changed yet again, after the Provisional Government began violently attacking peaceful demonstrators of workers and peasants. Yes the Theses dealt with the need for the Communists to form another International. Lenin spells out this need and why the conditions would be favorable to have it.

To pose the issue that Stalin didnt follow Lenin and disbanded the Comintern is utterly ridiculous, and one that doesnt pay attention to what has changed in the society and in the world, in a word, the situation, which was completely different. Rather than investigate why Stalin, the General Secretaries, and the other parties reasons for disbanding the Third International, which took place in the early forties in the midst of a completely different period, the second world war in the fight against fascism, the Trotskyites and renegades would have us believe the same situation existed for all periods and that Lenin's Theses applies everywhere without so much as to find out what the political situation was. Ok then, why if one is to target Stalin for disbanding the Third International, why not target Marx as well for disbanding the First International? One can see how ridiculous this is. One can't target something without knowing why something took place. So for our Trotskyite comrades, I ask what was the issue for Marx disbanding the First International and what was the reason for Stalin to disband the Third International? And no, it wasn't to appease the capitalists or the imperialists as many reactionaries would like to point out in both cases.

[Psy]

If the conditions was so radically different then how do we know Stalin and only Stalin knew the path forward? When Marxist don't know that way forward we debate which is compilable with democratic centralism, the idea of democratic centralism is to keep discipline of party members to agreed upon policy yet these policies come about through democratic means thus the democratic part of democratic centralism.

If you read Rosa Luxembourg she said.

"The Bolsheviks have certainly made a number of mistakes in their policies and are perhaps still making them – but where is the revolution in which no mistakes have been made! The notion of a revolutionary policy without mistakes, and moreover, in a totally unprecedented situation, is so absurd that it is worthy only of a German schoolmaster."

The idea that Stalin wouldn't make mistakes is even more of a absurdity, this is because Stalin didn't allow any mechanism to spot flaws in his reasoning as he flooded the party with yes men, and it is a proven that any organization flooded with yes men are doomed to fail as there is no reliable feedback meaning as time goes on the leadership becomes more and more alienated from reality.

Meaning Stalin is responsible for the collapse of the USSR, Stalin destroyed the mechanism that fed information back to the party, this led to the same problem as large dysfunctional corporations were nothing gets fixed as the mangers don't want to rock the boat so simply tell their superiors what they want to hear.

[Random Precision]

Let's look at the April Theses within the context of the period. In fact Lenin goes through much of the class character of the period in The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution - a draft report that followed his outline of The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution (aka The April Theses). The working class and people found itself faced with a situation in which there was a bourgeois democratic system of governance in the Provisional Government, which was for continued participation in the imperialist war. What the April Theses points out very distinctly was what the tactics and furthermore the role the Communists were to have to wage the revolutionary struggle to further the strategy of bringing the proletariat to power. The Theses dealt with the then present situation. Furthermore, in July of the same year, the tactics of how the Party and the working classes were to go about waging the class struggle changed yet again, after the Provisional Government began violently attacking peaceful demonstrators of workers and peasants. Yes the Theses dealt with the need for the Communists to form another International. Lenin spells out this need and why the conditions would be favorable to have it.

To pose the issue that Stalin didnt follow Lenin and disbanded the Comintern is utterly ridiculous, and one that doesnt pay attention to what has changed in the society and in the world, in a word, the situation, which was completely different. Rather than investigate why Stalin, the General Secretaries, and the other parties reasons for disbanding the Third International, which took place in the early forties in the midst of a completely different period, the second world war in the fight against fascism, the Trotskyites and renegades would have us believe the same situation existed for all periods and that Lenin's Theses applies everywhere without so much as to find out what the political situation was. Ok then, why if one is to target Stalin for disbanding the Third International, why not target Marx as well for disbanding the First International? One can see how ridiculous this is. One can't target something without knowing why something took place. So for our Trotskyite comrades, I ask what was the issue for Marx disbanding the First International and what was the reason for Stalin to disband the Third International? And no, it wasn't to appease the capitalists or the imperialists as many reactionaries would like to point out in both cases.

How would you explain this?


Question: British comment on the decision to dissolve the Comintern has been very favourable. What is the Soviet view on this matter?
Answer: The dissolution of the Comintern is proper and timely because it facilitates the organisation of the common onslaught of all freedom-loving nations against the common enemy – Hitlerism ... It facilitates the work of patriots of all countries for uniting the progressive forces of their respective countries, regardless of party or religious faith, into a single camp of national liberation ...’

Source: Claudin, The Communist Movement, London 1975 p. 45

So I guess Marx was wrong after all with that thing about history being the "history of class struggles". :laugh:

[S R]

If the conditions was so radically different then how do we know Stalin and only Stalin knew the path forward? When Marxist don't know that way forward we debate which is compilable with democratic centralism, the idea of democratic centralism is to keep discipline of party members to agreed upon policy yet these policies come about through democratic means thus the democratic part of democratic centralism.

If you read Rosa Luxembourg she said.

"The Bolsheviks have certainly made a number of mistakes in their policies and are perhaps still making them – but where is the revolution in which no mistakes have been made! The notion of a revolutionary policy without mistakes, and moreover, in a totally unprecedented situation, is so absurd that it is worthy only of a German schoolmaster."

The idea that Stalin wouldn't make mistakes is even more of a absurdity, this is because Stalin didn't allow any mechanism to spot flaws in his reasoning as he flooded the party with yes men, and it is a proven that any organization flooded with yes men are doomed to fail as there is no reliable feedback meaning as time goes on the leadership becomes more and more alienated from reality.

Meaning Stalin is responsible for the collapse of the USSR, Stalin destroyed the mechanism that fed information back to the party, this led to the same problem as large dysfunctional corporations were nothing gets fixed as the mangers don't want to rock the boat so simply tell their superiors what they want to hear.

It is unfortunate that my posts are under the 25 limit for now, as I am unable to provide some material through links. In any case, the statement that Rosa Luxembourg makes comes from The Russian Tragedy writtened in September 1918, in which she laments over the "mistake" that was made over the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, a treaty between Germany and Soviet Russia. As I recall, it was Trotsky who was sent as a delegate, representing Russia over the issue of having a treaty with Germany and made a blunder in representing Russia's position, in which Lenin commented and criticized Trotsky severely, explaining why Russia was now in a more difficult position. I don't have Lenin's response to this on me. Luxembourg, in the very piece in which this statement is cited from, also severely criticizes Trotsky and lumps that it was Lenin's blunder as well. I wonder what Lenin's response to Rosa's piece was? Hmm..Ill have to check that out for sure. :)

Anyways, the issue Psy brings up is the issue of mistakes and interjects the idea that Stalin being infallible is absurdity, as if somehow this is the idea I am putting forth. I never said such a thing. How do we know Stalin was on the right path? Well Why Stalin only? Why not Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxembourg, Trotsky too? The issue really is of words and deeds, in which the colors of a Communist and the collective is best expressed by the work that has been done and what has been achieved. It is based on this that the policies of the USSR in which Stalin defended can be proved correct in relation to the overall international and internal situation in applying Marxism-Leninism, the strategy and the working out the tactiocs of the proletariat in the epoch of imperialism. It can not be said that Stalin was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union. What collapsed was Soviet revisionism, which can be traced to Krushchev, in which all problems of the Soviet society were blamed on Stalin rather than up for solution and began to cease building and consolidating socialism in the USSR.

One somehow accepts the notion that Stalin made all the decisions, without regard of the working class, without regard to the party cadre, without regard to the collective - the Soviets, and that everyone was forced to obey without question and discussion. Again, I ask, to please cite or refer to some sources to back up this absurd notion. Some examples are necessary to illustrate and substantiate your point, your claim.

[S R]

How would you explain this?



Source: Claudin, The Communist Movement, London 1975 p. 45

So I guess Marx was wrong after all with that thing about history being the "history of class struggles". :laugh:

So following one's logic, when Marx dissolved and disbanded the First International, was he also dissolving and disbanding the scientific theory of society divided into classes? Hardly. Neither then was Stalin in his response to Reuters question on the dissolution of the Comintern negate the scientific theory of class struggle. If so, please cite further where Stalin refutes the class struggle. One asks me to explain it...but what does one find wrong with it?

I should note however that Stalin's answer, as one has cited, is not complete. Claude, or yourself have omitted largely Stalin's response. What was omitted? Please, if you can, provide the omission, and it would help the discussion further. Thank you.

[Psy]

Stalin led to Krushchev, Stalin purged all progressive elements from the party leaving only opportunists and ass kissers. Krushehcev represented the progressive opportunists that kissed Stalin's ass enough to not be purged during Stalin's reign, Krushehcev at least wanted to fix the economy by getting rid of the dead weight (more then Stalin did) and promoting skilled workers into management, for example Krushehcev put a defected American engineer to head up electronic devlopment in Zelenograd (the heart of electronic research is the USSR) as he was the smartest engineer in the entire USSR (while Stalin probably have killed him for being a American). The overthrow Krushehcev was from the opportunists that didn't like Krushehcev forcing them to earn their privileged position and wanted a static class system.

[Random Precision]

So following one's logic, when Marx dissolved and disbanded the First International, was he also dissolving and disbanding the scientific theory of society divided into classes? Hardly. Neither then was Stalin in his response to Reuters question on the dissolution of the Comintern negate the scientific theory of class struggle. If so, please cite further where Stalin refutes the class struggle. One asks me to explain it...but what does one find wrong with it?

His reasoning was more at issue- calling for the unity of everyone, bourgeois and worker, in so-called "freedom-loving countries" equates to a direct denial of the class struggle.


I should note however that Stalin's answer, as one has cited, is not complete. Claude, or yourself have omitted largely Stalin's response. What was omitted? Please, if you can, provide the omission, and it would help the discussion further. Thank you.

My apologies, it seemed too long to quote in entirety. Here is the full excerpt, emphases mine:


The dissolution of the Comintern is proper and timely because it facilitates the organisation of the common onslaught of all freedom-loving nations against the common enemy – Hitlerism. The dissolution of the Communist International is proper because:

(a) It exposes the lie of the Hitlerites to the effect that "Moscow" allegedly intends to intervene in the life of other nations and to "Bolshevise" them. An end is now being put to this lie.

(b) It exposes the calumny of the adversaries of Communism within the Labour movement to the effect that Communist Parties in various countries are allegedly acting not in the interest if their people but on orders from outside. An end is now being put to this calumny too.

(c) It facilitates the work of patriots of all countries for uniting the progressive forces of their respective countries, regardless of party or religious faith, into a single camp of national liberation- for unfolding the struggle against fascism.

(d) It facilitates the work of patriots of all countries for uniting all freedom-loving people into a single international camp for the fight against the menace of world domination by Hitlerism, thus clearing the way to a future organization of nations based on their equality.

I think that all these circumstances taken together will result in a further strengthening of the United Front of the Allies and other united nations in their fight for victory over Hitlerite tyranny.

Here we can see some of the first hints of the "peaceful coexistence" policy that came to fruition under Khrushchev.

Another thing on the dissolution of the Comintern: It came very suddenly, even before most of its sections knew about it, much less agreed to it. The Spanish section of the executive committee, for example, learned of it by reading the Moscow newspaper.

[S R]

His reasoning was more at issue- calling for the unity of everyone, bourgeois and worker, in so-called "freedom-loving countries" equates to a direct denial of the class struggle.

How so? Go on, make your argument on how "freedom-loving nations" ("freedom-loving peoples" in the War Speeches and the Order of the Day) is a direct denial of the class struggle.


Here we can see some of the first hints of the "peaceful coexistence" policy that came to fruition under Khrushchev.

Phrase-mongering and left-sloganeering is characteristic of revisionist and opportunists. It is the deeds that count. In any case, like one's friend, above, one must also understand that the objective of the period was to defeat Hitlerite fascism, which also exemplified very well the danger of the power of finance monopoly and monopoly capitalism.


Another thing on the dissolution of the Comintern: It came very suddenly, even before most of its sections knew about it, much less agreed to it. The Spanish section of the executive committee, for example, learned of it by reading the Moscow newspaper.

What sections disagreed to it? I would be most interested in this information. I am also interested in this Spanish section account. Where may I find it?

[Random Precision]

How so? Go on, make your argument on how "freedom-loving nations" ("freedom-loving peoples" in the War Speeches and the Order of the Day) is a direct denial of the class struggle.

I'd prefer if you would demonstrate somehow that the United States, Great Britain and France were not, in fact, dictatorships of the bourgeoisie, but in fact "freedom-loving nations" that a socialist state could unite with in any meaningful sense. And how "all all freedom-loving people" regardless of class could be united "into a single international camp".


Phrase-mongering and left-sloganeering is characteristic of revisionist and opportunists. It is the deeds that count.

Indeed, I would agree that Stalin was both a revisionist and opportunist. :lol:

In all seriousness, though, the deeds do count very much. And a deed like throwing away the strongest tool for international proletarian revolution counts for quite a bit.


In any case, like one's friend, above, one must also understand that the objective of the period was to defeat Hitlerite fascism, which also exemplified very well the danger of the power of finance monopoly and monopoly capitalism.

That may be true, but I fail to see how that meant the Comintern had to be dissolved. Proletarian revolution was still on the agenda, no?


What sections disagreed to it? I would be most interested in this information. I am also interested in this Spanish section account. Where may I find it?

From what I've read, it's not like most sections were given a chance to agree or disagree. Apparently the proposal was made by the Presidium of the ECCI, but I don't know if the ECCI itself was consulted about it. The account of the Spanish section may be found in The Communist International, 1919-1943: Documents Vol. III, Jane Degras, ed. p. 476. Some parts of it are on Google Books, look it up.

[S R]

I'd prefer if you would demonstrate somehow that the United States, Great Britain and France were not, in fact, dictatorships of the bourgeoisie, but in fact "freedom-loving nations" that a socialist state could unite with in any meaningful sense. And how "all all freedom-loving people" regardless of class could be united "into a single international camp".

I don't deny the fact that the United States, Great Britain and France were dictatorships of the bourgeoisie. Just as I don't deny that Germany, Italy, and Japan were also dictatorships of the bourgeoisie. So let's examine this thoroughly, which Trotskyites are inept to do. What was taking place in 1943, that Stalin, as representative of the USSR and the dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR, would respond in this way? I believe this is a serious relationship between concrete events that were taking place and what was being said that needs to be explored. As I recall in February 1943 the Battle of Stalingrad was decisively won by the Red Army against the German invaders and French resistance was ongoing in Nazi occupied Territories. The Second Front did not take place until almost a year later, in which the Soviet Union was left to singlehandly beat back the nazi aggressors. Are these facts, such as the dangers that Fascism was posing at the time, not on the Trotskyite radars? Fundamentally the issue of the statement was of course tactical, just as the issue of the dissolution of the Comintern was tactical - just as the issue of the First International was tactical in their respective time periods. For Stalin to come out and say let's wage a war against bourgeois democratic countries and states at that time is absurd, since Fascism also posed a danger to the working classes in advanced capitalist nations at that time period. Generally, Stalin was speaking of organizing all resistance to fascism itself at that time period, while defending and upholding the dictatorship of the proletariat and the proletariat in other countries. One's argument is saying that somehow the strategy of Marxism-Leninism had changed, when it wasn't. It was the tactics. Yet one can not substitute tactics for strategy. If Stalin came out proposing what you are saying in that time period, he would have isolated the resistance.

With this said, I urge you to provide your argument to your claim that this was not so.



Indeed, I would agree that Stalin was both a revisionist and opportunist. :lol:

I dont agree with that at all, while one phrase-mongers on words and deeds, one can not examine what those words and deeds are. It is on the basis of what Stalin and the Soviet Leadership during that time did and the results of that and what Khrushchev did is what distinguishes who the revisionist was.

Thank you for the reference and source. The source seems to be mostly about the Comintern judging from the title. In any way Ill check it out an also see what the documents of the Comintern will have to say. Thank you.