Stalin , hero or villain?

[nvm]

I used to be a stalinist but i am not anymore . I am moving towards Trotskyism:laugh:
I would like to hear what you have to say about Stalin. Sorry if there was another thead like that but I am new in the forum . Also i would like to post an essay i wrote some months ago on stalin and also put a poll:D .



Stalin, Hero or Villain?



Stalin is one of the most criticized, but at the same time one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century. Many have compared him to Hitler, just as many have compared him to a Messiah that liberated Europe. Many call him a villain, just as many call him a hero. Was Stalin a killer and a fascist as his opponents claim, or was he one of the most prominent leaders of the great Soviet Union?



Stalin is accused by his political opponents that he abandoned the idea of a world revolution. After the failure of the revolutions in Germany, Hungary, Austria and other European countries, Stalin , a bureaucrat ,invented the idea of socialism in one country, which was opposed to Lenin’s internationalism. Thus Stalin , according to his opponents condemned the revolution to a failure , bringing the rise of bureaucracy, nationalism and state capitalism.
In reality though, the possibility of sustaining socialism in one country is a fundamental principle of Leninism. Lenin argued that socialism can prevail in the beginning in some or even one capitalist country. After it had destroyed the capitalists and organized the socialist production it would uprise against the capitalists of other countries, with the help of the working class of those countries, using even military force if necessary, against the exploiters and their governments. Stalin followed the values and virtues of Leninism by the book in that case. The fact is that Lenin and Stalin believed that at the final victory of the revolution, communism, would only be global because it cannot sustain itself differently. But socialism, which was the case in the USSR, could sustain itself in a union of socialist countries or even in one country.
Therefore Stalin, not only organized a socialist economy within the USSR, he aided communist parties all over the world to create revolutions. After the Red Army defeated the Germans in the Second World War and liberated Europe, the revolution was spread throughout Eastern Europe, including East Germany. So Joseph Stalin did not only manage to build socialism in the USSR and protect the revolution from the Capitalists and the Fascists, he managed to spread the revolution all over Eastern Europe. By 1953 , the Communist block covered an immense territory , mainly thanks to Stalin.
In the economic sector it is acknowledged by everyone in the political left( Stalinists , Trotskyists and Social Democrats ) and the political center and political right , that during the Stalin era ( 1928 - 1953) the economic improvements were immense. Objective estimates say that the annual economic growth during the rule of Stalin was 14% . Indeed, Stalin’s ingenious 5 year plans achieved rapid industrialization which would give an economic independence much needed to safeguard the revolution. The mostly rural until the revolution Russian Empire, transformed to an industrial superpower. Thanks to the workers determination and Stalin’s great leadership skills, an economic miracle was performed.







Stalin fast proceeded into building socialism. He abandoned Lenin’s New Economic Policy (NEP) for the 5 year plans, which would build a socialist economy much faster. He collectivized the land , a move essential to achieve a socialist production and to ensure that there were no economic differences between the farmers. This move would essentially increase the agricultural output combined with the fact that he proceeded to the mechanization of agriculture. To achieve that, he purged those who had previously enslaved the peasants; the kulaks. The kulaks were a class of wealthy farmers that used the peasants’ underpaid work, for their own profit. They were hated amongst the peasants during the Czarist regime. After the revolution Lenin let them have their land as long as there was some redistribution. Lenin’s mercifulness proved devastating for the government after some years. The peasants situation improved only little after the revolution and until 1933. In 1928 Stalin tried to terminate that exploitation. Not only were the peasants devastated by famines during these years, but also the whole state was in danger because of the Kulak’s greediness. A lot of the production output was ending in the Kulak’s pockets and also they determined the market prices. All this was something absurd in a socialist economy. From 1928 to 1933, Stalin started collectivizing the land. The Kulak’s though were not willing to give to the workers and the peasants what was rightfully theirs and they wanted to keep the land. Many Kulak uprisings, where Kulaks and their paid armies of poor people devastated entire regions, came into place. The Kulak’s also undermined production and that resulted into shortages of food which created large scaled famines. This situation was intolerable for the workers government. Eventually the Kulak class was destroyed and they paid for all of their crimes. However, Stalin was merciful and the punishment was not severe.
Although Stalin ended a series of famines with their peak being the Holodomor in 1932-33, opponents accuse him of being responsible for these famines. The Holodomor, which is the name given to the Ukrainian famine had a death count of approximately one million lives. It is true that the Holodomor occured during Stalin’s era but the cause of that were the reactionary Kulaks as it was proven above. Therefore Stalin was not the “creator of these famines” but he also ended them once and for all with his collectivization of the land, which ensured prosperity for the workers and the entire nation.
The quality of life of the Soviets greatly increased between the years of 1928- 1953. The policies of the peoples’ government during the years when Stalin was general secretary were clear. They gave emphasis to education for all, healthcare for all and a variety of leisure activities for all. Especially after the implementation of the 7 hour work-day and the 35 hour work-week, the workers’ free time greatly increased compared to the Czarist regime. Workers could do more with their time, like educate themselves, engage into sports, music or anything else they desired. The average Soviet had opportunities that no other average citizen of any other country ever imagined. With the exception of the period during the second world war, where the USSR was devastated by the Fascist invasion, the workers enjoyed a life with great opportunities for everyone. Also the life expectancy of the Soviet citizens rose from 35 years old during the Czarist regime, to approximately 70 by the end of the Golden Era of Stalin’s rule.
“Stalin’s” purges are the subject where Stalin’s critics emphasize their criticism. No one denies that Stalin did purge some political opponents. Trotskyists, Libertarians and Westerners , describe these purges as decided by one man. They describe Stalin as someone extremely authoritarian who got rid of the opposition against the will of the majority of the people. They were partly right. But those critics do not take into account the nature of “Stalin’s” purges.





Firstly the soviet government purged Bukharin and his opposition. Bukharin belonged to the right wing of the Party. He favored so called “market-socialism” and he undermined the governments attempt of collectivization of the land. His methods were provocative, so eventually he got expelled from the government. Later, during the Moscow trials of 1938 he confessed that he worked for the Gestapo and was planning to help make Hitler’s future advance in the Soviet Union easier. That was the nature of one of Stalin’s “victims” and his opposition.
Secondly, the other most famous victim of Stalin’s purges was Lev Bronstein, or better know by his revolutionary pseudonym, Leon Trotky. The latter was firstly a Menshevik. He belonged to a group that opposed the Bolshevik ideas and ideals. While he remained faithful to the Menshevics until 1917, when he saw that the Bolsheviks gained power between the masses which surpassed that of the Mensheviks he decided to change sides and join the Bolshevik abandoning his own comrades. That clearly shows an opportunistic attitude. Trotsky always wanted to be with the majority. The fact that the people of the USSR , after Lenin’s death sided with Stalin’s fraction, outraged power hungry Trostky , who was willing to do everything in order to gain power. He could go as far as undermining the revolution as was proved later in the Moscow trials. A revolution which he did not support. Being a Menshevik , Trotsky and his comrades openly disagreed with the revolution for their own reasons. That does not mean that they were counter revolutionaries in general, but they certainly were against that particular revolution. Later as it was pre-mentioned it was proved that Lev Bronstein was planning along with other counter-revolutionaries, to overthrow the peoples government in order to serve their own interests. In order to achieve that, they cooperated with the German Gestapo. If Stalin and the people of Russia had not discovered that, socialism would have been in danger.
Opponents of Stalin argue that the soviets( the workers councils ) lost their power, and their place in decision making to bureaucrats who were loyal to Stalin. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that could prove that statement. The Soviets were functioning fine until 1956( until Krutchev’s counter revolution of Taskend). It was evident that during the second world war crisis, Stalin temporarily centralized the decision making in order to safeguard the revolution from Nazi spies. Democracy’s only flaw is that it is vulnerable to enemies of the State. Especially in a major crisis it would be insane to make decisions through the Soviets, because that would risk the socialist order.
However Stalin did not only build socialism in the USSR. He managed to defend it. And he did that with great might. The Red Army under Stalin’s command was the first one to defeat the armies of the third Reich. After being able to defend the USSR with the peak of the defensive being the heroic battle of Stalingrad , Stalin led a major offensive, until he reached Berlin, liberating all of Europe from the German Fascists.
How can a leader that improved the living conditions of his people, safeguarded the socialist order from invaders and spies and ensured that freedom, democracy and socialism would exist in the USSR, be ever considered a villain? Stalin is a hero in our hearts and minds. He should be a reference point for every revolution that will follow. Long live Stalin’s ideals, values and virtues. Long live Socialism, Democracy and Fre

[Dros]

Overall, Stalin's contribution to history is a positive one. Although he did make several mistakes, it is important to recognize the material context in which these occured.


[ps: here comes the shit-storm...]

[Dimentio]

Just another despot, ruling on a system based on despotism. Bread was free in ancient Egypt as well, but no one called Ramses progressive.

[Awful Reality]

The conditions under which Stalin was in power justify a minority of his acts on a social level;

The conditions under which Stalin took power are not justified, he usurped power from the rightful hands of Trotsky;

Stalin's policy on a political and party level are not justifiable, i.e. Moscow Trials, Bukharin, Trotsky, etc.

I have more than a "negative impression."

[Robespierre2.0]

Stalin was the greatest socialist leader of the 20th century. Lenin was a great man, but he died much too early, and therefore it was Stalin who truly implemented Marxism-Leninism on a national scale for the first time; and incredible achievement.

I think of the Korean War- when the USSR, PRC and DPRK were united against a common foe- as the high water mark of socialism in this last century.

[ArabRASH]

Lenin was a great man, but he died much too early, and therefore it was Stalin who truly implemented Marxism-Leninism on a national scale for the first time; and incredible achievement.

So purging your own party, your army, fellow communist intellectuals, and enslaving his own people in gulags is considered "implementing Marxisim-Leninism" on a national scale? Do you really think that's what Lenin would have done? Come on man...I'll admit he should get some credit for achievements such as WWII, but he certainly was not a communist leader...

[F9]

Negative impression defenetly!Even if he had done any tiny good his bad actions are far worse!He was just a red fascist!

Fuserg9:star:

[Die Neue Zeit]

The conditions under which Stalin took power are not justified, he usurped power from the rightful hands of Trotsky

Stalin was a skilled "political animal."

Trotsky - the most bureaucratic person in the Central Committee ("excessive self-assurance and [...] excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm)) - should have seen it coming when Stalin was appointed gensek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Secretary_of_the_CPSU


In 1919 - 1922, the position of a Responsible Secretary was held by Yakov Sverdlov, Nikolay Krestinsky, Yelena Stasova, Vyacheslav Molotov; this position did not play any important role in the Party whose de facto leader was Lenin; however, at lower levels responsible secretaries of regional and local party committees very often were # 1 leaders of respective committees even before Stalin's rise to power.




Stalin's policy on a political and party level are not justifiable, i.e. Moscow Trials, Bukharin, Trotsky, etc.

I have more than a "negative impression."

Granted that Stalin was a theoretical REVISIONIST ("non-antagonistic classes," turning Lenin's temporary emergency restrictions on workers' democratic rights into supposedly essential and eternal principles of working class rule (http://struggle.net/ben/2007/cargo-9-foundations.htm), not spreading world revolution at the first opportunity), but so was Trotsky ("permanent revolution," bureaucratic super-industrialization, "transitional" demands that confuse workers instead of minimum demands). :p

Policy-wise, however, I hereby criticize Stalin like he did Ivan (for not going far enough with "terrible" things needed to be Russia's first czar) in that there were certain policies-for-the-pure-sake-of-policy that he compromised too much on, like kolkhozization versus the more effective sovkhozization (http://www.revleft.com/vb/kautsky-bolshevik-mistake-t59382/index.html).


So purging your own party, your army, fellow communist intellectuals, and enslaving his own people in gulags is considered "implementing Marxisim-Leninism" on a national scale? Do you really think that's what Lenin would have done? Come on man...I'll admit he should get some credit for achievements such as WWII, but he certainly was not a communist leader...

The gulags were a revisionist spin on Trotsky's controversial yet utilitarian notion of universal labor duty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Army#Russian_Civil_War), which Lenin decried in The Trade Unions, The Present Situation, And Trotsky's Mistakes (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm).

[Not that conscripted labor is necessarily a bad thing, but...]



As for WWII, Zhukov's role and those of the other military marshals were overrated. Sometimes the "brilliant General" Stalin wanted to press the attack regardless (problems arise here), but at other times he had to temper the enthusiasm of his subordinates (credit has to be given to the "brilliant General" Stalin for this).

[Dros]

The conditions under which Stalin took power are not justified, he usurped power from the rightful hands of Trotsky;

The CC gave Stalin power and rejected Trotsky. Trotsky did not have a right to be the General Secretary. Get over.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Hold on, let me think.

It's coming to me...wait for it....

Oh, yeah, that's right, he was an totalitarian piece of excrement. I almost forgot!

On the other hand, he did, however, have an impressive mustache. No one can take that away from him.

[Vargha Poralli]

The CC gave Stalin power and rejected Trotsky. Trotsky did not have a right to be the General Secretary. Get over.

The CC which mainly comprised of careerists and opportunists who was exploited by Stalin who exploited his position as general secretary of the party.

The CC of 1924 was comprised of same Cadres who carried out the october revolution. Better you accept that fact.

[Gitfiddle Jim]

Stalin had outright power in mind when he went about his duties, not the progression of socialism, and once in charge abused his power. The struggle for Lenin's successor shows how manipulative and ruthless he was in defeating his opponents (most of whom where either removed from the party or exiled).

But like Agora77 said his moustache does deserve some recognition.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Well, since you're talking about less political issues like moustaches, I'll up the ante with the Soviet anthem. Unlike the "Brezhnev" version, which I can't seem to memorize "I krasnomu znameni slavnoy otchizny" - let alone the last three lines of the third stanza - I can sing the ENTIRE wartime/"Stalin" anthem and provide the literal translation of even the entire third stanza. :cool:

Nas vyrastil Stalin — na vernost' narodu,
Na trud i na podvigi nas vdokhnovil!

My armiyu nashu rastili v srazhen'yakh,
Zakhvatchikov podlykh s dorogi smetyom!
My v bitvakh reshayem sud'bu pokoleniy,
My k slave Otchiznu svoyu povedyom!

Slavsya, Otechestvo nashe svobodnoye,
Druzhby / Schast'ya / Slavy narodov nadyozhny oplot,
Znamya sovetskoye, znamya narodnoye
Pust' ot pobedy k pobede vedyot!

:D

[Lector Malibu]

Well it really didn't matter what he was like when The United States needed him.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Overall, Stalin's contribution to history is a positive one. Although he did make several mistakes, it is important to recognize the material context in which these occured.


[ps: here comes the shit-storm...]

It seems to me like literally anything can be justified using "material analysis", as long as the event or person in question is wrapped in a red flag. :glare:

[Dros]

It seems to me like literally anything can be justified using "material analysis", as long as the event or person in question is wrapped in a red flag. :glare:

Where did I say anything about "material analysis in my post? Or attempt to "justify" Stalin's mistakes? I said that his errors need to be undertood in their historical context. Would you disagree with that.

[Wanted Man]

It's a bit odd to use "material analysis" in this context anyway, as the subject of this thread is purely individual and moral. Whether he was personally a "hero" or "villain" is of little consequence. Surely, he was a "hero" to the Reds in the Battle for Tsaritsyn (which is why the place got named after him in the first place", and a "villain" to the Whites.

I voted for the third option, but it's essentially meaningless. The second and fourth options can coincide with the third one easily. Or you could start employing "maoist mathematics" ("70% good, 30% bad" :lol: ).

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Comrade Stalin is often the center of blame; yes, he made mistakes, but what revolutionary does not? It is very easy to turn every action of the time against Stalin, but many of the acts carried out were necessity of the time. Many of his actions were not opposed to that of Lenin's, and to sit with the argument regarding Trotsky is absurd. I may not agree with every action associated with Stalin, but revolutionaries are every bit human. Lenin recognized that revolutionaries, too, will make mistakes, as conflicts develop and situations that comrades have not been faced with before or had to act in regard to.

While the assassination of Trotsky occurred on the basis of a very personal conflict, I can understand Stalin's reason. Nevertheless, to make the argument many decades after it has occurred that "Trotsky would have done better" is like attempting to remove a body from its grave and say "if they didn't die then..." there is no logical reason one could argue such, so why bother. There's no evidence. That aside, I don't believe that Trotsky would have taken care of the problem, or that he could have done better, because Stalin took care of it the only way it could have been. Sometimes what must be done is not ideal and does not equate with one's vision of what you wish were the means or the outcome. If you use that as your basis for every act post-revolution, the proletarian state will burn down in flames. As I said, it's like playing with cards that are not there.

There are many policies under Stalin that existed in some form under Lenin. Yes, it was carried out differently, but before Lenin died the civil war hadn't developed into such a great conflict and he surely did not have to deal with the clean up, as did Stalin. It is very easy to blame Stalin for the purges, but if you blame Stalin and consider him ruthless, remember that Lenin thought much of it was necessary, even if he did not carry it out in the same exact way. While I see Stalin as having a great difficulty in separating personal issues with comrades from the party, that is a very hard thing to do on any level because such a threat can develop into a greater one, which threatens the state and waiting around for such a development could cause the deaths of comrades and workers- and the destruction of the soviet state. That is something that must be a concern for all comrades during post-revolutionary time, because, we surely do not want kulaks keeping all the grain to themselves and feeding the famine, killing cattle and sabotaging state farms, property.

His role in WWII was especially important. If it wasn't for Stalin, the Nazis may have invaded, the actions of Stalin and the soviet soldiers were heroic and should be honored. The nazis were defeated as a result of those actions and Stalin should be honored for it.

It is unfortunately that so many comrades here have lost respect for Comrade Stalin, he was a great honorable comrade and did his best to continue where Lenin left off. We must not be blinded by reactionary viewpoint and forget the honorable actions of Comrade Stalin.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Neither Stalin nor Trotsky were "comrades," either to each other or to their fellows in the party. Also, how could Stalin have been a "revolutionary"? :confused:

[On a personal basis, one was consistently rude (and called Lenin's wife a "whore"), while the other was consistently arrogant (reading French books at Politburo meetings).]



Nice coloured avatar, though. ;)

[Led Zeppelin]

Don't be so confused Jacob, it has been a while since Nadezhda degenerated into a vulgar Stalinist while still trying to pretend to "like Trotsky".

The truly ridiculous thing is that she tries to invoke Lenin in defense of Stalin. Obviously she is clueless to the whole situation. It was Lenin who called on Stalin to be removed from his position, it was Lenin who was "planning a bomb for Stalin" at the 1923 Congress etc. etc.

I know you as well try to "turn Lenin against Stalin and Trotsky", but at least you don't lean towards Stalin in that respect.

Reading her posts it seems as though you are reading the "official history of the Bolshevik Party", not only because of the historical falsifications and inaccuracies, but also due to the poor, crude, writing style, which is reminiscent of old Stalinist texts.

[Awful Reality]

Rethinking this, it's somewhat more complicated than what I made it out to be.

In 10 years, Russia was able to gain almost 100 years of ground on stronger, more established capitalist nations. Of course, in doing so, millions died and were sent to the gulag. However, if Stalin's Russia progressed at 1,000% faster than the capitalists, it is logical to say that the death toll must be re-calculated by reducing it to 1/1000th. Ergo, if 7 million died under stalin, that is then the equivalent of just 7000 deaths in one year, one certainly under the rate of industrial death in capitalist nations like, say, America.

I'm not entirely defending his tactics; I hate them, but the end goal was desirable. I'm changing my vote to that that he did some good, some bad.

I pulled "7 million" out of my ass. It's just for mathematical purposes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Twenty million victims doesn't necessarily mean that all twenty million of them died, contrary to bourgeois propagandists. Otherwise, how could the Soviet Union have immense population (and economic) growth under Stalin? :)

[Led Zeppelin]

it is logical to say that the death toll must be re-calculated by reducing it to 1/1000th. Ergo, if 7 million died under stalin, that is then the equivalent of just 7000 deaths in one year, one certainly under the rate of industrial death in capitalist nations like, say, America.

I pulled "7 million" out of my ass. It's just for mathematical purposes.

You do realize that the little math quiz you conducted there is absurd and will be considered a joke by any knowledgeable member here from all ideological persuasions, right?

[Awful Reality]

You do realize that the little math quiz you conducted there is absurd and will be considered a joke by any knowledgeable member here from all ideological persuasions, right?

Yes; is there something wrong with it? I don't claim to be good at math. Just "thinking aloud," as it were. Ignore the numbers, and think of the idea behind it. Using them just helped me express myself in text.

[Led Zeppelin]

Ok, in that context I can see some form of argument in it.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

^^^ Neither Stalin nor Trotsky were "comrades," either to each other or to their fellows in the party. Also, how could Stalin have been a "revolutionary"? :confused:

[On a personal basis, one was consistently rude (and called Lenin's wife a "whore"), while the other was consistently arrogant (reading French books at Politburo meetings).]



Nice coloured avatar, though. ;)
These are not "political" arguments but personal ones. There's a difference. In the context that Stalin did insult Lenin's wife, there are issues that should be brought into party affairs and that which should not be. Though it is highly impractical and a far too difficult task for many revolutionaries, party members- these are the things that create conflict which shows itself in a rather ugly form, i.e. the assassination of Trotsky and it becomes impossible to separate personal conflict from the party. It is also very difficult to "prove" a lot of things because much of the documentation comes from Trotsky himself or those of the Left Opposition.


Don't be so confused Jacob, it has been a while since Nadezhda degenerated into a vulgar Stalinist while still trying to pretend to "like Trotsky".

The truly ridiculous thing is that she tries to invoke Lenin in defense of Stalin. Obviously she is clueless to the whole situation. It was Lenin who called on Stalin to be removed from his position, it was Lenin who was "planning a bomb for Stalin" at the 1923 Congress etc. etc.

I know you as well try to "turn Lenin against Stalin and Trotsky", but at least you don't lean towards Stalin in that respect.

Reading her posts it seems as though you are reading the "official history of the Bolshevik Party", not only because of the historical falsifications and inaccuracies, but also due to the poor, crude, writing style, which is reminiscent of old Stalinist texts.
Yes, everything is "degeneration" when against Trotsky :glare: Quit attempting to refute history. It can't be done. Also, the only proof of your arguments are Trotsky and the Trotskyists, so to believe that would be to turn history against itself, on the unfortunate assumption that Trotskyism is the only "correct" telling of history. The only further evidence of stalin's "crimes" is anti-stalinist propaganda created by the Khrushchev-Brezhnev bureaucracy which Trotskyists use to back up Trotsky and Trotskyist arguments.

I provide defense of Joseph Stalin on the basis of history. I don't put words in Lenin's mouth and use it to back up Trotsky's arguments against Stalin and give in to anti-stalinist propaganda that there is no truth to outside of the words of people who had motives against Stalin.

I try very hard not to get into conflict with the Trotskyists here because it turns into needless shit-throwing and goes nowhere, but at times that becomes nearly impossible.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Stalin is the biggest straw man ever constructed by capitalists. Most people here have not actually gone out and researched the subject for themselves. They take Western and Trotsky propagandists for face value when they compare Stalin to Hitler. If you actually read the documents, study the archaeological evidence, and even take into consideration personal accounts you'll see the "evil monster" image is built on lies and exaggerations. Conquest, Orwell, and other critics were working from pure speculation [and in the case of more numerical estimates, anti-communist bias]. At one time a third of the American public was behind comrade Stalin. They responded with discrediting all of his achievements and quadrupling the death rate, claiming kulaks who purposely tried to starve the peasants were "victims" and that the gulags were comparable to Nazi concentration camps - even though the average sentence was five years and people were chosen to perform work based on their physical abilities.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Where did I say anything about "material analysis in my post? Or attempt to "justify" Stalin's mistakes? I said that his errors need to be undertood in their historical context. Would you disagree with that.

Well, just so long as you're not an apologist for the man. I've met plenty of people from various factions on the left who love to do logical backflips in order to defend him.

I agree that his mistakes should be analyzed as far as what conditions were when he was in power; however, I don't support understanding or forgiveness, in any way, shape, or form. Yes, he helped end fascism's spread in Europe. And yes, he did drag Russia kicking and screaming into an industrial future. But, for me anyways, that in no way makes up for the fact that he sent millions to their untimely and unjustified deaths.

[careyprice31]

I'd probably have to pick the third one....He did some good things and some bad things.

He was probably the right man for the time of fighting Hitler.....Truth be tolds I think Bukharin was really a soft marshmellowey man while Stalin was stubborn. You needed a stubborn man to defeat an equally stubborn Hitler who had the most powerful army in europe at the time.

I actually think Stalin......and his army and the bitterly cold Russian weather, plus the fact Hitler did not provide his army with winter clothing because he thought he would beat Moscow before winter came....all of those things saved us from Hitler.

The USSR saved us, IMO. (well the USSR and Britain but the west treated the ussr with much disdain after the war which wasnt called for given what they have done for us.)

[вор в законе]

Stalin this, Stalin that. Mind you we are in the 21st century.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Stalin this, Stalin that. Mind you we are in the 21st century.
Yes, but if it were even proven true that the West lied about Stalin to the extent they have, it would be a major propaganda victory.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ There are LOTS of lies in the Western "accounts," to be sure. Honestly, could the Soviet Union afford 30 million deaths from collectivization to the days before June 22, 1941? :lol:

[darkened day 92]

Stalin distorted all the aspects of socialism and turned them into evil like his collective farming. his government was a capitalist one he had the greed of a capitalist

[F9]

if there is a 15% of revolutionary leftists like stalin we are not going well!

Fuserg9:star:

[RedAnarchist]

I doubt Stalinists make up more than a few percent of the whole revolutionary leftist movement. Most nowadays identify more with Anarchism/Anarchist-Communism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism and Trotskyism.

[There is No God!]

^^^ Well, since you're talking about less political issues like moustaches, I'll up the ante with the Soviet anthem. Unlike the "Brezhnev" version, which I can't seem to memorize "I krasnomu znameni slavnoy otchizny" - let alone the last three lines of the third stanza - I can sing the ENTIRE wartime/"Stalin" anthem and provide the literal translation of even the entire third stanza. :cool:

Nas vyrastil Stalin — na vernost' narodu,
Na trud i na podvigi nas vdokhnovil!

My armiyu nashu rastili v srazhen'yakh,
Zakhvatchikov podlykh s dorogi smetyom!
My v bitvakh reshayem sud'bu pokoleniy,
My k slave Otchiznu svoyu povedyom!

Slavsya, Otechestvo nashe svobodnoye,
Druzhby / Schast'ya / Slavy narodov nadyozhny oplot,
Znamya sovetskoye, znamya narodnoye
Pust' ot pobedy k pobede vedyot!

:D

You need to get laid.

[RHIZOMES]

I doubt Stalinists make up more than a few percent of the whole revolutionary leftist movement. Most nowadays identify more with Anarchism/Anarchist-Communism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism and Trotskyism.

Yeah a lot of Maoists don't mind Stalin much.

I voted "He did some good things and some bad things".

[Judge Dread]

During Stalins reign about 20,000,000 Russians lost their lives not due to war, but by the hands of their so called comrades in the name of Stalin, in the begining probably only because they had a diffrent opinion ( to murder them for that is surely discrasefull ) in later times...millions were deported and butchered for less...(ethnic cleansing , etc , wich is just as ....or even more terrible).
Stalin shamed communism in the biggest sence of the word , communisme derives from the word community , and a community contains many people with various ways of thinking , not allowed in communisme and surrely not allowed during Stalins reign.
Communisme in the basic sence is truly a good thing but has never been realised...not in russia and later the U.S.S.R. , not in Korea , not in China.
In fact ! , the regimes that proclaim(d) to be Communist treat people that think diffrently , minorities be it ethnic , sexual or racial or by faith ...the same as the Nazis did in Germany.

[Judge Dread]

During Stalins reign about 20,000,000 Russians lost their lives not due to war, but by the hands of their so called comrades in the name of Stalin, in the begining probably only because they had a diffrent opinion ( to murder them for that is surely discrasefull ) in later times...millions were deported and butchered for less...(ethnic cleansing , etc , wich is just as ....or even more terrible).
Stalin shamed communism in the biggest sence of the word , communisme derives from the word community , and a community contains many people with various ways of thinking , not allowed in communisme and surrely not allowed during Stalins reign.
Communisme in the basic sence is truly a good thing but has never been realised...not in russia and later the U.S.S.R. , not in Korea , not in China.
In fact ! , the regimes that proclaim(d) to be Communist treat people that think diffrently , minorities be it ethnic , sexual or racial or by faith ...the same as the Nazis did in Germany.

[darkened day 92]

I always said it and i will say it again stalin distorted all wat's in communism. he had a state capitalism even his daughter said it in her documentry!

[careyprice31]

Stalin this, Stalin that. Mind you we are in the 21st century.


yes......this post makes sense.

Stalin here, Stalin there, Stalin Stalin everywhere.

[non-vio-resist]

i find it absurd that anyone on the left even debates the issue of whether or not stalin had a positive or negative impact. it's beyond reason. do you guys really think stalin gave a shit about marxist-leninism? he would have been the same character in tsarist russia or modern-day "monarchy" capitalist russia. anyone who becomes an idol to worship,or a sacred cow as stalin did, so clearly stands for nothing but themselves. yes, he was a brutal tyrant, but his form of nationalistic slavery did enable the ussr to become a superpower. if you think that is accomplishment, then you can also praise hitler for his work in telecommunications, etc. i truly don't understand this debate. do people not understand history when they speak of mao and stalin or are they so sheltered that they cannot even imagine living under such a brutal killer? try to find anyone (grant it it's difficult) who lived in the ussr under stalin who remembers it. i would guarantee they would say it was awful. i'm perplexed. could someone please explain this moral relativism?

[nvm]

Wow so many people have a negative impression of Stalin !
I did not expect that in a leftist forum.
I am glad to see that there are little Stalinists,Maoists and so forth here.
Because they will be our enemies after the revolution when they are going to try to take power imitating their idols!

[Intelligitimate]

The anti-communist nature of this forum is just a reflection of the general low level of education and/or the acceptance of bourgeois propaganda and grade-school brainwashing that exists here. Basically, most here are just ignorant teenagers, though there are also a number of comitted anti-communists, like svetlana and Zim.

[F9]

men because we dont "Like" stalin(asshole) we are anti-communists?Antistalinists are moro communists from stalinists!Even anarchists who hate stalin are more close to communism than stalinists!
And yes we are low-education we havent got money to go to rich universities to get smart!

Fuserg9:star:

[Invader Zim]

The anti-communist nature of this forum is just a reflection of the general low level of education and/or the acceptance of bourgeois propaganda and grade-school brainwashing that exists here. Basically, most here are just ignorant teenagers, though there are also a number of comitted anti-communists, like svetlana and Zim.

The only anti-communists here are those who litter the thread with servile apologism for a man who, still to this day, has destroyed the reputation of communism.

[Intelligitimate]

The only people who have destroyed the reputation of communism are the fascists, the bourgeoisie, and their pseudo-Leftist cheerleaders like yourself who spread any vicious lie imaginable in order to prop-up the capitalist status quo. The only one who is servile to anything is you, to your bourgeois masters. This is why you openly cite the most reactionary Cold War propaganda you can find, no matter how thoroughly debunked, because you're an anti-communist piece of shit.

[spartan]

Stalin hasnt got anything on Erich Honecker so stop your bickering people!
http://www.karl-grobe.de/pics/portrait/hony.jpg

[Os Cangaceiros]

Honecker...positively Godlike, if you ask me. :D

[Invader Zim]

The only people who have destroyed the reputation of communism are the fascists, the bourgeoisie, and their pseudo-Leftist cheerleaders like yourself who spread any vicious lie imaginable in order to prop-up the capitalist status quo. The only one who is servile to anything is you, to your bourgeois masters. This is why you openly cite the most reactionary Cold War propaganda you can find, no matter how thoroughly debunked, because you're an anti-communist piece of shit.


This is why you openly cite the most reactionary Cold War propaganda you can find, no matter how thoroughly debunked, because you're an anti-communist piece of shit.You know nothing about the history of the Soviet Union, and you have proven time and again you know nothing about the historiography of Stalin's regime; so for you to proclaim that I employ Cold War propaganda which has been 'debunked' is just another addition to your ever growing list of lies. Your typical fall back claiming to cite the work of Getty is fake, as are all your attempts to claim that you possess a remotely left wing ideology.

[careyprice31]

"The anti-communist nature of this forum is just a reflection of the general low level of education and/or the acceptance of bourgeois propaganda and grade-school brainwashing that exists here. Basically, most here are just ignorant teenagers, though there are also a number of comitted anti-communists, like svetlana and Zim."

I am anti- communist?

wtf? excuse me?

:blink:

I am much more a leftist than Stalin apologists ever are.

[Marsella]

His role in WWII was especially important. If it wasn't for Stalin, the Nazis may have invaded, the actions of Stalin and the soviet soldiers were heroic and should be honored. The nazis were defeated as a result of those actions and Stalin should be honored for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

[proleterian fist]

Well I voted for "He did some good things and some bad things"

He was a big leader but his socialism theory doesn't address to whole of the world.He always intended a revolution only in Soviet Russia but Trotsky was an internationalist and his theories were much closer to Marxism in this case.
However,Stalin saved us from Hitler I can't deny this.He intended to do some good things but he couldn't and some slanders about him was actually after his death.
Besides,Che Guevara was an admirer of him.This is really a hard subject to find out true one but I will be following how will this discussion get on.

[spartan]

However,Stalin saved us from Hitler I can't deny this.
Actually it was the millions of Soviet soldiers and citizens who saved us from Hitler and his hordes.

Stalin's role wasnt even that of a commander as his brief experience of command led to numerous disasters for the Red Army, which led to him giving full control over military affairs to the Generals.

I can agree that Stalin's role as a popular (Perhaps even feared by some) figure was reassuring for the Soviet people, but why people attribute the defeat of an entire nation and its ideology to one man is beyond me.

I dont think that Stalin himself would be stupid enough to agree with that sort of logic.

[Nosotros]

Stalin was worse than Hitler, he killed more people and was an anti-semite, a bigot and a paranoid, power obsessed madman. His reign would never have come about if it wasn't for Lenin and Trotsky and perhaps Marxism itself, that is my own opinion as an Anarcho-Communist.

[Marsella]

Stalin was worse than Hitler, he killed more people and was an anti-semite, a bigot and a paranoid, power obsessed madman. His reign would never have come about if it wasn't for Lenin and Trotsky and perhaps Marxism itself, that is my own opinion as an Anarcho-Communist.

Please...

I'm not fan of Stalin but comparing the USSR to the mass genocide of Hitler's Germany?

[Sendo]

genocide doesn't always have to be racial in character. It is any systematic killing of any ethnicity, nationality, religious group, but not limited to these.

Killing all homosexuals for being homosexuals is genocide, killing Palestinians is genocide, killing people for simply holding oppositional ideology (especially if non-violent) is genocide. Killing a certain caste or class of people, or certain occupational set of people is also genocide. The definition is quite broad. It is not limited to anti-semitism. I would place Stalin as genocidal against rural people and national minorities within the USSR.

Killing is usually not called genocide when it is retribution for certain physical crimes or in defense against aggression or against soldiers on a battlefield.

Khmer Rouge, for example, is universally labeled as genocidal. They killed non-Khmer ethnic groups, yes, but also anyone with relations with foreigners, anyone with a education, anyone from the cities, homosexuals and other "Deviants."

[spartan]

I would place Stalin as genocidal against rural people and national minorities within the USSR.

I wouldnt personally agree that Stalin was genocidal against national minorities.

There is a strong case that he commited ethnic cleansing via the forced displacement of entire national minorities before, during and after WW2.

Though i think that it is important not to forget the unique situation and set of circumstances that everyone in the USSR found themselves in during the 1940's (Which i dont think i need to remind people of on a leftist forum).

I think the trouble with Stalin is that his thinking seems to be tantamount to this "So one person in a small community has been collaborating with forces which are against me, so i will deport this person and the entire community which this person is apart of for this persons actions".

There is always such a thing as going a bit too far.

Though i am sure that some will say that there is also such a thing as not going far enough:D

*Waits for the HU to get involved*

[bezdomni]

There is a strong case that he commited ethnic cleansing via the forced displacement of entire national minorities before, during and after WW2.
what?

[Random Precision]

what?

I think he may be referring to the Volga Germans, who were forcibly moved to Kazakhstan during World War II.

[Rhino Thunder Pants]

omfg this must be a joke stalin killed over 60 million people in his years of power and who ever made this post the worst is a negative impression how about putting it as a an evil murdering prick.
he had trotsky killed with an ice pick and how dare any1 even compare him to any communist or even leftist he was worse than Hitler as he ahs given communism the worse name possible as 15-16 yr olds learn about it in school they dont really get the best impression

[spartan]

I think he may be referring to the Volga Germans, who were forcibly moved to Kazakhstan during World War II.

Dont forget the Chechens either.

[Random Precision]

Stalin hasnt got anything on Erich Honecker so stop your bickering people!

I have absolutely no idea why you have this newfound fascination with that old German Stalinist, Spartan.

[Redmau5]

I have absolutely no idea why you have this newfound fascination with that old German Stalinist, Spartan.

He's taking the piss out of the Hoxhaists.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I highly doubt that mass deportations of ethnic groups occurred in the massiveness described by many historians. By the time of the German invasion, there was just under four to six million people in the Gulag, and a majority were were common criminals, kulaks, and bandits. The Chechens was an ethnic group that existed by the millions under the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, so the proposition that 'he sent them all to the Gulag' is ridiculous. They were one of the national minorities that benefited the most from the Bolshevik policy towards oppressed peoples within their borders.

I clicked 'some good, some bad', because during his years as General Secretary, agricultural production was raised between 13.1 billion rubles to 23.2 billion, industrial production increased by 16.2%, literacy jumped up dramatically, the infant mortality rate dropped, and the overall standard of living became higher than most other advanced capitalist countries.

He did, however, act maliciously towards his foes, and was not afraid to use force to bend the Party to his will. It is also obvious that he carried out collectivization too fast, and broke the worker-peasant alliance that was essential to carrying on socialist objectives in the countryside.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Random: And the Chechens.

LSR, you became a Maoist???

[Intelligitimate]

You know nothing about the history of the Soviet Union,


This from the dumb motherfucker who cited debates in the 80s on the size of the penal population when the figures had already been published. You're a stupid fucking bastard who doesn't know the first thing about the field. You said Conquest was famous for his archival work, based on a book written in the 80s and a 90s reprint of a work from the 60s! You're an ignorant, lying piece of shit.



so for you to proclaim that I employ Cold War propaganda which has been 'debunked' is just another addition to your ever growing list of lies.


Except your dick-sucking of Conquest can easily be found via the search function, you stupid lying fuck.



Your typical fall back claiming to cite the work of Getty is fake, as are all your attempts to claim that you possess a remotely left wing ideology.


What a fucking moron you are. You need to stick to watching canceled Nickelodeon cartoons, because you're a total failure when it comes to studying history and life in general.

[Intelligitimate]

While I believe there have been inflations to the figures espouced in said work, which have been exposed by later perhaps better studies I don't think that Conquest can be described as unscholarly, despite been a rather unpleasant neo-con (as pointed out by Richard Evans). More worringly from the position of the Stalinist, many historians with form leftwing credentials have backed the statistics of individuals such as Conquest.

The likes of Courtois and Conquest can be accused of many things, that they are not 'serious historians', is hardly one of them.

I have read a number of Conquest's works and works by the above, and I can assure you they are not unscholarly
This one we know is a lie, because you're too stupid to realize neither of these works had any basis in archival research, which lead you to make your other moronic dick-sucking assertion:



That is as maybe, however Conquest is famous, in part, for his prodigious exploration of the Soviet archives and sources once they were opened; and his views - he claimed - are supported by the archival evidence.



An interesting point is that upon release of the soviet archives, Robert Conquest had a name for his new book suggested for him; it was, "How about 'I told you so, you fucking fools'?"
Here Zim approvingly quotes the dick-sucking suggestion of what Conquest's reprint should be called.


It's quite easy to see Zim will tell bald-faced lies. It is quite clear he has outright lied about his support for the work of extreme anti-communists like Conquest and Applebaum. Zim is a lying piece of shit, and absolutely nothing this worthless piece of human garbage says should be trusted.

[letsgetfree]

How do you all account for his attempts to democratise the Soviet Union then?

[RedAnarchist]

omfg this must be a joke stalin killed over 60 million people in his years of power and who ever made this post the worst is a negative impression how about putting it as a an evil murdering prick.
he had trotsky killed with an ice pick and how dare any1 even compare him to any communist or even leftist he was worse than Hitler as he ahs given communism the worse name possible as 15-16 yr olds learn about it in school they dont really get the best impression

60 million people? I'm an Anarchist and even I don't believe that! Unless you have proof that the population of the Soviet Union dipped enough during Stalin's reign to back up that number.

[RedAnarchist]

I put good things & bad things, because I don't think he was either good or bad.

[Marsella]

This one we know is a lie, because you're too stupid to realize neither of these works had any basis in archival research, which lead you to make your other moronic dick-sucking assertion


Here Zim approvingly quotes the dick-sucking suggestion of what Conquest's reprint should be called.


Conquest cock sucker Zim

Yeah because sucking cocks is just sooo yuck. :glare:

Fuck off with your homophobic attacks.

[Intelligitimate]

Didn't mean anything in a homophobic way, just more a less an insulting way to say worshipful, adoring, etc. For all I know Zim is female and this wouldn't have anything to do with homosexuality at all.

But I'll refrain from saying something like that in the future, least I do offend anyone other than Zim with my remarks.

[apathy maybe]

Look reject, you offended me. It has nothing to do with gender or whatever, you were flaming for no good reason. It doesn't matter that you only meant to insult Invader Zim rather then anyone else, that sort of shit isn't acceptable here.

Not only were you flaming (which does offend people other then the target), you were doing it in a homophobic way, even if you didn't mean to. Even if Zim is female, 'she' might not be attracted to men at all, in which case, the attacks are still shit.

How about you learn to moderate your self rather then engaging in spiteful attacks on other people?

--//--

Anyway, Stalin was a villain. I don't need any evidence or reasoning, because I'm not interested in engaging in a debate.

[Intelligitimate]

I really don't care if I offend you for returning what that stupid fuck Zim dishes out, as Zim flames people all the time. I don't want to offend anyone's sexual preferences (I highly doubt I did, probably just an excuse to attack me for something you might be able to get people in the CC behind you/Zim), but I could careless what you think of me telling Zim what a pathetic anti-communist piece of shit he/she is.

[spartan]

Didn't mean anything in a homophobic way, just more a less an insulting way to say worshipful, adoring, etc.

You said these things to demean Zim, so why?

What is so bad about sucking someones cock that you go and use it as an attempt at demeaning someone who you happen not to agree with on a certain issue?

And your excuse of not meaning what you said in a homophobic way is rather pathetic as it would be tantamount to you walking up to a black person and calling them a n****r and then adding that you didnt mean it in a racist way!

[Intelligitimate]

You said these things to demean Zim, so why?

What is so bad about sucking someones cock that you go and use it as an attempt at demeaning someone who you happen not to agree with on a certain issue?

This is insanity.


And your excuse of not meaning what you said in a homophobic way is rather pathetic as it would be tantamount to you walking up to a black person and calling them a n****r and then adding that you didnt mean it in a racist way!

Bullshit. I don't even fucking know what gender Zim is. This is just probably some orchestrated excuse to smear me as homophobic by the anarcho-Trot trash that inhabit this forum.

There is nothing homophobic about what I said at all. There is no statement and/or judgement about Zim's sexuality at all in anything I said.

[spartan]

This is just probably some orchestrated excuse to smear me as homophobic by the anarcho-Trot trash that inhabit this forum.
Dont be silly.

Everyone is treated equally here with a perfect example being my suspension not so long ago (Even though you would probably class me as one of the favoured "Anarcho-Trot trash").


There is nothing homophobic about what I said at all. There is no statement and/or judgement about Zim's sexuality at all in anything I said.

Except that you called Zim a "cock sucker" which is a term of abuse synonymous with the demeaning of men deemed too "effeminate" or not "man enough" by other people (Or alternatively for a woman who is considered "easy" or a "whore").

The fact that you use it so wantonly as a term of abuse, without considering its offensive nature to some people (Such as myself who is bisexual), is worrying indeed.

[Intelligitimate]

Dont be silly.

I'm not. I'm just aware of how things work around here behind the scenes.


Except that you called Zim a "cock sucker" which is a term of abuse synonymous with the demeaning of men deemed too "effeminate" or not "man enough" by other people (Or alternatively for a woman who is considered "easy" or a "whore").

The fact that you use it so wantonly as a term of abuse, without considering its offensive nature to some people (Such as myself who is bisexual), is worrying indeed.

Except the remark has nothing to do with being effeminate at all. It's about Conquest and Zim's lying about his support for him and other Cold Warriors like Anne Applebaum (who doesn't have a dick). It's a statement about Zim's closeness to these people. It's meant to convey being in bed, as in, being in league and sharing the same ideals as these people. Choosing to interpret it as some kind of remark about Zim's sexuality is just bizarre, and is undoubtedly just a smear for future ammunition in the CC.

Again, this is just completely retarded bullshit, and I'm not gonna answer another post regarding this issue.

[Invader Zim]

This from the dumb motherfucker who cited debates in the 80s on the size of the penal population when the figures had already been published. You're a stupid fucking bastard who doesn't know the first thing about the field. You said Conquest was famous for his archival work, based on a book written in the 80s and a 90s reprint of a work from the 60s! You're an ignorant, lying piece of shit.





Except your dick-sucking of Conquest can easily be found via the search function, you stupid lying fuck.





What a fucking moron you are. You need to stick to watching canceled Nickelodeon cartoons, because you're a total failure when it comes to studying history and life in general.


This from the dumb motherfucker who cited debates in the 80s on the size of the penal population when the figures had already been published.Getty's works on the great terror and prison population were from the 80s and early 90's.


You said Conquest was famous for his archival work, based on a book written in the 80s and a 90s reprint of a work from the 60s!As I proved by citing reviews of the work, but then again you are utterly ignorant of the field and historical process. I, thankfully, am not.

I also recall your utterly ignorant lies when you claimed that in the 80's scholars had no, absolutely zero, access to the soviet archives in the 1980's. Face it, you were exposed.


Except your dick-suckingWhat next, after 'dick-sucking' (as if there is anything wrong with that), are you just going to go all out and start calling people 'fags'? I see we can add homophobia to your list of failings as a leftist.


because you're a total failure when it comes to studying history and life in general.LOL, being a Stalin kiddie that statement is exceptionally hypocritical in terms of both the former and the latter, and as a homophobe the latter even more so.


Here Zim approvingly quotes the dick-sucking suggestion of what Conquest's reprint should be called.How is that 'approving'? You are just making this shit up; like everything else you say.


for returning what that stupid fuck Zim dishes out, as Zim flames people all the time.

Your lying again, our 'tiff' started when you flamed me, so don't try and pretend that I 'dished' anything out to you, until you made it quite clear that vulgarities are all you can get your tiny mind round.

[Intelligitimate]

Getty's works on the great terror and prison population were from the 80s and early 90's.More idiocy and dishonesty from you. The article I cited was printed in 1993, and the Zemskov figures were revealed, but improperly cited, in 89. The shit you cited was from even earlier, before the figures were known. Only someone ignorant of the fact that the information was already available would cite debates from the 80s on the USSR's penal population, which is exactly what you did.


As I proved by citing reviews of the work, but then again you are utterly ignorant of the field and historical process. I, thankfully, am not.You didn't prove shit, you dumb fuck. Who cares what some ignorant reviewer says about Conquest's non-existent archival work? Of the books you cited, one was a reprint of his work from the 60s and the other was from the 80s, when no Western scholar had any real access to the archives (as the very article you cited demonstrated), and the one from the 80s received incredibly negative reviews from the scholars in the field. Even Conquest doesn't maintain the famine-genocide thesis anymore. You're just a fucking idiot. I doubt you've even read The Great Terror.


I also recall your utterly ignorant lies when you claimed that in the 80's scholars had no, absolutely zero, access to the soviet archives in the 1980's. Face it, you were exposed.Just a twisting of words. The source you cited confirmed exactly what I said was the case, you're just too fucking stupid to read anything beyond the first paragraph, and you undoubtedly just found it by doing some academic source of the work I mentioned about what was coming out of the 80s, as it was the first source cited by your source.


What next, after 'dick-sucking' (as if there is anything wrong with that), are you just going to go all out and start calling people 'fags'? I see we can add homophobia to your list of failings as a leftist.Go to fucking hell, you stupid fuck. Why don't you try to get me Restricted in the CC again, if you think this will hold? Go ahead and get whatever other anarcho-Trot trash friends you have to pretend to be offended by taking my comments completely out of context and slander me in the CC.


LOL, being a Stalin kiddie that statement is exceptionally hypocritical in terms of both the former and the latter, and as a homophobe the latter even more so.More vicious slander, just so you can retry my Restriction with more lies in the CC.


How is that 'approving'? You are just making this shit up; like everything else you say.People can read your comment and judge for themselves. You clearly praise the work of extreme anti-communist reactionaries like Conquest and Applebaum. Anyone can see that.


Your lying again, our 'tiff' started when you flamed me, so don't try and pretend that I 'dished' anything out to you, until you made it quite clear that vulgarities are all you can get your tiny mind round.Except the opposite is the case, with you stating people who question your anti-communist version of history "are like holocaust deniers and white supremacists, in my opinion Stalinists should be treated like holocaust deniers and white supremacists." You have no interest in civil discussion at all, and certainly made zero effort to maintain any sort of civility, you lying piece of shit.

[Luís Henrique]

Intelligitimate, I am warning you for your constant flaming. This is the second time I have to do it. Please stop.

Luís Henrique

[Pero]

Stalin has given communism and horrible name. The fact that people associate Stalin with Communism is horrible, he was more of a fascist, or national socialist.

[Invader Zim]

before the figures were known.The figures aren't definitively known; had you well been well versed in this topic you too would have known that.


You didn't prove shit, You are quite correct, i didn't prove 'shit', I proved you wrong; are you shit? While it would be easy to equate you to shit, that would invoke the rath of the moderators.


Who cares what some ignorant reviewer says about Conquest's non-existent archival workPeople who review work in professional scholarly journals are invited to do so because of their expert knowledge, so by definition they are not just 'some ignorant reviewer'. I have been forbidden to openly call you ignorant, but I must again note your obvious lack of familiarity with the academic process.


one was a reprint of his work from the 60sErr... no. A re-print is to take an existing edition and produce more carbon copies of its content; Conquest produced a new, separate edition in light of new evidence. You can take issue with his use of that evidence as you choose.


when no Western scholar had any real access to the archives (as the very article you cited demonstrated)The article demonstrated no such thing. Obviously your source criticism requires some serious work. The article stated that his earliest perusal into the archival material was heavily restricted. He did not say that later archival work was equally harshly restricted and nor did he say that those exact restrictions were employed universally; especially to the well connected. You may be interested to know that to this day there are restrictions to Soviet Archival material, that does not imply that historians cannot find useful materials.


I doubt you've even read The Great Terror.Your doubts are misplaced, I however know you haven't read beyond a couple of lines of Getty, either that or you have grossly misread him.


Just a twisting of words.No, I didn't you are just back-peddling. For all those not party to Intelli's fallacy, i shall quote him now for you: -

"No non-Russian scholar was doing any archival research in the USSR in the 1980s"

See, no need to 'twist' your words, you stated a fallacy; one I was forced to correct you on.


and you undoubtedly just found it by doing some academic source of the work I mentioned about what was coming out of the 80s, as it was the first source cited by your source.LOL, I told you you had been wrong long before I produced the source; I knew you were wrong because, unlike you, I have actually studied the subject beyond reading some online Stalinist junk history page. I also told you how to find that article and numerous others like it in the thread. As for reading the article, I actually have read (and make a point of) everything I cite... unlike you. You were wrong, I was right, get over it.


Why don't you try to get me Restricted in the CC againI actually tried for the most part to get you suspended, but I may take you up on this. You clearly, as a troll and homophobe, belong there.


Go ahead and get whatever other anarcho-Trot trash friends you have to pretend to be offended by taking my comments completely out of context and slander me in the CC.LOL, you just don't get why homophobic slurs aren't acceptable do you?


More vicious slander,Firstly; as its written it would be libel, if it were untrue, secondly; as it is true (as several people have pointed out), it is neither libel or slander.


People can read your comment and judge for themselves.Indeed they can, and no doubt think you are talking utter rubbish.


You clearly praise the work of extreme anti-communist reactionaries like Conquest and Applebaum. Anyone can see that.No, just you. Incidentally Getty is also an anti-communist reactionary, but you praise him... despite the fact you pretty clearly haven't read his work in enough detail to have grasped his arguments or to make such a judgement.


Except the opposite is the case,For all those who haven't been keeping tabs on our brief but heated discourses, this is an extract of the first post Intelli ever directed to me, and the post which first brought him to my attention: -

"You're just a stupid worthless anti-communist shit.

It was indeed in response to a post which Intelli has provided; but it wasn't directed specifically at him, it was civil (if sectarian), it is also entirely accurate for reasons I outlined, and I responded quite civilly despite Intelli's warm response in the thread. Intelli also took said comment well out of context, in context it clearly is an attack on Stalinists attempts to vindicate Stalin of blame for the mass slaughter that occurred under his regime; rather than an attack on them as individuals.

Sorry Intelli, but you started this; as you have done to several others.

[Robespierre2.0]

But Stalin didn't kill anyone... He just made speeches and stuff...

[Invader Zim]

But Stalin didn't kill anyone... He just made speeches and stuff...

Oh certainly it is unlikely he personally didn't fire the rifle personally, or lock the Gulag gates personally; but it was his regime and his orders.

[spartan]

Anyway back on topic i think that Stalin was alot like Ivan the Terrible (Whom some think he modelled himself on).

Though i think that he has quite a similarity with Napoleon Bonaparte as both men served a progressive revolution, that overthrew Autocratic rule, only to later themselves become Autocratic rulers after there ambitions for power were realised.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I'm between option #2 and #3. He did some positive and some negative, but the vast majority is positive. The positive totaly out weighs the negative.

[Intelligitimate]

I lost this post halfway through, so I had to redo it. Very frustrating.


The figures aren't definitively known; had you well been well versed in this topic you too would have known that.This is just you desperately grasping at straws. Let’s review your statement:


Wheatecroft, whle certainly taking issue with Rosefielde sources and figures, he does not attack the fact that a vast number of people were in them. In his 1981 article critiquing Rosefielde, Wheatecroft argues that upto 4-5 million labourers could have been in the camps in 1939.

Not only do you cite material completely out of date, showing your complete lack of familiarity with the subject, you misrepresent Wheatecroft’s work. Not only does Wheatecroft completely accept the figures I cited, he has engaged in numerous polemics against Conquest, who wants to disregard the published figures because they are not high enough. Not only that, Wheatecroft has outright stated he inflated his own earlier estimates by a million. You would know this if you actually read anything by Wheatecroft written in the last 10 years. I will make the proper citations as soon as I return to my University demonstrating this.

The fact that you would cite such completely out of date material shows your utter lack of familiarity not only with the fact the figures have been published, but your utter lack of familiarity with Wheatecroft’s scholarship. You’re not fooling anyone who has any knowledge about this field, but you continue to pretend like you do anyway.


You are quite correct, i didn't prove 'shit', I proved you wrong; are you shit? While it would be easy to equate you to shit, that would invoke the rath of the moderators.Again, more of your flaming, showing whatever scheme you have going behind the scenes you don’t give a shit about. You don’t give a shit about remaining civil in the slightest, and never have, as I’ve already demonstrated.


People who review work in professional scholarly journals are invited to do so because of their expert knowledge, so by definition they are not just 'some ignorant reviewer'. I have been forbidden to openly call you ignorant, but I must again note your obvious lack of familiarity with the academic process.1. You never once cited a single review of Conquest’s work demonstrating his non-existent archival work. Not one. Zero. So your statement that:

“As I proved by citing reviews of the work, but then again you are utterly ignorant of the field and historical process. I, thankfully, am not.”

Is completely and totally false because you didn’t even cite a single fucking review!

2. People write horribly ignorant reviews all the time.

3. You again are flaming, showing you don’t give a fuck about civility, despite allegedly being “forbidden” to say exactly what you say anyway. Probably just more of your scheming.


Err... no. A re-print is to take an existing edition and produce more carbon copies of its content; Conquest produced a new, separate edition in light of new evidence. You can take issue with his use of that evidence as you choose.The work is almost entirely a reprint. I checked it against my 60s edition. The last section of the original "Epilogue: The Aftermath," which contained some of his bogus calculations, is replaced with "Book III." Otherwise, it is word-for-word what is in the 60s edition.

Again, this is the work you said you had in mind when you said Conquest for famous for his “prodigious exploration of the Soviet archives.” You clearly haven’t read the book.


The article demonstrated no such thing.Except that is exactly what it demonstrated. To quote myself:


I admit my wording was not very precise. Some non-Russians did have rather limited access to the archives, though did not do anything of real importance. This is confirmed by the very source you cite, which you either did not fully read or quoted dishonestly.

"Moreover, the terms of admission imposed from above also put me on edge. For one thing, I was shown -- and then only after frustrating delays -- a mere twenty archival files (dela). I could not consult archival inventories (iopisi) or catalogs, discuss my research with archivists willing to help, or inspect files in the same building in which our Soviet colleagues conducted their research."

The first work cited in this article is the one I just mentioned, R. W. Davies Soviet History in the Gorbachev Revolution which leads me to believe it was also the first thing you could find in your college's academic journal search. Raliegh's difficulties were not unique, and were part of the wider restrictions placed on any non-Russian seeking access to the archives. To quote Davies:

"While the battles are still continuing, all historians are agreed that the restrictions on access to the archives constitute a major obstacle to serious research, , ,While British scholars are still not allowed to consult the catalogues (opisi) relating to the Soviet period, and depend on archivists to supply a limited range of files on their topics, access to the material on the Soviet period has improved since as early as 1981, particularly after the archival protocol signed in March 1984 between the State Archive Administration and the British Academic Committee for Liason with Soviet Archives."

This statement was made as late as 1989, when the figures for the Gulag populations were being published (again, without proper citation). Your source, and Davies, confirm what I said, if taken in the sense I meant it, which was that no non-Russian was doing any serious archival research. The confusion though is entirely my own fault, and for that I do apologize.

Again, you’re desperately grasping at straws by taking the literal meaning over the intent of my remarks. Your own source even confirmed what I said. No Western scholar was doing any serious archival research in the 80s. Davies’ book doesn’t even mention any work done by Western scholars for a reason: they weren’t doing anything worthwhile at all.


The article stated that his earliest perusal into the archival material was heavily restricted. He did not say that later archival work was equally harshly restricted and nor did he say that those exact restrictions were employed universallyDavies more than makes clear this was the case as far along as 1989, as I cited.


You may be interested to know that to this day there are restrictions to Soviet Archival material, that does not imply that historians cannot find useful materials.I don’t need you to tell me a god damn thing about the Soviet archives.


Your doubts are misplaced, I however know you haven't read beyond a couple of lines of Getty, either that or you have grossly misread him.This is just more of your utter bullshit. You haven’t read Conquest, otherwise you would know the work is almost completely a reprint and wouldn’t say something incredibly ignorant like the book made him famous for his “prodigious exploration of the Soviet archives.” You didn’t even read Raliegh's article.


LOL, I told you you had been wrong long before I produced the source; I knew you were wrong because, unlike you, I have actually studied the subject beyond reading some online Stalinist junk history page.No, what you did was thought you found something you could use after putting Davies book into some academic search engine. The very first work Raliegh cites is the work I mentioned in the post beforehand.


I also told you how to find that article and numerous others like it in the thread.You didn’t, and I don’t need or want help from someone who doesn’t know anything about the field.


I actually tried for the most part to get you suspended, but I may take you up on this. You clearly, as a troll and homophobe, belong there.This shows you will resort to any lie to suit your purposes.


LOL, you just don't get why homophobic slurs aren't acceptable do you?Absolutely nothing I said was homophobic in anyway.


Firstly; as its written it would be libel, if it were untrue, secondly; as it is true (as several people have pointed out), it is neither libel or slander.Slander is colloquially defined as false and malicious statements against a person. That is what this is.

I demand moderator action against this incredibly vicious slander on my character. If the moderators here give a shit about flaming (which I doubt), they will do something about this.


Indeed they can, and no doubt think you are talking utter rubbish.They can and will see you quite clearly cite Conquest’s work approvingly, and that you subsequently lied about doing so.


No, just you. Incidentally Getty is also an anti-communist reactionary, but you praise him... despite the fact you pretty clearly haven't read his work in enough detail to have grasped his arguments or to make such a judgement.I’ve read his work in great detail, and I’m quite familiar with him and many other figures in the field. You clearly are not, for reasons already stated. Getty is not a communist, this is quite obvious and doesn’t need to be stated. Getty is an academic historian who is generally concerned about studying history and telling the truth, not promoting an extremely reactionary form of politics, like Conquest and the other Cold Warriors.


For all those who haven't been keeping tabs on our brief but heated discourses, this is an extract of the first post Intelli ever directed to me, and the post which first brought him to my attention: -

"You're just a stupid worthless anti-communist shit.

It was indeed in response to a post which Intelli has provided; but it wasn't directed specifically at him, it was civil (if sectarian), it is also entirely accurate for reasons I outlined, and I responded quite civilly despite Intelli's warm response in the thread.1. It was not civil at all, unless you have an utterly bizarre idea of what being civil means.

2. Nor was your response civil. Your response went so far as to compare me to Hitler.

3. I actually tried to make an effort to be somewhat civil to you, but this was never reciprocated by you at all. I eventually got fed up with your bullshit and just starting responding to you in kind.


Intelli also took said comment well out of context, in context it clearly is an attack on Stalinists attempts to vindicate Stalin of blame for the mass slaughter that occurred under his regime; rather than an attack on them as individuals.This is hysterical. You actually think comparing people to “holocaust deniers and white supremacists” isn’t an attack on individuals who participate on this forum? Are stupid/smoking crack or lying? It has to be lying, because no one could possibly be so fucking stupid as to honestly suggest comparing the views of certain people who participate on this forum who disagree with you to “holocaust denies and white supremacists” is not an outright attack on them.


Sorry Intelli, but you started this; as you have done to several others.No, you started it and continued it, even when I was attempting to be civil. I have had relatively civil discussions with others before on this forum about Soviet history, namely Svetlana and gilhyle, and some other person that changes their name often, and I’d probably include chimx, though that was also rather rocky at first. You have no interest in civility, you just want to pretend like you’re an authority on the subject when you’re clearly not and have been exposed as incredibly ignorant of the relevant literature.

[Marsella]

Didn't mean anything in a homophobic way, just more a less an insulting way to say worshipful, adoring Well then use those words.

Besides, your use of 'sucking dick' comparing to worshipping is chauvinistic.


For all I know Zim is female and this wouldn't have anything to do with homosexuality at all.No, in which case it would just be chauvinistic in dismissing a member's opinion and telling them to suck a cock.

Really, Zim's gender is irrelevant.

Using the smear of telling someone to suck cock relies on the attitude that homosexuality is wrong; otherwise you would not be using it as an insult. The common usage of the word is directed towards to accusing someone of homosexuality.

So don't use it.


I don't want to offend anyone's sexual preferences (I highly doubt I did, probably just an excuse to attack me for something you might be able to get people in the CC behind you/Zim),
But I'll refrain from saying something like that in the future, least I do offend anyone other than Zim with my remarks.It doesn't matter whether you offended anyone.

What matters is that you're relying on reactionary attitudes.

I didn't start a thread in the CC, nor would I support a restriction of you anyway.

I just wanted you to acknowledge that the words you used are uncalled for, which you, surprisingly, did. :)

[Invader Zim]

I just wanted you to acknowledge that the words you used are uncalled for, which you, surprisingly, did.He hasn't, as he keeps on pointing out. He doesn't think there is a single reactionary thing about what he said. The only reason he says he wont continue to use them is because of the barrage of criticism he has recieved.


This is just you desperately grasping at straws.Hardly. had you been well abrest of the topic you would understand that Gettys stats are far from comprehensive, he even admitted that he was using just one set of sources, has long attacked human account and accepted his study was incomplete. You simply put these admitted and accepted methological holes down to 'modesty'. This is because you seemingly dont understand historical method.

I have also noticed that you utterly igniored the fact that I produced scholarship in a chronological order, finally ending with Bacon (no doubt whom you have never heard of) who outlines the inconclusiveness of the debate. That article was from 1992, and Bacon in 1996, would produce a book on the subject with a healthy section on the existing historiography. In this work he explores both arguments, and comes down on the side of the lower numbers, but asserts that these numbers have been repressed.

Additionally Rosefielde, whom you don't like, has shown that th figures used by Getty are inconsistant, as he shows in his 1996 article 'Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s'.


You don’t give a shit about remaining civil in the slightest, and never have, as I’ve already demonstrated.Pots and kettles my dear. Just remember, you are the one who flamed me in this thread without a single post of mine in this thread, and also despite the fact that we had ignored each other for several weeks. So don't cry about getting back a piece of what you regularly dish out.



Is completely and totally false because you didn’t even cite a single fucking review!On that one point you have me, it was an oversite. However it does not alter the fact I did provide a review of another of his works, which you were making the same criticisms of. It also doesn't alter the fact that the version is very different, you claim to have both (an obvious lie); well if you did, you would know that in the 40 anniversary edition, Conquest had actually revised his totals reducing between 5-7 million from his origional count.


People write horribly ignorant reviews all the time.Well certainly you do, when every time an academic is provided who has decidedly different views to you they are subject to nothing but slurs and ad hominems.


The work is almost entirely a reprint. I checked it against my 60s edition.See above.


To quote myself:You were wrong before you still are. My previous responce addressed all of that and more.


. Your own source even confirmed what I said.Err, no it hasn't. You said no access, the article proved you wrong. What part of that can you not get through that head of yours?


No Western scholar was doing any serious archival research in the 80s.This is simply untrue; it is certainly the case that these people were faced with serious restrictions; but to claim that they were incapable of any 'serious' research in the 80's is manifestly untrue as even the most junior Russianist knows.


Davies more than makes clear this was the case as far along as 1989, as I cited.The fact of the matter is you claimed they had no access in the 1980's and even Davies proves you wrong. My claim was that in the 80's academics from the west were gaining limited access to the archives, you contradicted me; you were wrong. Now you are backpeddling.


I don’t need you to tell me a god damn thing about the Soviet archives.You wouldn't listen anyway.


after putting Davies book into some academic search engine.This simply isn't the case.


This shows you will resort to any lie to suit your purposes.You used homophobic chauvanistic slurs, its not a lie, they are there in black and white.


Absolutely nothing I said was homophobic in anyway.the fact that you cannot see how your language was and is reactionary says it all.


Slander is colloquially defined as false and malicious statements against a person. That is what this is.Apparently the nuances of the English language are yet another thing you fail to understand: -

"slander
• noun Law 1 the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation. Compare with LIBEL (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/libel). 2 a false and malicious spoken statement."

From the Oxford English Dictionary.


If the moderators here give a shit about flaming (which I doubt), they will do something about this.Indeed they will, they will start a poll on you in the CC and they will restrict you pending the polls results.


not promoting an extremely reactionary form of politics, like Conquest and the other Cold Warriors.Had you read Getty you would have known that Getty doesn't like that term.


Your response went so far as to compare me to Hitler.Err.. no it doesn't. It goes as far as comparing those of certain ideas to holocaust deniers; something you keep on proving to be valid.


I actually tried to make an effort to be somewhat civil to you,Since when has calling a person a piece of 'shit' been an effort to be civil? Not to mention I remained civil to you until you resorted to your typical tactics of flame and nothing more.

[Intelligitimate]

Hardly. had you been well abrest of the topic you would understand that Gettys stats are far from comprehensive, he even admitted that he was using just one set of sources, has long attacked human account and accepted his study was incomplete. You simply put these admitted and accepted methological holes down to 'modesty'.That’s because that’s what it is. It’s as if you think because Getty didn’t stated somewhere “These figures are the final, definitive evidence that can not be questioned under any circumstance” that you can pull a fast one and somehow validate your use 27 year old estimates from a scholar who also accepts the Zemskov figures and admits to purposefully inflating his earlier estimates because Getty didn’t state such a ridiculous thing. You were caught using completely out of date material and now you’re desperately trying not to look like an ignorant buffoon for doing so. The Zemskov figures are accepted by everyone that is not an extreme anti-Communist like Conquest. Read the exchanges between Wheatcroft and Conquest on this very topic, the ones from the 90s, that you obviously have never read.


This is because you seemingly dont understand historical method.No, I can just see through your pathetic attempts to justify citing 27 year old estimates when the figures from the archives have already been published, and the scholar in question has argued at length against anti-communists like yourself who want to cast doubt on the figures for political purposes.


I have also noticed that you utterly igniored the fact that I produced scholarship in a chronological order, finally ending with Bacon (no doubt whom you have never heard of) who outlines the inconclusiveness of the debate.The only thing you cited that is even somewhat relevant to the topic was Bacon, because the other stuff you cited was before the numbers had been released. You cited Wheatcroft in an attempt to show that even he “does not attack the fact that a vast number of people were in them.” You do this because you’re oblivious to the fact Wheatcroft purposefully inflated his own estimates (to err more on the ‘conservative’ side) and also accepts the archival data, and argues at length against those that want to try disregard them for political purposes.



Additionally Rosefielde, whom you don't like, has shown that th figures used by Getty are inconsistant, as he shows in his 1996 article 'Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s'.Rosefielde shows no such thing. Read Wheatcroft.


Pots and kettles my dear. Just remember, you are the one who flamed me in this thread without a single post of mine in this thread, and also despite the fact that we had ignored each other for several weeks. So don't cry about getting back a piece of what you regularly dish out.Obviously you’re the one who went crying to the moderators and the CC because you can’t handle what you dish out.


On that one point you have me, it was an oversite. However it does not alter the fact I did provide a review of another of his works, which you were making the same criticisms of.No you didn’t.


It also doesn't alter the fact that the version is very different, you claim to have both (an obvious lie); well if you did, you would know that in the 40 anniversary edition, Conquest had actually revised his totals reducing between 5-7 million from his origional count.I didn’t claim to have both. I said I checked it against my 60s version, and they are word-for-word the same, except the last section. And Conquest keeps revising his figures constantly, seemingly regardless of criticism or what the archives say. Again, read Wheatcroft.


Well certainly you do, when every time an academic is provided who has decidedly different views to you they are subject to nothing but slurs and ad hominems.I don’t respect the work of incompetent, extremely reactionary ‘scholars’ like Conquest. You obviously do, which is why you name drop them like crazy, and then say stupid shit like this when no one cares.


You were wrong before you still are. My previous responce addressed all of that and more.Except it didn’t. All you did was repeat I’m wrong. You left both threads shortly after that response. The fact is I’m not wrong, as the very source you cited shows, except in the most literal sense of my words. You’re the one who is wrong for thinking Conquest is famous for his “prodigious exploration of the Soviet archives,” and citing a work which is almost entirely a reprint as evidence of that.


Err, no it hasn't. You said no access, the article proved you wrong. What part of that can you not get through that head of yours?Again, only in the most literal sense was what I said wrong. The very source you provided shows I am right, along with the source I mentioned, which also is the very first source Raleigh cites.


This is simply untrue; it is certainly the case that these people were faced with serious restrictions; but to claim that they were incapable of any 'serious' research in the 80's is manifestly untrue as even the most junior Russianist knows.Again, the very source you cite shows you’re wrong, as well as Davies. No Western scholar in Russia was doing any serious archival research.


The fact of the matter is you claimed they had no access in the 1980's and even Davies proves you wrong. My claim was that in the 80's academics from the west were gaining limited access to the archives, you contradicted me; you were wrong. Now you are backpeddling.Let’s be clear here: you claimed Conquest is famous for his “prodigious exploration of the Soviet archives.” To back up this completely bogus claim, you ignorantly cited a reprint of his work from the 60s and his book from the 80s. You made this statement:

“The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror-Famine (written in the 80's when access to archival information had been greatly increased) and The Great Terror: A Reassessment (after the archives had been fully opened) are famous for the degree of archival material they used.”

Which is completely misleading and exposes your ignorance of the source material of both works. Neither one is based on, nor famous for, archival material used. The very source you cited, along with Davies, exposes this statement as impossible.


You wouldn't listen anyway.You don’t have anything to say worth listening to.


This simply isn't the case.I’m quite certain it is.


You used homophobic chauvanistic slurs, its not a lie, they are there in black and white.There is nothing homophobic or chauvinistic in my remarks. Some people may want to read that into what I said, especially people willing to slander others to suit their own purposes like yourself, but there is nothing homophobic or chauvinistic about saying you suck Conquest’s dick. It manifestly means you like and praise Conquest.


the fact that you cannot see how your language was and is reactionary says it all.I can see how some people might choose to twist and interpret my words to slander me. There is nothing inherently homophobic or chauvinistic about the description.


Apparently the nuances of the English language are yet another thing you fail to understand: -You might want to look up another word where you’re looking through the dictionary:

colloquial

/klokwil/

• adjective (of language) used in ordinary or familiar conversation; not formal or literary.

— DERIVATIVES colloquially adverb.

— ORIGIN from Latin colloquium ‘conversation’.

Slander is colloquially defined exactly as I said it is.


Indeed they will, they will start a poll on you in the CC and they will restrict you pending the polls results.If you can get enough people behind you: your last effort failed. Though I’m sure you’re lying your ass off in the CC.


Had you read Getty you would have known that Getty doesn't like that term.What the fuck does Getty not liking a term have to do with my use of it? Why would you even say something so incredibly stupid?


Err.. no it doesn't.Yes, it does. You explicitly make the comparison of being called an anti-communist by me to being called a racist by Hitler. One has to wonder why you constantly lie about things that can be easily verified with a search engine.


It goes as far as comparing those of certain ideas to holocaust deniers; something you keep on proving to be valid.Again you show a total and complete lack of concern for civility at all.


Since when has calling a person a piece of 'shit' been an effort to be civil?After the first few posts responding to your flames, I made the attempt to be civil to you. You never reciprocated. In fact, I stopped trying altogether after your moronic post claiming Conquest’s books are “famous for the degree of archival material they used,” in which you made the statement:

“That is because you are an under-read lay person attempting to argue with a person with more than a highschool diploma; and of course your 'lay' status is exposed immidiately.”

After which I refused to put up with your incredible ignorance of the field any longer, which is made all the more annoying that you pretend like you know anything about the field.


Not to mention I remained civil to you until you resorted to your typical tactics of flame and nothing more.You never once remained civil in any of your posts. Not one. This is why your efforts to get me banned/restricted failed, because people pointed out what an intolerable asshole you are. They will probably do the same again.

[Invader Zim]

I can't be bothered to trawl through more of your bullshit. It will end only one way, my producing more articles, reviews and statistics and you dismissing anything you don't agree with as 'anti-communist', 'ignorance' or any of the other slurs you come out with to deal with academics you don't agree with. Its boring.


After the first few posts responding to your flamesSaving the initial sectarian comparison my initial comments to you were civil. So to claim you were responding to flames is a total lie. My comment which contained attacks on Stalin (rather than you as an individual) was met with the following: -

"That was a job accomplished by trash like yourself, because you spout the most vile anti-communist bullshit at every opportunity, right along side with the bourgeois, conservatives, liberals, neo-Nazis, etc. They're rabid anti-communists, just like you."

It was at that point I responded with my first flame directly at you; something I had thought better of by post 110; but you continued to flame. The period of brief civility between us until post 144, at which point (in post 145) you reverted to your typical brand of 'civility', and thus we progressed from there to our present state.


You never once remained civil in any of your posts.Your a liar; but one easily exposed, all one has to do is just read our spats.


This is why your efforts to get me banned/restricted failedYou need to have words with your rather poor excuse for an informant, because I never tried to get you 'banned', and I was far more in favour of having you suspended over restricted. Secondly it didn't 'fail', as it never got to a poll and I didn't demand it be made into a poll; and if, by chance, it does get resurrected and a poll put in place, that will be nothing to do with me. It will be because you are a troll and others have noticed. But you don't have to worry about my intervention; to my mind you aren't worth the effort.

[Intelligitimate]

Saving the initial sectarian comparison my initial comments to you were civil. So to claim you were responding to flames is a total lie. My comment which contained attacks on Stalin (rather than you as an individual) was met with the following: -

"That was a job accomplished by trash like yourself, because you spout the most vile anti-communist bullshit at every opportunity, right along side with the bourgeois, conservatives, liberals, neo-Nazis, etc. They're rabid anti-communists, just like you."

It was at that point I responded with my first flame directly at you; something I had thought better of by post 110; but you continued to flame. The period of brief civility between us until post 144, at which point (in post 145) you reverted to your typical brand of 'civility', and thus we progressed from there to our present state.

This only shows you have a bizarre concept of what civility is, as you clearly begin your usual bullshit back at post 139, and post 145 was in response to your bullshit in the other thread.


Your a liar; but one easily exposed, all one has to do is just read our spats.

Indeed, and they can see for themselves you’re the liar.


You need to have words with your rather poor excuse for an informant, because I never tried to get you 'banned'

Banned, suspended, Restricted, whatever. Your crying didn’t work then and I doubt it will now.

[Invader Zim]

Whatever Intelli, you keep telling your self that.

[Intelligitimate]

Oh, I almost completely overlooked this gem:


Quote me sweetie, or go back to masturbating over images of The Great Leader.

It seems Zim is quite familiar with describing someone's worshipful behavior in sexual terms. So it's quite clear Zim is trying to twist my words to his advantage in the CC, or else he is just as guilty as me of using homophobic language.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Well, since you're talking about less political issues like moustaches, I'll up the ante with the Soviet anthem. Unlike the "Brezhnev" version, which I can't seem to memorize "I krasnomu znameni slavnoy otchizny" - let alone the last three lines of the third stanza - I can sing the ENTIRE wartime/"Stalin" anthem and provide the literal translation of even the entire third stanza. :cool:

Nas vyrastil Stalin — na vernost' narodu,
Na trud i na podvigi nas vdokhnovil!

My armiyu nashu rastili v srazhen'yakh,
Zakhvatchikov podlykh s dorogi smetyom!
My v bitvakh reshayem sud'bu pokoleniy,
My k slave Otchiznu svoyu povedyom!

Slavsya, Otechestvo nashe svobodnoye,
Druzhby / Schast'ya / Slavy narodov nadyozhny oplot,
Znamya sovetskoye, znamya narodnoye
Pust' ot pobedy k pobede vedyot!

:D

You need to get laid.

That would explain the overly reductionist anarchist demonizations of Stalin as expressed by the overly high negative votes. :glare:

[Invader Zim]

Oh, I almost completely overlooked this gem:



It seems Zim is quite familiar with describing someone's worshipful behavior in sexual terms. So it's quite clear Zim is trying to twist my words to his advantage in the CC, or else he is just as guilty as me of using homophobic language.

Clutching at straws in an attempt to excuse your homophobia; masturbation is universal to all sexes and sexualities, nor does it imply that there is anything inherently wrong or, in the case of your slur, effeminate (and thus 'wrong' in your mind) with masturbation. Thus it clearly doesn't have the same connotations as calling someone a 'cock-sucker'; and the fact that you can't see why your comments were reactionary is proof that you are a reactionary.

[Intelligitimate]

The one grasping at straws is yourself. You clearly understand and have used sexual terms in describing what your perceive as worshipful behavior. I did exactly the samething towards you.

And the exact same reasoning of slandering me as homophobic could be used to say the same of you. You think something is wrong with masturbating to images of men, that you would try to flame someone for it, thus implying they're homosexual and not worthy of respect? Apparently you do, if the reasoning of people like Marsella and spartan is correct, and they're not just being partisan.

[Invader Zim]

And the exact same reasoning of slandering me as homophobic could be used to say the same of you.

No, it can't, and that you can't see why says it all.


You think something is wrong with masturbating to images of men

Nope, I think there is something wrong with masturbating over images of specific and brutal political figures; it matters not an iota what sex the leader or the servile fool happens to be. The slur attacks the a servile infatuation with such leaders, your slur on the other hand implies that I am effeminate as if that is a bad thing.

[R_P_A_S]

Was it him who sent in soviet troops to squash Czechoslovakia's uprising? and Hungary's?

[spartan]

Was it him who sent in soviet troops to squash Czechoslovakia's uprising? and Hungary's?

No both events happened after Stalin died.

Though i would be surprised if Stalin didnt react in the same manner, or in an even more brutal manner, if he was still alive when these events happened.

[Intelligitimate]

No, it can't, and that you can't see why says it all.That you can’t see insulting someone by implying that they masturbate to pictures of men is chauvinistic and homophobic says it all.


Nope, I think there is something wrong with masturbating over images of specific and brutal political figures; it matters not an iota what sex the leader or the servile fool happens to be. I think there is something wrong with performing oral sex on extreme reactionary anti-communists like Conquest and Applebaum. It doesn’t matter at all what the sex of the extreme anti-communist is or whatever the sex of the pseudo-Leftist sycophant is.


The slur attacks the a servile infatuation with such leaders, your slur on the other hand implies that I am effeminate as if that is a bad thing.No, my words imply no such thing. However, your words clearly imply you think masturbating to pictures of men is effeminate, and that people who do this are not worthy of respect as human beings.

[R_P_A_S]

Was it him who sent in soviet troops to squash Czechoslovakia's uprising? and Hungary's?

not Hungary.. but Czechoslovakia?

[R_P_A_S]

correct me if I'm wrong... but I just feel that Stalin and Mao above their accomplishments and their works...Just tried to force down their idea of communism down peoples throats.

It's like they didn't even really understand it and didn't consider the consequences. They didn't realized that it would end up bastardizing communism and lets not forget how much people would suffer and die, simply because these guys wanted to take "short cuts" or where competing with other world economies.

Many of you here like to brag about the Soviet Union's past super power status, or about their past achievements, or how fast they industrialized the USSR etc, etc.. But was it really worth it? I mean it's one thing to be a cheerleader for an authoritarian regime because you hate the imperialist regime... But where's the progress? Do we really want to go back to "stalinism" some of you here actually yearn for it?

I tell you, If after 2 years I still believe that socialism and communism were anything like what Stalin made it to be or even Mao.. I wouldn't be here pushing for a socialist alternative and a communist future.

[spartan]

Many of you here like to brag about the Soviet Union's past super power status, or about their past achievements, or how fast they industrialized the USSR etc, etc.. But was it really worth it? I mean it's one thing to be a cheerleader for an authoritarian regime because you hate the imperialist regime... But where's the progress? Do we really want to go back to "stalinism" some of you here actually yearn for it?

I think that the USSR made huge advances both economically and socially under Stalin's rule (However brutally implemented) and that was ultimately a good thing that should be applauded.

However as a blueprint for a future Socialist society Marxism-Leninism is outdated and obsolete, and only serves as nostalgia for idealistic youths (Who are most probably Russophiles or Slavophiles).

This is because Marx argued that Socialism was only to be implemented as a temporary transitionary stage because he thought that Capitalism had not yet fully developed enough to warrant us going straight to Communism (Thus the transtionary stage of Socialism was needed).

Though you should remember that Marx was writing in the 19th century before all the huge changes in the 20th century.

But now that we live in a world where Capitalism is fully developed, and social attitudes are the most socially Liberal ever in the developed world, we dont need Socialism as a transtionary stage anymore especially its Marxist-Leninist variant.

The fact is the development of the USSR was unique as it was an attempt at developing Socialist property relations whilst at the same time industrialising a country that had just emerged from Feudalism!

Its the same story for most other Marxist-Leninist states where they werent hugely industrialised or modernised before Marxism-Leninism was implemented.

Marxism-Leninism is essentially retarded* Socialism.

*I hope that no one is offended by my use of that word as i never meant it in an offensive context.

[Invader Zim]

However, your words clearly imply you think masturbating to pictures of men is effeminate, and that people who do this are not worthy of respect as human beings.

Wrong on the first count, but part right on the second. You aren't worthy as respect as a human being; you are a homophobe and thus forfit that right.

[Intelligitimate]

Wrong on the first count, but part right on the second. You aren't worthy as respect as a human being; you are a homophobe and thus forfit that right.

Just more of your flaming. Your refusal to acknowledge that your language was homophobic says it all.

[Invader Zim]

Stop spamming, please.

[Intelligitimate]

Stop spamming, please.

Stop lying, please.

[careyprice31]

"No, you started it and continued it, even when I was attempting to be civil. I have had relatively civil discussions with others before on this forum about Soviet history, namely Svetlana and gilhyle,"


Yes, Intelli, you were really good, I must say so.

I enjoyed our discussion.

I was treated really well by you, considering our extreme disagreement with events in Russia, your beliefs and thoughts on it and mine. I didnt expect to get treated so well, honestly, cause I met stalinists on other forums and all they did was flame.

So I was surprised you see you treat me with such civility. Thanks very much.

Have a nice day, love.:)

[careyprice31]

Was it him who sent in soviet troops to squash Czechoslovakia's uprising? and Hungary's?

I think you're thinking of 1968 and 1956.

But there was also 1948, when Stalin was alive and czechoslovakia was considering joining the secretary of state George C Marshall's Marshall Plan for European recovery from ww2 (I think it was also a tactic to get the european countries dependent on them and away from soviet influence, personally i dont see it as much of a rescue plan as it was a political tactic but whatever)

Not long before, Truman made his Truman doctrine and George F Kennan wrote his X article about the need for soviet containment. Truman in effect made a political speech where it was implied that the containment must be military in character as well. Kennan's speeches did not help either because he left out the part where the soviets were not like hitler and had no wish to take over the world sending armies everywhere.

The Soviets took it as a threat to them, and to security, and moved to take over the Jan Mazaryk government of Czechoslovakia in Feb 1948. Mazaryk died under suspicious circumstances during this, they still arent sure whether he was pushed or he jumped from a window of a building.

Before the Truman doctrine speech and such though the Sovs were not like that. I think that the cold war became hot at this time was mostly Truman's fault as he was extraordinarily aggressive and militaristic.

It appears you have gotten 1948 and 1968 mixed up though.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Though i would be surprised if Stalin didnt react in the same manner, or in an even more brutal manner, if he was still alive when these events happened.

Sometimes brutality is a necessity. For example, all war is always brutal. Does that mean we should all become pacifist hippy, pot smoking, flower childeren? My answer would be "NO FUCKING WAY!!!"

[Vendetta]

(I think it was also a tactic to get the european countries dependent on them and away from soviet influence, personally i dont see it as much of a rescue plan as it was a political tactic but whatever)

I believe the Marshall Plan was both; it was trying to rescue the Western European economy after it was completely decimated in WWII, and it was also creating 'ignorance through wealth' (can't think of the better term right now - but there is one), if that makes sense.

[spartan]

Sometimes brutality is a necessity. For example, all war is always brutal. Does that mean we should all become pacifist hippy, pot smoking, flower childeren? My answer would be "NO FUCKING WAY!!!"

Communism isnt about force, well except when you are trying to attain it.

The fact that the USSR reacted the way it did in these two states (Czechoslovakia and Hungry) shows the Imperialist attitude that the leadership of the USSR had in what it regarded as its "sphere of influence".

Just what gave the USSR any right to intervene in these two supposedly sovereign states affairs anyway?

And it wasnt just these two states as well as we also had the violent suppression of a workers rebellion in East Germany in 1953:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprising_of_1953_in_East_Germany

The USSR's record of suppressing the workers in strikes and rebellions is practically the same as that of your average Capitalist state!

Which is truely disgusting for a self described Socialist state that is supposed to represent the workers.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Why isn't there an "He was an out-and-out, mass-murdering, counter-revolutionary b*stard, who has dragged marxism into the dirt" option -- or worse?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Well, I suppose your "demonization" remark has merit, if only because that equally reductionist "He is like a father to me" option is there. :(

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Stalin has given communism and horrible name. The fact that people associate Stalin with Communism is horrible, he was more of a fascist, or national socialist.

What? Care to explain how Stalin was anything near a national socialist? Where are all these deaths and oppression cases located, other than inside the imagination cave of anti-communist and pro-revisionist sources who have never stepped in Russia, let alone know what the hell they're talking about.

[Os Cangaceiros]

What? Care to explain how Stalin was anything near a national socialist? Where are all these deaths and oppression cases located, other than inside the imagination cave of anti-communist and pro-revisionist sources who have never stepped in Russia, let alone know what the hell they're talking about.

Stalin wasn't a National Socialist.

However, are you going to deny that Stalin was responsible for millions of deaths? Or are those all lies propagated by the sinister bourgeoisie?

[Die Neue Zeit]

To be fair, Lenin did indeed call Stalin a "national-socialist" at one point. This was after the latter's conduct during the Georgian affair. I remember one of my first threads on this board asking whether Stalin was the genuine national-socialist (Hitler being the false one, obviously), with his "socialism in one country" stuff.

[SocialDemocracy19]

holy crap dude did none of u read the beginning page to join this site wich denounes fascist bolshevism, all the bolsheviks did is mislead the masses with promises of freedom, but once they got power they simply smashed all opposition the same way any authoritarian leader does so he was no different than hitler. The only reason you read about anyone who supports him is because they werent oppressed by his opposition because they kept there mouths shut and got food on the table. But if you talk to anyone else they will tell you of his undemocratic opression towards jews, and the orthodox russian church. To me he is no different than any leader of tyranny. Im not saying he wanst a genius any leader is , and im not saying he didnt do anything good, but you are talking about supporting somoene who killed 30 million people as far as we know because he erased the records of most people he killed, and opened labor camps. So I see him as no different than pol pot, mao ze dong, hitler,husein,or anyother tolitarian leader. so i see him as more than Negative, kiling peaceful opposition and criticism is never the answer.

[Sendo]

he killed a lot of people, but c'mon your numbers might be exaggerated. I'd look at more importantly the unjustified nature of those deaths, not their number. 30 million is like Black plague numbers. From 1928 to 1954 if he killed 30 million of people within USSR borders that would have crippled the economy. Even guys like Pinochet made sure to mix their massacres with torture-filled prison sentences.

Also, by your logic, Mao is many times worse than Hitler. I oppose latter-day Mao and the Great Leap...but I don't condemn it the way I would the GPCR (wherein mobs would beat up teachers and their families)...because Mao ruled such a big country the smallest mistakes would affect 600 million people.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Stalin wasn't a National Socialist.

However, are you going to deny that Stalin was responsible for millions of deaths? Or are those all lies propagated by the sinister bourgeoisie?

I deny that falsehood, yes. The topic has constantly been rehearsed on this forum and others - with little evidence in favor of the commonly-held position that Stalin was an "evil" dictator. The gulag, dictator, '33 famine, and purges myths are supported by neither documents nor testimonies.

[crimsonzephyr]

I just think that this is disgusting: http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/stalin/stalin.html

[spartan]

I just think that this is disgusting: http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/stalin/stalin.html

What the hell is that?:scared:

[Crest]

I have an extremely negative impression.

In fact, I'm not familiar with a single one of his original concepts that I don't absolutely hate. His system was cruel, totalitarian and fascist. He took total control over everyone and eliminated his political enemies... He controlled the press, and everything else, making him a perpetual dictator over the whole USSR, a democracy.

Stalinism is not so much an ideology, as much as an Authority-Worship Social Fascism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Funny for a Maoist to say that, no?

[Crest]

Mao was not infalliable. He's not deserving of the title human either.


He was just a fool who had some really good ideas, past the Stalinist influences.

[Comrade Hector]

Comrade Stalin is often the center of blame; yes, he made mistakes, but what revolutionary does not? It is very easy to turn every action of the time against Stalin, but many of the acts carried out were necessity of the time. Many of his actions were not opposed to that of Lenin's, and to sit with the argument regarding Trotsky is absurd. I may not agree with every action associated with Stalin, but revolutionaries are every bit human. Lenin recognized that revolutionaries, too, will make mistakes, as conflicts develop and situations that comrades have not been faced with before or had to act in regard to.

While the assassination of Trotsky occurred on the basis of a very personal conflict, I can understand Stalin's reason. Nevertheless, to make the argument many decades after it has occurred that "Trotsky would have done better" is like attempting to remove a body from its grave and say "if they didn't die then..." there is no logical reason one could argue such, so why bother. There's no evidence. That aside, I don't believe that Trotsky would have taken care of the problem, or that he could have done better, because Stalin took care of it the only way it could have been. Sometimes what must be done is not ideal and does not equate with one's vision of what you wish were the means or the outcome. If you use that as your basis for every act post-revolution, the proletarian state will burn down in flames. As I said, it's like playing with cards that are not there.

There are many policies under Stalin that existed in some form under Lenin. Yes, it was carried out differently, but before Lenin died the civil war hadn't developed into such a great conflict and he surely did not have to deal with the clean up, as did Stalin. It is very easy to blame Stalin for the purges, but if you blame Stalin and consider him ruthless, remember that Lenin thought much of it was necessary, even if he did not carry it out in the same exact way. While I see Stalin as having a great difficulty in separating personal issues with comrades from the party, that is a very hard thing to do on any level because such a threat can develop into a greater one, which threatens the state and waiting around for such a development could cause the deaths of comrades and workers- and the destruction of the soviet state. That is something that must be a concern for all comrades during post-revolutionary time, because, we surely do not want kulaks keeping all the grain to themselves and feeding the famine, killing cattle and sabotaging state farms, property.

His role in WWII was especially important. If it wasn't for Stalin, the Nazis may have invaded, the actions of Stalin and the soviet soldiers were heroic and should be honored. The nazis were defeated as a result of those actions and Stalin should be honored for it.

It is unfortunately that so many comrades here have lost respect for Comrade Stalin, he was a great honorable comrade and did his best to continue where Lenin left off. We must not be blinded by reactionary viewpoint and forget the honorable actions of Comrade Stalin.

Stalin's policies amounted to much more than little "mistakes". They were not, they were policy. Stalin abandoned international revolution for peaceful coexistence with imperialism, and sold out potential revolutions abroad. Stalin's wish was to be a respectable statesman in the eyes of the imperialists. During the bloody purges, Stalin murdered all the architects of the Russian Revolution (all of Lenin's comrades including Trotsky) as well as the murder of the original Red Army officers Tukhachevsky, Yakir, Yegorov, and all the others.

It was the Soviet Red Army that defeated Hitler and his fascist hordes. This was done not thanks to Stalin, but despite him. In reality, Stalin was not the big time general who conquered Hitler, but a little bureaucrat who was scared to death of Hitler. Stalin spent all his time undermining the Soviet state.

Just for the record, I'm a former Stalinist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ To be quite honest, I shall reiterate my defense of Stalin the war leader. Yes, he cowered for a month or so, but he got his act together. Did he delegate so much military decision-making to his generals as the bourgeois press make it to be? I don't think so (if anything else, he had to restrain his generals when they proposed overly ambitious plans).

[That being said, "Comrade" Stalin was an anti-Leninist, reductionist, and grossly revisionist scum who SHOULD ironically be "canonized" by the Russian Orthodox Church. :) ]

[Sendo]

Stalin's policies amounted to much more than little "mistakes". They were not, they were policy. Stalin abandoned international revolution for peaceful coexistence with imperialism, and sold out potential revolutions abroad. Stalin's wish was to be a respectable statesman in the eyes of the imperialists.


Orwell touched on this major "flaw" of Stalin's in Animal Farm. In the tragic end Napoleon becomes indistinguishable from the humans.

[bezdomni]

Orwell touched on this major "flaw" of Stalin's in Animal Farm. In the tragic end Napoleon becomes indistinguishable from the humans.

Are you implying that Stalin was a body-snatching pig?

[bezdomni]

^^^ Funny for a Maoist to say that, no?

I get the feeling that person isn't actually a Maoist. They said some reactionary shit about drugs in another thread, and don't seem to take a materialist analysis of Stalin.

[Andres Marcos]

what a fu**ing pathetic thread. You 12 year old anarclowns and Trotskids are the best people to count on to make 3278462378468723648723 threads on how "Stalin was so not revolutionary oh and let me sell you my revolutionary paper on Trotsky" or was a "Red fascist LOLZ now lets smoke pot, and trash starbucks"(Or whatever stupid sh*t you black blockers find ''revolutionary'') or the infamous "Stalin killed 1,2, 5, no 10, NO 60 million people"(make up your damn mind its not like it matters as all of that BS is based on bourgeois lies anyway which speaks for your ''revolutionary'' tendencies, and gullible mentality to suck up everything your capitalist state give ya.) I find it amazing how the fu*k you people even have enough time to sit on your ass(other than you DONT WORK), to ***** about Stalin all day and not mention the fact that your idiotic ''ideologies'' or as I call them random thoughts have failed 100% of the time THROUGHOUT HISTORY(through the fault of anarclowns who thought it was ''cowardice'' to place barricades to hide behind to fight fascists and started attacking the working -class heroes in the International Brigades). I really think you people have some goddamn nerve to slander working people like myself(and not a bunch of pissed off 12-17 year old middleclass kids) and others who uphold Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin as being on par with neo-nazis or fascists. I can tell none of you little children have even read a single damn book by Marx, Lenin or Stalin and compared how they similar they are, maybe because mommy and daddy did not give you enough money for allowance? FORGIVE ME for ACTUALLY knowing the rich science of Marxism-Leninism and having hope and optimism for reading my copy of The Foundations of Leninism after a day of sweating and toiling(which a BIG number of you know NOTHING about) packing and loading mail onto trucks for the imperialist American govt. to put food on my plate, saving money to attend my party's congress and pay for my apartment.

I am tired of this joke of a forum this will be my last post ever on this joke fest, as I have too much to do in my life and work my ass off unlike you clowns who can afford to sit on your asses all day posting vile shit on working people who uphold Marxism-Leninism.

p.s. change the name of this forum to Revolutionary Liberals and change the hammer and sickle, and Anarchist 'A', to a Donkey and Elephant as that will be all you people will grow up to be when you turn 25 and go back to your middle-class homes.

[Prairie Fire]

I sure that probably felt good Marcos, but damn....

I know, I know, I feel this way to sometimes, but exploding like that just discredits us (even though your points are valid.)

I think you said too much on some issues though.

[RedAnarchist]

p.s. change the name of this forum to Revolutionary Liberals and change the hammer and sickle, and Anarchist 'A', to a Donkey and Elephant as that will be all you people will grow up to be when you turn 25 and go back to your middle-class homes.

A Donkey and Elephant? We're not all American here you know. And most of us are working class in this forum. I assume there are some middle-class people here, but I doubt they are even a large minority here.

As for the rest of your post, I'll just ignore it, because it doesn't reflect well on your particular brand of revolutionary leftism.

[black magick hustla]

what a fu**ing pathetic thread. You 12 year old anarclowns and Trotskids are the best people to count on to make 3278462378468723648723 threads on how "Stalin was so not revolutionary oh and let me sell you my revolutionary paper on Trotsky" or was a "Red fascist LOLZ now lets smoke pot, and trash starbucks"(Or whatever stupid sh*t you black blockers find ''revolutionary'') or the infamous "Stalin killed 1,2, 5, no 10, NO 60 million people"(make up your damn mind its not like it matters as all of that BS is based on bourgeois lies anyway which speaks for your ''revolutionary'' tendencies, and gullible mentality to suck up everything your capitalist state give ya.) I find it amazing how the fu*k you people even have enough time to sit on your ass(other than you DONT WORK), to ***** about Stalin all day and not mention the fact that your idiotic ''ideologies'' or as I call them random thoughts have failed 100% of the time THROUGHOUT HISTORY(through the fault of anarclowns who thought it was ''cowardice'' to place barricades to hide behind to fight fascists and started attacking the working -class heroes in the International Brigades). I really think you people have some goddamn nerve to slander working people like myself(and not a bunch of pissed off 12-17 year old middleclass kids) and others who uphold Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin as being on par with neo-nazis or fascists. I can tell none of you little children have even read a single damn book by Marx, Lenin or Stalin and compared how they similar they are, maybe because mommy and daddy did not give you enough money for allowance? FORGIVE ME for ACTUALLY knowing the rich science of Marxism-Leninism and having hope and optimism for reading my copy of The Foundations of Leninism after a day of sweating and toiling(which a BIG number of you know NOTHING about) packing and loading mail onto trucks for the imperialist American govt. to put food on my plate, saving money to attend my party's congress and pay for my apartment.

I am tired of this joke of a forum this will be my last post ever on this joke fest, as I have too much to do in my life and work my ass off unlike you clowns who can afford to sit on your asses all day posting vile shit on working people who uphold Marxism-Leninism.

p.s. change the name of this forum to Revolutionary Liberals and change the hammer and sickle, and Anarchist 'A', to a Donkey and Elephant as that will be all you people will grow up to be when you turn 25 and go back to your middle-class homes.

You should drop the speed. It worked with Kerouac's writing, but not with yours son. :(

[Invader Zim]

(even though your points are valid.)

Sinse when did apoplectic diatribe, utterly devoid of fact, become a valid point?

[Marsella]

FORGIVE ME for ACTUALLY knowing the rich science of Marxism-Leninism and having hope and optimism for reading my copy of The Foundations of Leninism after a day of sweating and toiling(which a BIG number of you know NOTHING about) packing and loading mail onto trucks for the imperialist American govt. to put food on my plate, saving money to attend my party's congress and pay for my apartment. .

That was one of the funniest things I've read on this site. :lol:

I've actually read The Foundations of Leninism, and load/unload trucks for a living too.

We have quite a bit in common!

[Luís Henrique]

I don't think this kind of poll is useful. It boils down to a moralistic approach of a much more complex problem: "Was he good, bad, or something in between?"

But human history is the history of class struggle, not of the fight between the mystical forces of Good and Evil. A real discussion of Stalin should be about his role in class struggle, starting with "on which side he fought?"

Luís Henrique

[Invader Zim]

That was one of the funniest things I've read on this site. :lol:

I've actually read The Foundations of Leninism, and load/unload trucks for a living too.

We have quite a bit in common!

You fuckers have an easy job. You should try putting fence posts into hard ground in the pissing rain (yes the ground is still hard despite the deluge from above), or shovelling dozens of square metres of horse shit compost.

[apathy maybe]

Can the next mod who sees this please close the thread as it has obviously denigrated into a pile of shit.

Oh, and "hard work rep", yeah, fence posts are shit. Luckily I never had to put them in when it was raining, but whatever. Shovelling shit for compost is shit. Slaving away posting on RevLeft is shit (wait, not it isn't!). Chasing animals around and around is shit. Chipping weeds is shit. Having to travel nearly an hour each way to school, then be bored for most of it is shit.

Basically, hard labour is shit, boring mental labour (such as in schools, not that I've been in school for years, but I do recall) is shit, boring menial tasks such as burning 30 odd CDs is shit.

Work is shit! That's why we aim for the abolition of it. Holding up Stalin as a great father figure who would lead us all to a glorious socialist future is shit. He didn't, he couldn't, all that happened was the USSR was shit.

[Prairie Fire]

Can the next mod who sees this please close the thread as it has obviously denigrated into a pile of shit.



"Denigrated"? That implies that this thread had merit to begin with.

[Comrade Rage]

I don't think this kind of poll is useful. It boils down to a moralistic approach of a much more complex problem: "Was he good, bad, or something in between?"

But human history is the history of class struggle, not of the fight between the mystical forces of Good and Evil. A real discussion of Stalin should be about his role in class struggle, starting with "on which side he fought?"

Luís HenriqueQFT


Can the next mod who sees this please close the thread as it has obviously denigrated into a pile of shit.Don't you mean 'degenerated'? Denigrating is what a lot of people here are doing to Comrade Stalin, based on biased sources (when sources are even cited). I have to second Prarie Fire's earlier post, these piss-and-moan about Stalin threads are a waste of time to begin with. All that they accomplish is exposing some people's lack of context, historical knowledge, etc.


Oh, and "hard work rep", yeah, fence posts are shit. Luckily I never had to put them in when it was raining, but whatever. Shovelling shit for compost is shit. Slaving away posting on RevLeft is shit (wait, not it isn't!). Chasing animals around and around is shit. Chipping weeds is shit. Having to travel nearly an hour each way to school, then be bored for most of it is shit.

Basically, hard labour is shit, boring mental labour (such as in schools, not that I've been in school for years, but I do recall) is shit, boring menial tasks such as burning 30 odd CDs is shit.

Work is shit! That's why we aim for the abolition of it. Holding up Stalin as a great father figure who would lead us all to a glorious socialist future is shit. He didn't, he couldn't, all that happened was the USSR was shit.
*****ing about Stalin is shit. *****ing about the NKVD/KGB under Stalin is shit, especially when it was much larger under Brezhnev.;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The bureaucracies became bigger after "Comrade" Stalin, but the secret police bureaucracy was at its height under "Comrade" Stalin (operating under the auspices of "internal affairs," thus combining state security with regular police and prison/gulag operations). The MVD under the "revisionists" returned to regular functions (regular police and prison operations).

[Comrade Rage]

^^^ The bureaucracies became bigger after "Comrade" Stalin, but the secret police bureaucracy was at its height under "Comrade" Stalin (operating under the auspices of "internal affairs," thus combining state security with regular police and prison/gulag operations). The MVD under the "revisionists" returned to regular functions (regular police and prison operations).That's the popular belief, but I think that the KGB was enlarged to it's height under the corrupt Brezhnev. I'll look up the figures.

[Brian Foley]

Stalin, Hero or Villain?
Lenin believed in a socialist state completely encompassing the entire Russian empire that would eventually spread by natural revolution into the rest of Europe .

Trotsky believed in total revolution and complete Communism , to the effect of breaking up the entire Russian Empire giving each and every people its own independence . His economics was one of pure Communism with complete equality of people . This was the principal reason why Trotsky ran into much opposition leading to his eventual exile .

Stalin was a fundamentalist Communism , thanks to his effort he put Russia from a backward economy and made Russia into the Worlds second most Industrialized nation until the Nazi/Capitalist invasion . Stalin was what made Russia into a Global superpower .

** Do not believe any stories of Stalins atrocities such as the deaths of 30 million persons , this is Capitalist propaganda to discredit Communism .The census figures for the period of 1920 to 1941 showed a jump in population from 137,727,000 in 1920 to 196,716,000 in 1941 . This completely contradicts the telling period of Nazi/Capitalist barbarity in which 20+ million humans were murdered showed a drop in the 1946 census figures to 170,548,000 persons .

[TC]

The conditions under which Stalin was in power justify a minority of his acts on a social level;

The conditions under which Stalin took power are not justified, he usurped power from the rightful hands of Trotsky;


LOL the notion that Stalin "usurped power from the rightful hands of Trotsky" is something that seems implicit in most Trotskyists feelings about Stalin but few admit it.

I'm sorry but the Soviet Union was not a monarchical dynasty with Trotsky as the "rightful" heir to Lenin an Stalin as a "usurper."

Trotsky was marginalized in government years before Stalin consolidated power, the fact is that he just wasn't as popular in the soviet union itself as he was among say, western communists.

In a democracy no one has the 'right' to power when they lose party and governmental elections. The fact is that Trotsky did not maintain the confidence of the CPSU central committee or politburo, even despite Lenin's political patronage towards him. Additionally Zinoviev and Kamenev had at least as much to do with sidelining Trotsky as Stalin; Trotsky was in no leadership position long before he was actually expelled from the party.

[Leo]

Trotsky was marginalized in government years before Stalin consolidated power, the fact is that he just wasn't as popular in the soviet union itself as he was among say, western communists.Stalin's comments in a friendly dinner conversation proves otherwise:


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

Comrade Card-Index was obviously much more popular with the "middle cadres" than Trotsky. It wasn't about a fight for power between individuals, it was the very counter-revolution itself. Trotsky, with all his opportunism, sectarianism and confusions must have at least grasped that simply being in the place of Stalin (his high-ranking buddies in the Red Army begged him to approve with a possible coup they would make but he refused) would not have made any difference as social forces were not just deeply involved but determining on the whole issue.

[Vanguard1917]

A materialist perspective is needed to explain Stalinist counter-revolution; it had very little to do with Stalin's personality traits. The demise of proletarian power in the Soviet Union, the rise of the political power of the bureaucratic caste, the isolation of the Soviet state - these created the grounds for the victory of Stalinism and the defeat of those dedicated to upholding the revolutionary vision of the Bolsheviks.

[pave_the_planet]

responsible for more deaths than Hitler? yeah hes awesome!

[UberYuber]

Stalin was an opportunist, and a better politician than Trotsky, the democratic centralists, and the workers' oppostion.
But since he pretty much destroyed international socialism in theory with his "socialism in one country" theory, and destroyed it in pratice with his request for popular front cooperatives, he is a villian to the left.

[PigmerikanMao]

The conditions under which Stalin took power are not justified, he usurped power from the rightful hands of Trotsky
None has a right to power, Stalin would not have gained power had Trotsky served the people. The will of the masses determines everything, had Trotsky done anything progressive in Russia, he might have not to flee to Mexico. :rolleyes:

[Lensky1917]

He did some good things and some bad things


This is basically my take on it. Sure he might not have had to resort to such terrible methods to industrialize the Soviet Union, however he was a man of his time so who's to say?

[quevivafidel]

I tend not to have such a black-white perspective when studying these people, but my overall impression of Stalin is negative although it annoys me when people put him in the same category as Hitler, as if they were comrades or something when Stalin was one of the allies against him.

[Bastable]

stalin is just another reason why a "socialist state" before communism is simply not possible, because someone will come along, pronounce themselves "general secretary" and rule with an iron fist distorting and perverting socialism.

[Comrade Rage]

stalin is just another reason why a "socialist state" before communism is simply not possible, because someone will come along, pronounce themselves "general secretary" and rule with an iron fist distorting and perverting socialism.Stalin didn't proclaim himself General Secretary, he was elected to that post by the Central Committee. Most of the Politburo decisions were made without Stalin's input so he can hardly be a dictator. And he didn't distort socialism, as there was no perceptable change between his politics and Lenin's.

[Bastable]

Stalin didn't proclaim himself General Secretary, he was elected to that post by the Central Committee. Most of the Politburo decisions were made without Stalin's input so he can hardly be a dictator. And he didn't distort socialism, as there was no perceptable change between his politics and Lenin's.

my apologies you were right about him being elected to General Secretary, my mind wandered.

but as General Secretary he had power over who was admitted into the Central Committee and through time had a majority of supporters in the central committee, making him for all intents and purposes 'dictator'

[Comrade Rage]

Having dedicated support hardly qualifies as a dictator. Besides, the statistics vindicate him:

_______________________________
Stalin and Politburo Decisions, August-October 1934

Total Politburo decisions 1,038
Politburo decisions without Stalin's participation 919
Total Politburo decisions with Stalin's participation 119
Stalin replies to Politburo requests for ruling 91
Stalin agrees with Politburo proposal without modification 76
Stalin disagrees with or changes Politburo decisions 15
_________________________________

[Bastable]

in eliminating his opposition and putting his supporters in places of power he limited democracy, limiting democracy makes him authoritarian. that the central committee was made up of his supporters suggests that he still held great sway over the decisions made.

i don't know about you, but to me that screams DICTATOR

oh and if it's at all possible could you give me the source you obtained your facts from? it's not that i question their reliability i just want to expand my knowledge.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Having dedicated support hardly qualifies as a dictator. Besides, the statistics vindicate him:

I saw the stats myself in some academic website. You have to keep in mind that "Comrade" Stalin frequently bypassed the "formal" Politburo and set up ad-hoc committees, ESPECIALLY during the post-war years (http://books.google.ca/books?id=gaU1IAa_BpEC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=stalin+octet+novenary&source=web&ots=hi96mFLzwG&sig=dn5UaEZ_u6RPx8TZi6U5-yc85sU&hl=en) (the quintet, sextet, septet, octet, novenary, and Bureau of the Presidium).

[Comrade Rage]

in eliminating his opposition and putting his supporters in places of power he limited democracy, limiting democracy makes him authoritarian. that the central committee was made up of his supporters suggests that he still held great sway over the decisions made.

i don't know about you, but to me that screams DICTATOR

oh and if it's at all possible could you give me the source you obtained your facts from? it's not that i question their reliability i just want to expand my knowledge.I got the stats from a book-- Stalin: A New History by Sarah Davies(it actually isnt by her but includes works from numerous historians including Getty). The book includes a chapter on the research by Erik Van Ree showing without a doubt that Stalin was ALWAYS a Marxist and all the theories from ''Revolution from Above'' to ''Socialism in One Country'' being based on Marx, Engels, Lenin and other contemporary scientific socialists/Marxists.

In terms of him stacking committees with his supporters, I'd like some sources on that as well. People involved in the USSR became supporters of Comrade Stalin because of his successes.


I saw the stats myself in some academic website. You have to keep in mind that "Comrade" Stalin frequently bypassed the "formal" Politburo and set up ad-hoc committees, ESPECIALLY during the post-war years (http://books.google.ca/books?id=gaU1IAa_BpEC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=stalin+octet+novenary&source=web&ots=hi96mFLzwG&sig=dn5UaEZ_u6RPx8TZi6U5-yc85sU&hl=en) (the quintet, sextet, septet, octet, novenary, and Bureau of the Presidium).Bull. Ad-hoc committees aren't a way to 'subvert democracy'.

I'd like to ask you: democracy for who? Do you insist that reactionaries be given a share of power? Lenin called Kautskyists 'strike-breakers' of the revolution...did you want Stalin to betray Lenin's will?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Yes they are! Look at Mikoyan: he wasn't a FULL member of the Politburo until 1939, but was always in "Comrade" Stalin's ruling circle (until 1952).

The formal Politburos, because of cumbersome procedures, were for show. The real decision-making, in violation of the Party rules, allowed the grossly revisionist tyrant (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-leninism-anti-t73258/index.html) the maximum amount of flexibility.

[Bastable]

I'd like to ask you: democracy for who? Do you insist that reactionaries be given a share of power? Lenin called Kautskyists 'strike-breakers' of the revolution...did you want Stalin to betray Lenin's will?

do you consider Trotsky to be a reactionary?

[Comrade Rage]

^^^ Yes they are! Look at Mikoyan: he wasn't a FULL member of the Politburo until 1939, but was always in "Comrade" Stalin's ruling circle (until 1952).So? He can't consult with anybody else?


The formal Politburos, because of cumbersome procedures, were for show. The real decision-making, in violation of the Party rules, allowed the grossly revisionist tyrant (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-leninism-anti-t73258/index.html) the maximum amount of flexibility.Do you believe that the moon-landing was faked, too?


do you consider Trotsky to be a reactionary?Yes, definitely. I think that my earlier post in the Learning -> Trotsky poll speaks for itself:
I voted negative. I honestly hate this man. There is literally no redeemable quality to this disgusting piece of sewage. The sight of him in a photograph makes me nauseaous, with the exception of him on dying on his hospital bed. I can't look at any other picture of this animal for more than five seconds without the urge to burn everything in sight.

Kudos to the person who removed this disgusting piece of filth from the planet earth. August 21, 1940 was the greatest date in history and I celebrate it annually.

I won't rest until every thing he wrote is either locked in the basement of the future socialist American capital, or burned. He truly is a cancer, and all of his 'literature' needs to be destroyed. Ideally every trace of this animal's past existence should be obliterated and he should be totally erased from history.

I dream of the day that this is accomplished.:):):):):)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Do you believe that the moon-landing was faked, too?

You didn't even bother to read the thread on "Marxism-Leninism." Sigh. :(

Also, consider that, because of increased jurisdiction, "Politburo" resolutions/diktats were made simply by individuals signing away papers - no discussions whatsoever.

[Comrade Rage]

You didn't even bother to read the thread on "Marxism-Leninism." Sigh. :(Link it. I read DOZENS of articles and threads about ML each day.


Also, consider that, because of increased jurisdiction, "Politburo" resolutions/diktats were made simply by individuals signing away papers - no discussions whatsoever.So irresponsibility in the Politburo is Stalin's fault too.

Right.

I swear, people like you have blamed everything but global warming on the man.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Whatever. :rolleyes:

The "Marxism-Leninism" link was in the phrase "grossly revisionist tyrant" up above. I can't understand why you didn't notice. :(

[Comrade Rage]

The "Marxism-Leninism" link was in the phrase "grossly revisionist tyrant" up above. I can't understand why you didn't notice. :(Maybe because Stalin was neither a revisionist, nor was he a tyrant. Also your 'tyrant' assertion reeks of the moralism that is rife on the anti-Stalin/Lenin/Marx side.

Iwill return tomorrow with a searing critique of this Luxembourgist thread tomorrow. Sorry I can't do it tonight, but I'm still shaky over Trotsky...I hate him so much that I think his grave ought to be the only place in the world where you can legally urinate in public.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ If you actually even bothered to read most of the material in the RevMarx forum, you would've realized that I'm NOT a Luxemburgist. :glare:

I'm looking forward to your "searing critique" (read: hysterical and baseless polemic in defense of your realpolitik-oriented too-many-times-a-sellout-for-a-"hero" and his glorified-Paris-Communard-even-by-proper-Marxist-Leninist-standards lapdog in Albania).

[Comrade Rage]

I'm looking forward to your "searing critique" (read: hysterical and baseless polemic in defense of your realpolitik-oriented too-many-times-a-sellout-for-a-"hero").HA! One polemic coming up!:laugh:

[Comrade Rage]

^^^ If you actually even bothered to read most of the material in the RevMarx forum, you would've realized that I'm NOT a Luxemburgist. :glare:WAIT...aren't you a Kautskyist.:glare:

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Till then. ;)


WAIT...aren't you a Kautskyist?

Consult with fellow RevLeft posters, and you'll find that I'm anything BUT a parliamentary reductionist in the image of the REAL founder of "Marxism" (Lenin was a left-Kautskyist :p ). :glare:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1114492&postcount=7

If you know about Marx turning Hegel "right side up" in terms of materialism vs. idealism, then I intend to do the same to the REAL founder of "Marxism" - pre-renegade Kautsky - in terms of reductionism and revisionism vs. revolutionary Marxism. :)

[Comrade Rage]

Sorry, dude. MARX was the founder of MARXism. Not Karl Kautsky.

You've actually got your Karls mixed up.:lol:

Your info is somewhat informative, but you arrive at the wrong conclusions.

[careyprice31]

Comrade Crum: "Kudos to the person who removed this disgusting piece of filth from the planet earth. August 21, 1940 was the greatest date in history and I celebrate it annually."

His name was Ramon Mercarder.

He was punished for killing Trotsky but later was decorated by the ussr government

[Comrade Rage]

Comrade Crum: "Kudos to the person who removed this disgusting piece of filth from the planet earth. August 21, 1940 was the greatest date in history and I celebrate it annually."

His name was Ramon Mercarder.

He was punished for killing Trotsky but later was decorated by the ussr government
I know, but since a lot of people don't know the name of that glorious hero, I worded the post the way I did. For a while I was considering changing my name to his, but decided against that for the same reasons, as well as the fact that he once followed Trotsky.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sorry, dude. MARX was the founder of MARXism. Not Karl Kautsky.

You've actually got your Karls mixed up.:lol:

Your info is somewhat informative, but you arrive at the wrong conclusions.

Then why do serious historians credit the founding of CHRISTianity to the apostle Paul? :glare:

[Marx was just a scientific-socialist, and I was expecting more of a "searing critique" than your one-line whimper. :p ]

[Comrade Rage]

Then why do serious historians credit the founding of CHRISTianity to the apostle Paul? :glare:BAN freakazoid sockpuppet!:laugh:

Kautsky was not the FOUNDER, his theories may have played a part, but it was DM and Marx that founded Marxism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ WTF are you talking about? Are you insinuating that I am some dual? :rolleyes:

[Then again, this is just business as usual for "Marxist-Leninists." :glare: ]

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith4.htm


It was in the 1890s, when Karl Marx had been safely dead for a decade, that Kautsky and Plekhanov invented ‘Marxism’.

[careyprice31]

"It was in the 1890s, when Karl Marx had been safely dead for a decade, that Kautsky and Plekhanov invented ‘Marxism’."

Plekhanov founded the first Russian Marxist party in 1883, it was called the Group for the Emancipation of Labor.

I think you're a bit off on your Menshevik history there bro.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That's not the point. If you read all of Cyril's book in the link above, you'll note that Plekhanov got into high gear in his Marxism when following the lead of one of those in my avatar.

THE key text of "Marxism" - The Class Struggle (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/index.htm) (link) - was written in 1892. [And if you really want to step out of your Bukharinism and into small-r revolutionary Marxism, may I suggest you read my Article Submissions, because this woefully underrated work forms the basis of my theoretical work in progress, The Class Struggle Revisited?]

[careyprice31]

^^^ That's not the point. If you read all of Cyril's book in the link above, you'll note that Plekhanov got into high gear in his Marxism when following the lead of one of those in my avatar.

THE key text of "Marxism" - The Class Struggle (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/index.htm) (link) - was written in 1892. [And if you really want to step out of your Bukharinism and into small-r revolutionary Marxism, may I suggest you read my Article Submissions, because this woefully underrated work forms the basis of my theoretical work in progress, The Class Struggle Revisited?]


lol !!

"step out of my bukharinism and into small-r revolutionary marxism"

That actually made me laugh.

Plekhanov got into his marxism when it was obvious that the populist methods of 'go to the people ' of the 1870's and terror hadnt worked. Marx came to Russia first in 1872, when Das Kapital was permitted by the censors to be published there. Plekhanov and his friends got into Marxism long before the 1890's.

[F9]

there should be and a fifth option: if he was alive i would killed him

[Bastable]

there should be and a fifth option: if he was alive i would killed him


very good point. now that you mention it, the wording of the poll was biased in stalin's favor...

[Comrade Krell]

Richter, as usual you are playing the impractical theoretical hack.

[Bilan]

Stalin did possibly the most damage to the name of socialism in human history. He brought images of gulags, suffering, brutal authoritarianism, and absolutely corrupted the idea of "dictatorship of the proletariat" to a degree beyond recognition.

The only positive thing that occurred under Stalin, or that can be admired for, is the rapid industrialisation of Russia.

Balanced against his other bullshit activity, its hardly worth admiring.

Nevertheless, I voted "Like a father" because I found it amusing.

[Comrade Krell]

Stalin did possibly the most damage to the name of socialism in human history. He brought images of gulags, suffering, brutal authoritarianism...
No, the bourgeois did that, and by saying what you have you merely prove that the bourgeois cultural hegemony is speaking through you.

[Red Scare]

I hate his guts. Why wasn't that an option?

-Scare

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm curious as to why there isn't a "I wish that Stalin's mother knew of the miracle that is abortion" option.

[3A CCCP]

No, the bourgeois did that, and by saying what you have you merely prove that the bourgeois cultural hegemony is speaking through you.

100% correct comrade Krell! From the days of W.R. Hearst and Robert Conquest right up to the present the bourgeois anti-Stalin propaganda campaign has permeated the Western media and twisted the minds of the Western public (especially, the American public).

Hating Stalin is so pervasive and ingrained in the minds of Americans that it seems like a genetic characteristic passed on from one generation to the next. Of course, Trotskyites love this (and it was quite noticeable shortly after I joined a week ago that Trotskyites seem to be in the majority on this list.)

Below are a few links to some reading material that might be of interest to some list members.

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/HCPSU39NB.html

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/politics.html#STALIN

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Stalinist/?yguid=97790546


3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Regardless of my 'feelings' on Stalin's character, threads like this are wholly unhelpful. In fact, I would say they were counter-productive.

History should not be analysed based on a 'hero' or 'villain' perspective; Marx continuously fought against such individualist interpretations of history and sought the real drive behind history: material conditions and class struggle.

For or against 'Stalinist' Russia, it can be explained by a materialistic and class based analysis rather than emotive driven responses which, typically, draw an little credible evidence.

[Comrade Krell]

‘STALINISM’

An Address to the Sarat Academy in London

on 30 April 1999 by Bill Bland
I am grateful to the Sarat Academy for inviting me to speak to you on ‘Stalinism’.
However, your choice of subject presented me with some difficulty, since I am a great admirer of Stalin and the word ‘Stalinism’ was introduced by concealed opponents of Stalin - in particular by Nikita Khrushchev - in preparation for later political attacks upon him.
Today in fact, ‘Stalinism’ has become a meaningless term of abuse employed to denote political views with which one disagrees.The Conservative press sometimes even describes Tony Blair as a ‘Stalinist’ -giving Stalin, were he still alive, ample grounds for a libel action!
Stalin always referred to himself modestly as ~a pupil of Lenin’ and T shall follow his example and interpret the subject of ‘Stalinism’ as ‘Marxism-Leninism
Perhaps the nearest figure to Stalin in British history is Richard the Third, whom everybody ‘knows’ - and I put the word ‘knows’ in inverted commas - from their school history books and Shakespeare to have been a cruel, deformed monster who murdered the little princes in the Tower.
It is only comparatively recently that serious historians have begun to realise that the commonly accepted portrayal of Richard was drawn by his Tudor successors, who had seized the throne from him and killed him.
Naturally, they then proceeded to rewrite the chronicles to justify their usurpation of the throne - even altering his portraits to present him as physically deformed, as a physical as well as a moral monster. In other words, the picture of Richard which has become generally accepted today was the result not of historical truth, but of the propaganda of his political opponents.
The question is: is the picture of Stalin presented to us by so-called ‘Kremlinologists’ historical fact or mere propaganda?
The ‘Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (the Soviet Union), which was constructed under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, no longer exists. Is it therefore true to say - as many people do - that this means that socialism in the Soviet Union failed?
I intend to quote here only one set of statistics. Tn his report to the 17th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in January 1939, Stalin cited figures from Western sources on the growth of industrial output in various countries as compared with 1913. These figures were:

Germany: —24.6%
Britain: —14.8%
USA: +10.2%
USSR: +291.9%
Indeed, it is an undisputed fact under the centrally planned economy instituted under Stalin, Russia was transformed in a few decades from a backward agrarian country into an advanced industrial country which by 1941— 45 had become powerful enough to defeat a German aggression able to draw upon the resources of the whole of Western Europe.
It is common to hear Stalin described as a ‘dictator
The strongly anti-Soviet American writer Eugene Lyons once asked Stalin directly: ‘Are you a dictator?’ Lyons goes on (and I quote:)
"Stalin smiled, implying that the question was on the preposterous side.
‘No’, he said slowly, ‘I am no dictator. Those who use the word do not understand the Soviet system of government and the methods of the Communist Party. No one man or group of men can dictate. Decisions are made by the Party".
The British Fabian economists Sidney and Beatrice Webb, in their comprehensive book ‘Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation’ categorically reject the notion of Stalin as a dictator. They say (and I quote):
"Stalin . . . has not even the extensive power . . . which the American Constitution entrusts for four years to every successive president. .
The Communist Party in the USSR has adopted its own organisation.
In this pattern individual dictatorship has no place. Personal decisions are distrusted and elaborately guarded against",
Certainly, in the time of Lenin and Stalin the Soviet regime was officially described as one of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat . But this does not imply personal dictatorship. It means simply that political power is in the hands of working people, and that political activity aimed at taking political power away from the working people is illegal.
Of course, this latter is regarded in official circles in London and Washington as ‘undemocratic’ and ‘a grave violation of human rights’
But the word ‘democracy’ means ‘the rule of the common people’, and in this sense- the Soviet -Union in Stalin’s time was infinitely more democratic than any Western country.
As for ‘human rights’, the United Nations Human Rights Convention of 1966 lays down that states should guarantee to their citizens the ‘right to work’.
But only in a socialist society can this right be put into effect, can unemployment be abolished (as it was in the Soviet Union in Stalin’s time). A capitalist society requires what Marx called ‘a reserve army of labour ‘ so that it can make labour readily available in times of boom.
Thus, for a socialist country to ban political activity aimed at the restoration of capitalism is fully in accord with the UN Convention on Human Rights.
In fact, talk about human rights is in most cases merely a propaganda weapon directed against socialism. In the eyes of Lombard Street and Wall Street, a corrupt central American ‘banana republic’ which sends out nightly death squads to murder homeless children in order to keep the streets tidy for the tourist trade counts as a ‘free country’ as long as it allows freedom of investment.
The Soviet traitors to socialism opened their attack upon socialism in 1956 at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party in February 1956 by charging Stalin with organising a ‘cult of personality’ around himself.
Certainly, there in the time of Stalin. wishes. In fact, Stalin
was a cult of Stalin’s personality in the Soviet Union But this was organised not by Stalin, but against his himself opposed and ridiculed this cult.
For example, when in February 1938 someone wanted to publish entitled ‘Stories of the Childhood of Stalin’, Stalin wrote typically:
"I am absolutely against the publication of ‘Stories of the Childhood of Stalin’.
The book abounds with a mass of inexactitudes of fact, . . . of exaggerations and of unmerited praise. .
But… the important thing resides tendency to engrave on the minds of Soviet children (and people in general) the personality cult of leaders, of infallible heroes. This is dangerous and detrimental…I suggest we burn this book".
There was indeed a ‘cult of personality’ around Stalin. A leading. communist cried at the 18th Congress of the Party in March 1939:
"The Ukrainian people proclaim with all their heart and soul . ‘Long live our beloved Stalin!’ .
Long live the towering genius of all humanity, . . . our beloved Comrade Stalin!"
The speaker was Nikita Khrushchev!
It was Khrushchev too who coined the term ‘Stalinism’ and began to call Stalin ‘Vozhd" - the Russian equivalent of the German ‘Fuhrer’, Leader.
In other words, the ‘cult of personality’ around Stalin was built up not by Stalin and those who genuinely supported him, but by his political opponents as a prelude to attacking him later as a megalomaniac dictator
Even though Stalin did not have the power to stop these alleged manifestations of ‘loyalty’ and ‘patriotism’, Stalin was no fool and was aware that their motives were, as he told the German writer Lion Feuchtwanger in 1937, ‘to discredit him’ at a later date.
Thus, the cult of personality around Stalin was contrary to Stalin’s own wishes, and the fact that it went on demonstrates that in the last few years of his life Stalin - far from wielding dictatorial power - was in a minority within the Soviet leadership.
This explains many strange facts:
For example,
that after 1927 Stalin ceased to be active in the Communist International;
that Stalin’s works, although incomplete, ceased to be published in the Soviet Union in 1949, three years before his death;
that, in breach of long-standing practice, Stalin - although General Secretary of the Party and in good health - failed to present the report at the 19th Party Congress in 1952.
Let me return to the question of the alleged ‘failure of socialism’.
In an effort to prevent the building of socialism, in 1918 the new state was attacked by the armed forces of Britain, France, Poland and Japan. But despite the fact that the new Soviet state possessed at the outset neither an organised army nor experienced military men, the five-year War of Intervention ended in victory for the Soviets.
The opponents of socialism learned an important lesson from their defeat, namely, that socialism was most unlikely to be destroyed by direct offensive, but only from within, that is, by agents posing as socialists, working hard within the Communist Party so as to achieve positions of influence and then, in the name of ‘modernising’ socialism, using this influence to divert the Party along political lines which would undermine socialism and gradually forfeit the support of working people for the Party.
It is a programme which Marxists call revisionism, because while revising Marxism in significantly harmful ways, it claims to be merely modernising it.
Khrushchev became leader of the Soviet Communist Party shortly after Stalin’s death in 1953. But it was not until 1956, three years later, that he felt it safe openly to attack Stalin - and then only in a secret speech which was never published in the Soviet Union until many decades later.
The attack upon Stalin was a necessary prelude to an attack upon, and a change to, the programme for building socialism put forward by Stalin.
One of the charges often levelled against Stalin is that while he was General Secretary of the Party many innocent people were falsely imprisoned for counter-revolutionary criminal of fences. This allegation, unlike most of the others, is true. Between 1934 and 1938 the post of People’s Commissar for Internal Affairs - in charge of the security police - was held successively by Genrikh Yagoda and Nikolai Yezhov. At Yagoda’s public trial in 1938, he described to the court how he had used his authority to serve the conspiracy by protecting his fellow—conspirators from arrest, but arresting loyal communists on false charges.
It was Stalin who, suspecting something was terribly wrong, got his
personal secretariat under Aleksandr Poskrebyshev to investigate what was going on in the security police.
It was as a result of these investigations that Yagoda and Yezhov were dismissed and arrested, that all cases of alleged political crimes were reinvestigated and thousands miscarriages of justice were corrected.
It was more than anything this situation which led to the production of whole libraries of books accusing Stalin of responsibility for mass murder.
With every edition of such books as Robert Conquest’s ‘The Great Terror’, his estimate of Stalin’s ‘victims ‘ went up by several million to become farcical. When, after the counter—revolution had been completed, Boris Yeltsin published official figures of Soviet prisoners, they turned out to be less than in the United States, and the world press was strangely silent.
It was to Leonid Brezhnev - who succeeded Khrushchev as Party General Secretary in 1964 - that the dishonour fell of beginning the actual dismantling of socialism. Under Brezhnev’s ‘economic reforms’, carried out under the cloak of ‘decentralisation’, moves were made to replace centralised planning, which is one of the bases of socialism, by the regulation of production by the profit motive, which is one of the bases of capitalism.
From this time on, it was all downhill.
What was abolished, along with the Soviet Union, in 1991 virtually without opposition, was not -socialism, but a particularly corrupt -and undemocratic form of capitalism akin to fascism
Today, thanks to phoney communists like Khrushchev, Breznhnev and Gorbachev the once united Soviet Union has split into a number of rival principalities, often at war with each other in spite of being bankrupt.
But, we are told, the people of the former Soviet Union are now ‘free’. -
free to be unemployed; if they are lucky enough to have a job, free to go months without wages because their employer’s bank has gone into liquidation;
free to buy Rolls-Royce cars if they happen to be Mafia millionaires;
free to drink polluted water;
free to be mugged in any side street for the equivalent of a few pennies.
It should be no surprise that in Russian newsreels today we see demonstrators carrying portraits of Stalin! For to the demonstrators the picture of Stalin symbolises the socialism of -which they have, temporarily been deprived.
If, therefore, people call me a ‘Stalinist’ - as they sometimes do - I regard this as a compliment, even though an undeserved one.
I honour Stalin as a great progressive figure who struggled all his life for the ending of the capitalist and imperialist system which is the cause each year of the misery and death of countless millions of men, women and children, especially in the neo-colonial world.
I honour Stalin as one who struggled all his life for the greatest cause in the world - the liberation of mankind.

I would encourage people to be open minded and not delude themselves with bourgeois propaganda.

[Colonello Buendia]

I personally think that though Stalin was a paranoid sans scruples incompetent dictatorial git who thoughroughly misinterpreted Marx's DOTP idea, I think he should be credited with good taste in propaganda posters, and his forethought of building new factories out of range from European forces.

[Bilan]

No, the bourgeois did that, and by saying what you have you merely prove that the bourgeois cultural hegemony is speaking through you.

The bourgeoisie did what?

[3A CCCP]

The bourgeoisie did what?

You know exactly what he means since he's answering your post.
Let's remind you about what you wrote and comrade Krell's answer to it.

Originally Posted by Proper Tea is Theft http://img.revleft.com/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1137660#post1137660)
Stalin did possibly the most damage to the name of socialism in human history. He brought images of gulags, suffering, brutal authoritarianism...
No, the bourgeois did that, and by saying what you have you merely prove that the bourgeois cultural hegemony is speaking through you.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

He did some good things and some bad things. He grew that moustache, and that moustache was an amazing feat.
But in all seriousness he did stop Hitler, and I'm grateful for that, but other than that and the increased literacy rate in the USSR, he was a totalitarian bastard and I would have shot him on sight... after WWII.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/Stalin_1902.jpg

Despite my earlier comment, however, my personal feelings of Stalin can be summed up in: :drool:

:wub: :blushing:

[Herman]

Despite my earlier comment, however, my personal feelings of Stalin can be summed up in: http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/drool.gif

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/001_wub.gif http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/blushing.gif

I have to agree.

[chegitz guevara]

Stalin: dead
Trotsky: dead
Mao: dead

can we stop fighting their fights?

[Colonello Buendia]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/Stalin_1902.jpg

Despite my earlier comment, however, my personal feelings of Stalin can be summed up in: :drool:

:wub: :blushing:

If I was gay or a woman I soooo would, not now he's dead though

[Invader Zim]

But in all seriousness he did stop Hitler


No, he didn't. This kind of 'great man', individualist nonsense is bullshit to the core.

[Peacekeeper]

BTW

It's we prefer Trotskyist.

Your use of the word Trotskyite is obviously hostile, and considered insulting. If I knew you in real life I'd shove my boot up your ass, since I don't, I may file a formal grievance against you.

Thanks.

Oh, great - now people are being reported for calling the followers of Trotsky, "Trotskyites."

I voted "He is like a father to me."

The public image of Stalin has been smeared in the West by corporate media and other bourgeois influences, which I would expect all true comrades to see for what they are: reactionary attempts to brainwash the masses. During the Stalin years, Stalin was rallying point for all Leftists of a Marxist persuasion (except for the Trotskyists later on, of course). The Western capitalist powers saw this, and entered into a huge campaign of disseminating anti-Stalinist propaganda into the Leftist movement, as well as the general population. By denying the Stalinist contribution to the Marxist-Leninist ideology, and revolutions throughout the world, you are playing right into the hands of the bourgeois class that seeks to divide and fragment the Leftist movement.

[chegitz guevara]

Shame about the Soviet archives confirming so many of those Capitalist slanders.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I deny that falsehood, yes. The topic has constantly been rehearsed on this forum and others - with little evidence in favor of the commonly-held position that Stalin was an "evil" dictator. The gulag, dictator, '33 famine, and purges myths are supported by neither documents nor testimonies.


Hmm.

I was under the impression that, simply from going on the Soviet archives alone, it could be established that at least a million people died during Stalin's tenure.

[Comrade Rage]

I was under the impression that, simply from going on the Soviet archives alone, it could be established that at least a million people died during Stalin's tenure.The Ukrainian crop failure, right? That was caused by kulaks resisting collectivization.

[AGITprop]

Oh, great - now people are being reported for calling the followers of Trotsky, "Trotskyites."



LoL I was just in a bad mood this morning.

But seriously, Trotskyite is an insult.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

What is the difference between a Trotskyist and a Trotskyite?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I prefer "Trots".

[chegitz guevara]

The Ukrainian crop failure, right? That was caused by kulaks resisting collectivization.

No, not really. It was caused by the periodic crop failures that occur in that part of the world, about once every ten years or so. According to modern research based on the Soviet archives, 2.6 to 3.5 million extra deaths were recorded in the years 1932-4, 1.54 million being in the Ukraine.

In the modern world, it takes more than a crop failure to become a famine. Human agency is necessary. In this case, the Soviet state continued seizing the grain of the "kulaks." Not only did they not leave the peasants with enough food, they didn't leave them with enough to plant the following year. There is evidence that the central authorities in Moscow were aware of a problem. The Library of Congress has at least one letter from a commissar in the field requesting that the requisitions be called off because of the situation. It took a year before Moscow changed the policy.

In addition, according to Michael Parenti's figures, between 800,000 and 900,000 people were executed during the Purges. If we leave out the problems caused by WWII, we can, at the very least, lay the excess deaths of four million people due to Stalin's policies. I disagree with Comrade Mao. Stalin did not make mistakes. He committed crimes against humanity.

The Holodomor, it should be noted, was not a genocide directed against the Ukrainian people, even though it coincided with a crack down on Ukrainian autonomy and culture. Most of the starvation occurred in the Eastern Ukraine, as well as the Don basin in Russia, largely Russian areas. Another center for the famine was in the north Caucasus, also a largely Russian area.

[chegitz guevara]

What is the difference between a Trotskyist and a Trotskyite?

Trotskyites are dogmatic Trotskyists. ;)

[Axel1917]

But in all seriousness he did stop Hitler, and I'm grateful for that,

Actually, the Red Army stopped Hitler in spite of Stalin, thanks to the advantages of the nationalized, planned economy. Stalin's policies purged the Red Army of its finest cadres, leaving largely incompetent officers in charge. Top this off with his "Social Fascism" policy helping Hitler come to power. Hell, if the Comintern were run on an internationalist, socialist basis in the 1930's, it is quite possible that WWII would have never happened and revolution could have ended up being revived in Germany.

[Dust Bunnies]

I was close to picking the worst option but I thought of some good points. While he was a ruthless and horrible dictator, he achieved some things to be applauded. He is an example of how if you are clever enough you could become the ruler. He turned Russia from farms to factories. Sure, he made a stupid pact with the Germans in WW2. But even if Stalin was being foolish, because of his foolishness Germany invaded and some of Germany's troops were bogged down, then Soviet Russia fought back, and Germany's enemies basically sandwiched Germany. If Soviet Russia never got invaded by Germany the Allies could of had a harder time, making it a stalemate and leaving a powerful leader (Hitler) in power, which would not go well when Hitler strikes back. Stalin preserved the Soviet Union and make sure it got preserved for many years (then Gorbachev had to ruin it).

[Red Equation]

He made a few mistakes, but overall, he was still a good man...

[Random Precision]

Hell, if the Comintern were run on an internationalist, socialist basis in the 1930's, it is quite possible that WWII would have never happened and revolution could have ended up being revived in Germany.

That could not have happened unless the revolutionary wave of 1917 had succeeded in spreading to Germany, Hungary and other European countries. The use of the Comintern for the interests of the Soviet bureaucracy was caused by the isolation of the revolution. In the policy of "social fascism", Stalin was merely acting in the interests of the Russian bureaucracy, as he was forced to.

[Andres Marcos]

Stalin's policies purged the Red Army of its finest cadres, leaving largely incompetent officers in charge.Who were Tsarist officers. Do people really need a reminder what happens when monarchists(or those who claim they are monarchists) get pissed off when things do not go their way?(Franco), hindsight is 20/20 you would still be criticizing the USSR for even knowingly allowing Tsarist officers in its ranks had one of them pulled a rebellion like in Spain.


Hell, if the Comintern were run on an internationalist, socialist basis in the 1930's, it is quite possible that WWII would have never happened and revolution could have ended up being revived in Germany.You are not seriously blaming WWII on the Comintern now are you? I mean come on the British Capitalists were literally gearing Germany up for a war with the hopes of it attacking the Soviet Union, all the bank notes were from the London Exchange, Germany doubled its Rubber import through the London Rubber Exchange and bought all its cotton from the U.S. literally until it invaded Poland. The Soviets saw the war coming and were calling for England and France to fight with it to save Czechoslovakia and they refused(they WANTED Germany and Russia to destroy each other). To say WWII was caused or even was partially caused by mismanagement of the Comintern is extreme.

[Random Precision]

Who were Tsarist officers. Do people really need a reminder what happens when monarchists(or those who claim they are monarchists) get pissed off when things do not go their way?(Franco), hindsight is 20/20 you would still be criticizing the USSR for even knowingly allowing Tsarist officers in its ranks had one of them pulled a rebellion like in Spain.

Can you prove that all or even most of the purged officers were Tsarists?

[Andres Marcos]

Can you prove that all or even most of the purged officers were Tsarists?


In 1930, ten per cent of the officer corps, i.e. 4500 military, were former Tsarist officers. During the purge of institutions in the fall of 1929, Unshlikht had not allowed a massive movement against the former Tsarist officers in the Army.
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/img1074.gif http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/img1080.gif.
J. Arch Getty, Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, 1933--1938 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985) p. 317.

`(A)ll the non-Stalinist versions concur in the following: the generals did indeed plan a coup d'état .... The main part of the coup was to be a palace revolt in the Kremlin, culminating in the assassination of Stalin. A decisive military operation outside the Kremlin, an assault on the headquarters of the G.P.U., was also prepared. Tukhachevsky was the moving spirit of the conspiracy .... He was, indeed, the only man among all the military and civilian leaders of that time who showed in many respects a resemblance to the original Bonaparte and could have played the Russian First Consul. The chief political commissar of the army, Gamarnik, who later committed suicide, was initiated into the plot. General Yakir, the commander of Leningrad, was to secure the co-operation of his garrison. Generals Uberovich, commander of the western military district, Kork, commander of the Military Academy in Moscow, Primakow, Budienny's deputy in the command of the cavalry, and a few other generals were also in the plot.'
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/img1088.gif http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/img1100.gif.
I. Deutscher, Stalin: A Political Biography, second edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 379.


`The Russian Army was purged of its pro-German elements at a heavy cost to its military efficiency. The bias of the Soviet Government was turned in a marked manner against Germany .... The situation was, of course, thoroughly understood by Hitler; but I am not aware that the British and French Governments were equally enlightened. To Mr.\ Chamberlain and the British and French General Staffs the purge of 1937 presented itself mainly as a tearing to pieces internally of the Russian Army, and a picture of the Soviet Union as riven asunder by ferocious hatreds and vengeance.'
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/img1087.gif http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/img1099.gif.
Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War: The Gathering Storm (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1948), pp. 288--289.



not too mention the vlasovite hitler collaborators.

[Illus]

It makes me truly sick to see so called 'socialists' denying the class struggle which happened in the USSR during the leadership of Stalin, the kulaks burnt grain, slaughtered cattle because they didn't want to work equally in the collective farms with their 'inferiors' the peasants, THAT IS WHAT CAUSED THE FAMINES. It was a civil war, more than that it was a class war, and attempts by pseudo-far-right-wingers like to disguise this fact are disgusting. Such people are just playing to the bourgeois social conditioning and political 'norms' of saying Stalin was bad, nothing more. Run along people, go back to your bourgeois friends.

[Invader Zim]

In 1930, ten per cent of the officer corps, i.e. 4500 military, were former Tsarist officers. During the purge of institutions in the fall of 1929, Unshlikht had not allowed a massive movement against the former Tsarist officers in the Army.
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/img1074.gif http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/img1080.gif.
J. Arch Getty, Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, 1933--1938 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985) p. 317.

`(A)ll the non-Stalinist versions concur in the following: the generals did indeed plan a coup d'état .... The main part of the coup was to be a palace revolt in the Kremlin, culminating in the assassination of Stalin. A decisive military operation outside the Kremlin, an assault on the headquarters of the G.P.U., was also prepared. Tukhachevsky was the moving spirit of the conspiracy .... He was, indeed, the only man among all the military and civilian leaders of that time who showed in many respects a resemblance to the original Bonaparte and could have played the Russian First Consul. The chief political commissar of the army, Gamarnik, who later committed suicide, was initiated into the plot. General Yakir, the commander of Leningrad, was to secure the co-operation of his garrison. Generals Uberovich, commander of the western military district, Kork, commander of the Military Academy in Moscow, Primakow, Budienny's deputy in the command of the cavalry, and a few other generals were also in the plot.'
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/img1088.gif http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/img1100.gif.
I. Deutscher, Stalin: A Political Biography, second edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 379.


`The Russian Army was purged of its pro-German elements at a heavy cost to its military efficiency. The bias of the Soviet Government was turned in a marked manner against Germany .... The situation was, of course, thoroughly understood by Hitler; but I am not aware that the British and French Governments were equally enlightened. To Mr.\ Chamberlain and the British and French General Staffs the purge of 1937 presented itself mainly as a tearing to pieces internally of the Russian Army, and a picture of the Soviet Union as riven asunder by ferocious hatreds and vengeance.'
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/img1087.gif http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/img1099.gif.
Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War: The Gathering Storm (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1948), pp. 288--289.



not too mention the vlasovite hitler collaborators.

You quote the The Gathering Storm as if it is a reputable piece of historical research.

[Base-Line]

This was a question posed on my in history class. He did many bad things, but I think what overshadows the bad is the fact he was able to defend and save his country from the German invasion. He was able to hold off the Nazi's and protect his land.

He also industrialize Russia and pushed it forward to make it one of the "power countries".

I think these acts overshadow the bad that he did, or at least even it up, Russia would be such a different place without him.

His is the "tough love" father type.

[BobKKKindle$]

but I think what overshadows the bad is the fact he was able to defend and save his country from the German invasion. He was able to hold off the Nazi's and protect his land.

Why should Stalin be given personal responsibility for these achievements? He did not do any physical fighting during the war, he was not an effective military commander, and his actions (the execution of half of the officer corps) allowed the invasion to progress much further than it would have done, if these purges had not taken place. For these reasons, Stalin should not be given credit for the victory of the Soviet Union.


You quote the The Gathering Storm as if it is a reputable piece of historical research.

Agreed - it is ironic that Stalinists criticize others for using sources which are not objective (written by "bourgeois" historians) but are happy to use sources with a clear ideological purpose, when the material these sources contain supports the Stalinist argument.

[aussiestalinist]

the execution of half of the officer corps


The Stalin government had to purge the military and state services because there was a heap of trotskyist and capitalist spies in it.

[Base-Line]

Why should Stalin be given personal responsibility for these achievements? He did not do any physical fighting during the war, he was not an effective military commander, and his actions (the execution of half of the officer corps) allowed the invasion to progress much further than it would have done, if these purges had not taken place. For these reasons, Stalin should not be given credit for the victory of the Soviet Union.

"Its the kings win. Not the knights"

Stalin was the leader at the time so he gets the credit, after all, he was the "man of steel".

[BobKKKindle$]

Stalin was the leader at the time so he gets the credit, after all, he was the "man of steel".This is a silly way to approach debates of historical responsibility, and your childish quote does nothing to support your case. You are promoting a view of history
which emphasizes the role of individuals, but Marxists argue that the course of historical events is the result of group behaviour (especially the behaviour of classes) and underlying economic forces. The leader of a country should not be given credit for every positive event which occurs during that leader's term of office, because leaders may make no personal contribution towards these events - Stalin did not personally engage in the construction of the Soviet Union's industrial base, nor did he fight in the war against the invading forces, and arguably in both of these areas (military and industrial achievements) the Soviet bureacracy (of which Stalin was the leader) had a regressive impact, such that greater achievements could have been made in the absence of this bureacracy.

If we accept your position, for argument's sake, and assume that leaders are personally responsible for what occurs during their term of office, why should Stalin's responsibility be limited to positive events? Surely he should also be held accountable for negative events, such as widespread famine - even though this was allegedly the result of economic sabotage by Kulaks?

[Vanguardian]

STALIN is immortal hero of Soviet Socialism. He incarnated Spirit of Socialism in his material and aware existence, and manifested it in the Glorious Miracle of the First Five Year Plans, and the Eternal Cosmic Victory over that Evil Beast Hitler in First Great Patriotic War.

Our Movement has created new Timeline in honour of STALIN. It is called A.S and it stands for After STALIN.

STALIN is like father for us all.

He is loving and kind father, but He will punish you if you are following wrong path to Entropy.

Yours truely
Davyd Martynovich Smertin
KGB Officer
First Librarian
RUSS-L

[Nosotros]

I remember being on the Punk Connect Website and came across this blokes profile. The man was a Nazi skinhead, he had racist and hateful language all over his profile. His faveourite quote on the profile was : "The death of one is a tragedy, the deaths of millions is just a statistic." - Joseph Stalin. Nuff said really.

[Ghaile]

I remember being on the Punk Connect Website and came across this blokes profile. The man was a Nazi skinhead, he had racist and hateful language all over his profile. His faveourite quote on the profile was : "The death of one is a tragedy, the deaths of millions is just a statistic." - Joseph Stalin. Nuff said really.
So what? You think completely fabricated bourgeois quotes prove anything? If anything they prove the gullibility to bourgeois propaganda of people like you.

[Holden Caulfield]

the ignorance of young Stalinist kiddies on the latter part of this thread is laughable almost,

Red Alert 3 might sway the votes more in favour of the moustached murderer

for example;


The Stalin government had to purge the military and state services because there was a heap of trotskyist and capitalist spies in it.


there are more but that one is a fovourite

[Wake Up]

Theres no excuse for a man like Stalin.
While we all have our ideologies we must remember that above all we are Human. Stalin Was responsible for millions of deaths, millions more than the Nazi's and no degree of ideology can make up for that.

[Dros]

Theres no excuse for a man like Stalin.
While we all have our ideologies we must remember that above all we are Human. Stalin Was responsible for millions of deaths, millions more than the Nazi's and no degree of ideology can make up for that.

Thank you for that wonderful piece of over worn bourgeois trash!

[Ghaile]

Theres no excuse for a man like Stalin.
While we all have our ideologies we must remember that above all we are Human. Stalin Was responsible for millions of deaths, millions more than the Nazi's and no degree of ideology can make up for that.
Please keep repeating those bourgeois lies ad nauseum....

[Wake Up]

Thank you for that wonderful piece of over worn bourgeois trash!

Please explain the following borgeois trash then......

The estimates of the death toll under Stalin (either directly or indirectly) ranges between 2 and 65 million. Even taking the lowest estimate that is unacceptable to me

Stalin was a dictator and not someone that I, as a revolutionary ,want to associate with.
I understand that history is written by the victors and therefore Stalin has been misinterpreted, I am not stupid. but in freeing the proletariat Stalin merely led them into another form of oppression.

As I said we are all human, if a man has the same ideology's as me but uses excessive violence, fear and death to achieve his aims then I wan't nothing to do with that man.
(Note that I do not share Ideology with Stalin)

[Echo]

Stalin didn't kill two million. Nor did he kill 65 million.

It's perfectly acceptable to despise 'Stalinism' in spite of these bourgeoisie misrepresentations.

[Ghaile]

Please explain the following borgeois trash then......

The estimates of the death toll under Stalin (either directly or indirectly) ranges between 2 and 65 million. Even taking the lowest estimate that is unacceptable to me

Stalin was a dictator and not someone that I, as a revolutionary ,want to associate with.
I understand that history is written by the victors and therefore Stalin has been misinterpreted, I am not stupid. but in freeing the proletariat Stalin merely led them into another form of oppression.

As I said we are all human, if a man has the same ideology's as me but uses excessive violence, fear and death to achieve his aims then I wan't nothing to do with that man.
(Note that I do not share Ideology with Stalin)
That's because you're pathetic pacifistic trash and anti-class warfare.

Those who think they take a 'third position' on Stalin aren't kidding anyone, they are firmly in the bourgeois camp, they are simply parroting the bourgeois line from a different perspective.

[Wake Up]

That's because you're pathetic pacifistic trash and anti-class warfare.

Those who think they take a 'third position' on Stalin aren't kidding anyone, they are firmly in the bourgeois camp, they are simply parroting the bourgeois line from a different perspective.

Thats bullshit and you know it.

Get yourself of your high-horse and open your eyes. My line maybe the bourgeois line but that does not automatically mean it is wrong.

good to see you are jumping to conclusions over my beliefs just because I denounce Stalin as a mass-murderer. And yes I will continue to spout this bourgeois trash until I see indisputable evidence to the contrary.

[Ghaile]

Thats bullshit and you know it.

Get yourself of your high-horse and open your eyes. My line maybe the bourgeois line but that does not automatically mean it is wrong.

good to see you are jumping to conclusions over my beliefs just because I denounce Stalin as a mass-murderer. And yes I will continue to spout this bourgeois trash until I see indisputable evidence to the contrary.
Good to see you acknowledge you are in the bourgeois camp.

There is plenty of evidence completely discrediting the Conquest-styled bourgeois garbage about Stalin. The problem is that you are fixated on your so-called 'mainstream' bourgeois sources that you cannot comprehend that class warfare is reflected EVERYWHERE, in politics, morality and most certainly in academia, if you can't accept that then you don't deserve to call yourself a Marxist.

So, here's some advise, you should read Ludo Marten's work 'Another View on Stalin' and stop believing bourgeois trash, most of which originated from the Nazi's and was modified for American use by McCarthy and his cronies.

[Wake Up]

Good to see you acknowledge you are in the bourgeois camp.

There is plenty of evidence completely discrediting the Conquest-styled bourgeois garbage about Stalin. The problem is that you are fixated on your so-called 'mainstream' bourgeois sources that you cannot comprehend that class warfare is reflected EVERYWHERE, in politics, morality and most certainly in academia, if you can't accept that then you don't deserve to call yourself a Marxist.

So, here's some advise, you should read Ludo Marten's work 'Another View on Stalin' and stop believing bourgeois trash, most of which originated from the Nazi's and was modified for American use by McCarthy and his cronies.


I can comprehend that class warfare is reflected everywhere, again you are jumping to conclusions. You seem to thnk that because I renounce Stalin then I suddenly believe everything the bourgeois media throws at me.

Oh and I'm not a marxist, Im a anarchist with syndicalist and mutualist tendencies.

[Wake Up]

That's all I need to hear. Anarchist=counter-revolutionary.

We will leave it at that...

[Dros]

Please explain the following borgeois trash then......

Gladly.


The estimates of the death toll under Stalin (either directly or indirectly) ranges between 2 and 65 million. Even taking the lowest estimate that is unacceptable to me

OMG! There was a famine! OMG! There was a devastating fucking war! OMG Stalin executed Czarists and counter revolutionaries! OMG! Stalin was in control of a backwards country where a lot of people died.

This is a silly and complete superficial way to look at history. You found a statistic. Without context, that is rather meaningless. Yes people died. Yes Stalin imprisoned some of them. Yes, some, even many, of those executed shouldn't have been. So ask yourself, "in what context were these mistakes made and could they have been prevented?" Don't just blather on in your inane way about "OMGZ he killed teh peoplz". Also, you have completely overlooked the incredible and truly historic contributions that Stalin made in terms of advances by the proletariat towards an emancipated society.

What you've got here does not represent an historical argument. It is simply a statistic and a rather silly claim that does not reflect any nuanced understanding or balanced consideration of events.


Stalin was a dictator and not someone that I, as a revolutionary ,want to associate with.

*yawn*


I understand that history is written by the victors and therefore Stalin has been misinterpreted, I am not stupid.

Then why do you insist on parroting the "victor's" version of history without doing an even moderately deep investigation of your own?


but in freeing the proletariat Stalin merely led them into another form of oppression.

Another non-argument.


As I said we are all human, if a man has the same ideology's as me but uses excessive violence, fear and death to achieve his aims then I wan't nothing to do with that man.

Don't care.

[McCaine]

This poll result is fairly interesting. Going by their loudness on this website, one would think the Stalinists in a majority - but the poll clearly indicates otherwise.

Not, of course, that historical debates are settled by majority vote.

[Wake Up]

Gladly.



OMG! There was a famine! OMG! There was a devastating fucking war! OMG Stalin executed Czarists and counter revolutionaries! OMG! Stalin was in control of a backwards country where a lot of people died.

This is a silly and complete superficial way to look at history. You found a statistic. Without context, that is rather meaningless. Yes people died. Yes Stalin imprisoned some of them. Yes, some, even many, of those executed shouldn't have been. So ask yourself, "in what context were these mistakes made and could they have been prevented?" Don't just blather on in your inane way about "OMGZ he killed teh peoplz". Also, you have completely overlooked the incredible and truly historic contributions that Stalin made in terms of advances by the proletariat towards an emancipated society.

What you've got here does not represent an historical argument. It is simply a statistic and a rather silly claim that does not reflect any nuanced understanding or balanced consideration of events.



*yawn*



Then why do you insist on parroting the "victor's" version of history without doing an even moderately deep investigation of your own?



Another non-argument.



Don't care.

The points you have made are all relevant but you seem to be missing my point as well as putting words into my mouth. I do not wish to put forth an historical argument and nor do I have the resources or admittedly the knowledge to do so properly.

However to me, the death toll overrides any argument over what Stalin achieved in terms of advancement in terms of the proletariat. That is down to my ideological beliefs. I am not a pacifist or anything approaching one there is however a line which in my eyes Stalin overstepped. A lot.


Also you seem to be defending Stalin because the bourgeois line attacks him. I you believe the death toll was appropriate to the advances made then fine, but don't dismiss my argument just because it is is similar to the argument that the bourgeois give.




Also you seem to take the line that

[Dros]

The points you have made are all relevant but you seem to be missing my point as well as putting words into my mouth. I do not wish to put forth an historical argument and nor do I have the resources or admittedly the knowledge to do so properly.

Fair enough. I would suggest that you reserve judgement until such time as you can do a thorough and independent investigation of the facts.


However to me, the death toll overrides any argument over what Stalin achieved in terms of advancement in terms of the proletariat.

You just said you didn't know what really happened. How can you say that when you have no idea what the magnitude of his accomplishments were, what the reasons for his mistakes were, and in what context he made those mistakes?


That is down to my ideological beliefs. I am not a pacifist or anything approaching one there is however a line which in my eyes Stalin overstepped. A lot.

I suggest you do some research at such time as you can.


Also you seem to be defending Stalin because the bourgeois line attacks him. I you believe the death toll was appropriate to the advances made then fine,

I have always stated that Stalin made numerous and grevious mistakes. The difference is that I understand why those mistakes happened and in what context. Hindsight is twenty twenty. When you're trying to build socialism in a backwards country surrounded by hostile imperialists and militant fascists and with saboteurs inside your own government, decisions must be made and mistakes were committed. Much of this was because Stalin never properly understood dialectics and had a rigid and mechanical way of approaching contradiction.


but don't dismiss my argument just because it is is similar to the argument that the bourgeois give.

Your argument is the line advanced by and popularized by the American Bourgeoisie to justify imperialism during the Cold War.

[Chapter 24]

I would definitely say I have a negative impression of the man. He definitely did not give socialism a good name for itself, and quite honestly however much of a father he is to anyone or how wonderful a leader he is I really don't mind saying that the course to true communism the USSR was taken in ways contradictory to socialist thought. You cannot and should not force any idea onto people, whether it be through the useage of terror, censorship, or mindless propaganda.
The Soviet Union's role during World War II is undeniably the greatest and it was during his leadership, but to call him a liberator in this way is false. Stopping the Nazis from world domination was a number one priority, and for this Stalin should be honored. But as a leader and representative of the people's need, I don't believe him to be a good man.

[Comrade B]

Stalin did more to fight real communism than the United States ever could.

[Rawthentic]

Wow Comrade B, I've never seen an in depth analysis as that, you really blew my mind.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Comrade B,

Stalin didn't do shit. The bourgeoisie makes a monster of anything communist not just Stalin. Stalin just happens to be a favorite because he did alot of shit wrong and he was part of a bureacratic trend, but they say the same shit about Lenin and Trotsky

[kotahitanga whenua]

shame on the comrades. without stalin we all be speaking german or worse still..... jewman:glare:

[Dros]

shame On The Comrades. Without Stalin We All Be Speaking German Or Worse Still..... Jewman:glare:

Wtf?!

[RedAnarchist]

shame on the comrades. without stalin we all be speaking german or worse still..... jewman:glare:

Why would we be speaking German, moron? Do they all speak Russian in the former Soviet republics (bar Russia, obviously)?

And that "jewman" comment? Its probably better for you if you explain it.

[Charliesoo]

Some good, some bad.