Stalin: A case study

[Communist Dominion]

There are various veiw-points of stalin ranging from crazed lunitic to a industious ambitious leader looking out for the rapid progress of the people in need. This topic is and has also caused divisions and needs to be confronted in the name of peace! enter this thread with a clear and open mind. Clear facts and arguments. and i put this thread in capitalism Vs Socialism because its actually quite interesting to see what the cappies think of all communist leaders no-matter what they actually did!

[guerrillaradio]

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=196 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=196)

I posted my opinion on the man here. I think "crazed lunatic" is the most accurate of the options you gave...

[Ernest Everhard]

since we're beyond good and evil, i'll say he's bad.

Its pretty disturbing that you guys actually need "clarification" regarding stalin, why do you need to reach a concensus, just make up your own mind on your own moral evaluation.

[Michael De Panama]

Seriously, I'm getting fucking sick and tired of all this Stalinist sympathy that's been appearing on this message board. If you support Stalin, fuck off. Stalin was no communist. Stalin was a fucking fascist. Communism is a democratic system without social class, not a totalitarian system with permanent social class. That would be fascism. Stalin was a nationalist who purged Russia of the Jews. That would also be fascism. Communism is an internationalist ideal.

Stalin and those who support him are a disgrace and shame to anything related to the movement. Stalin doesn't represent communism, and neither do his ignorant supporters.

I probably hate Stalin more than any capitalist out there. Stalin stained the theory of communism worse than any man who ever existed. The ignorant folk associate communism with the evils of Stalin's regime.

Stalin was the most evil fucking man who ever lived. If you ignorant asshole "communists" support what he did, you can be happy to be my serf. Because that's all Stalin was. Just a big feudal ruler who held serfs to a land much larger than anything the Roman Empire had ever seen, and called it "communist".

Again, if you support Stalin, you do not belong in the movement. Fuck off.

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

Weeeelll thats not really true. Marx said that communism would be a dictatorship of the people by the people.

[Michael De Panama]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is only a part of Marx's theory. It has nothing to do with communism. Capitalism and feudalism are also a part of Marx's theory.

Communism, however, is a system without class. Without democracy, a ruler of a nation would be in a class above the rest, leading to further inequalities and social division communism strived to abolish. Communism is the most democratic system ever devised. If you don't support democracy, then don't say you support communism.

Anyway, I'm posting this message twice.

[Dan Majerle]

Mike i agree with you 100%. I dont' see how people can support a tyrant like Stalin. It is like supporting Hitler or Pol Pot. Obviously more reading needs to be done on his life and crimes. However anything bad that is published about the man will be brushed aside as "propaganda" by Stalinists who claim to want to live in a Stalinist society but in reality would probably be the first to fall victims to it.

[Thine Stalin]

Micheal.. define facism for us.

And then define facist

Relate them to stalinist or stalinism after.
Stop throwing words around

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

Quote: from Michael De Panama on 1:49 pm on May 7, 2002
The dictatorship of the proletariat is only a part of Marx's theory.

A dictatorship of the proletariat by the proletariat

[Michael De Panama]

Quote: from Thine Stalin on 8:10 pm on May 7, 2002
Micheal.. define facism for us.

And then define facist

Relate them to stalinist or stalinism after.
Stop throwing words around

Gladly,
From Encarta.com:

Fas·cism [fá shìzzm ] noun
dictatorial government of Mussolini: a system of government practiced by Benito Mussolini in Italy between 1922 and 1943 that was characterized by dictatorship, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of opposition, and extreme nationalism

Fas·cist [fáshist ] (plural Fas·cists) noun

1. supporter of Fascism in Italy: somebody who belonged to Benito Mussolini's party or who supported Fascism in Italy between 1922 and 1943

2. fas·cist (plural fas·cists) or Fas·cist supporter of fascism: somebody who supports or advocates a system of government characterized by dictatorship, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism


If you deny that Stalin was not a dictator who repressed all opposition and had a centralized control over private enterprise while advocating extreme nationalism within Russia, then you are denying the truth.

I don't really see why anyone who honestly want to be ruled by a dictator without any freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of political ideology, and without any control over one's own life. If Stalinism, as you say, is the only way for "communism" to succeed, then why would you even WANT this "communism" to succeed? Unless YOU are the ruthless dictator, your life would be absolute shit.

And to Mac OS Revolutionary, I don't really see what your point is. Need I repeat myself? The dictatorship of the proletariat is merely a detail of the theory. It has no relation to communism, which Marx described as the most absolute democratic system.

[Thine Stalin]

Stalin wasn't so nationalist, and considering marx call facism highest form of facism... and stalin's regieme was hardly capitalist.

As to stalin being the only happy one, the majority of the Russian people sobbed at stalin's death, and many elderly russians want another stalinist regieme back..

[Michael De Panama]

Stalin was extremely nationalistic. Since all you did was tell me that I'm wrong with no evidence to back it up, I'll just respound simply by saying that I'm right. Do you really want to argue in such a childish manner?

Uh, well, I'm guessing you meant to say that Marx called fascism the highest form of capitalism, which is a great sign of weakness that you have to rely on someone ELSE'S definition of fascism. I also don't believe that it was Marx who said this, as fascism was an ideology that was developed after Marx's death. Either way, "the highest form of capitalism" is a very vague definition, as opposed to the one I gave you. I could look at Stalin's system of running things, and see that it WAS the ultimate form of capitalism. The ruler of an ENTIRE nation was assuming the role of the bourgeoisie, and EVERYONE ELSE assumed the role of the proletariat, working under oppression and fear.

I'm sure that there were those fools who were saddened by the death of their leader. There were also fools before that who were saddened by the death of Nicholas II. This doesn't mean that their sadness has a sincere justification. Stalin had brainwashed a large amount of Russians into believing that he was almost a god. However, this still does not answer the question I proposed to you:

If Stalinism, as you say, is the only way for "communism" to succeed, then why would you even WANT this "communism" to succeed? Why would you want to live under such conditions? Why would you want to be ruled by a dictator without any freedom over your own life? Why would you think that this way of life would be any better than capitalism? I'm sure that any real communist, including Marx, would unquestionably choose to live in a capitalist society rather than an oppressive Stalinist regime that simply calls itself "communist".

[Thine Stalin]

If Stalinism, as you say, is the only way for "communism" to succeed, then why would you even WANT this "communism" to succeed? Why would you want to live under such conditions? Why would you want to be ruled by a dictator without any freedom over your own life? Why would you think that this way of life would be any better than capitalism? I'm sure that any real communist, including Marx, would unquestionably choose to live in a capitalist society rather than an oppressive Stalinist regime that simply calls itself "communist".

I am going to answer all your questions at the end in order.

The Stalinist regieme would be needed FIRST before that of truer communist form, the people need to be brainwashed and loyal enough that the communist regieme won't be overthrown until all the good reforms are in place, when they see what a great country has been made, with such great reforms, they won't want a revolution. The condititions would be temporary until the country was reformed enough, then a more benevolent leader would be installed, leading to the utopian communist system you so want, the dictator would always be there, and I'd want the end result for my next of kin to be there, even if I didn't live to see it, to not want this is selfish, as for the marx thing, we'll never know.

[El Che]

Thine Stalin wants to "brainwash" the people so that they are completly "loyal". And if brainwashing doesn`t work he can always shoot them. In any case its good that Thine Stalin is dumb enough to be this straight foward about it, instead of insisting on revisionist bullshit like the likes of "aint-trot". This makes Thine Stalin a harmless would-be-fascist, so dont waste ur time with this one.

[Thine Stalin]

*arches a brow curiously*

Perhaps you just assume things like micheal did, too quickly

[Michael De Panama]

Not once have I assumed anything too quickly. All my "assumptions" have justification which you didn't seem to refute.

Anyway, I understand what you are saying, Thine Stalin. I am very familiar with the theory you presented. I've read some of Mussolini's theories on fascism, and your little theory matches it perfectly. Basically, what you are proposing is that the ruling class must totally brainwash the ruled class into subordination so that they will stay ruled FOREVER! Communism wants to do away with social class, fascism wants to make it permanent.

The thing that bugged me was that you told me that all of this would lead to the utopian communist society I strive towards, yet you still mentioned that there would be a dictator.

ARE YOU NOT ABLE TO SEE THAT THE REASON I AM A COMMUNIST TO BEGIN WITH IS BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT POWER TO BE IN THE HANDS OF THE MINORITY? The proletariat is the majority! I don't want any small and ruthless authority to be in control! The communist utopia I strive towards is one in which that is actually COMMUNIST! In other words; a system completely controlled by the majority of the people, rather than the rich minority. I DON'T WANT A RICH MINORITY! Therefore, I DON'T WANT A FUCKING DICTATOR! Can't you get this through your stupid head?

HAVE YOU EVEN READ THE FUCKING COMMUNIST MANIFESTO?

Stupid fucking fascist.

And I expect you to respound to everything I have told you, or admit that you ARE a fascist and not a communist.

[Thine Stalin]

You sound like you want anarchy then.. you utopian anarchist too?

I read the manifesto, its boring, sorry, it is, most of it is forgotten by modern communists in their regiemes because its mostly just marx babbeling on about socialist economy.

I don't got enough time to finish my reply

I will write more later

[Michael De Panama]

Since you haven't read the manifesto and support Stalin, it doesn't surprise me that you would assume that I want anarchy. You obviously know nothing about communism. I don't want anarchy. I want laws. I want government. I want structure. But I want it all to be controlled by the people. I want everyone to have equal social status. The only way for this to work is through democracy.

It's really sad that you try to tell me that you aren't a fascist, and then tell me that the Communist Manifesto is "boring". What's more exciting? Mein Kampf?

Respound to my last post. I've waited long enough.

[yuriandropov]

michael de panama, i think you asked me on another thread but i'll answer you on this one. you asked me to point out how stalinism had anything to do with marxist-leninism. ok, here are several principles of communism and who said them:
democratic centralism-leninist principal
centrally planned economy-marxist principil
dictatorship of the prolaterat- marxist principil
in the time of war, the people are the most important weapon- leninist principil
"the state of a country, reflects the state of its military"- frederick engels- marxist principle
anti-nationalism-marxist principle
crushing of capitalist decent- leninist principle
elimination of middle class- marxist principle

1- stalin worked within the politburo, thats democratic centralism.
2- stalins economy was much more left tan even lenins
3- the members of the politburo and stalin himself, were working class. dictatorship of the prolaterat (USSR wasn't ready for peoples democracy yet)
4- stalin frequently stressed this and brought in complsery military service.
5- stalins economy was a war economy that prepared USSR for war. USSR's militray was about 10 in wordl in 20's, it was numero uno after 1945
6- stalin crushed all soviet nationalist desent. he was the only soviet leader to deal with the chechens.
7- i don't think i need to give examples of this. lets just say he didn't call himself man of steel for nothing.
8- stalin eliminated the kulaks as a class.

stalins USSR wasn't entirely communist but it has many communist features. the major problem i have with him is that, IMO politicians should be payed the same as skilled workers. in stalins era, we didn't have that. maybe the USSR wasn't ready for it.

[Communist Dominion]

look please do not be so quick to judge, i would class myself as semi-stalinist but still do not agree with many with his policies, look, if you were a leader and got to choose what years to rule in he chose the short straw, the depression and WW2.
Drastic problems call for drastic measures, I agree on a democratic state "for" the people (in their best interests) but Stalin did induce a dictatorship because of major problems in communication and the fear of bueracracy.
A reason why many russians want a stalinist govt is because they know it will bring about drastic and fast moving reformation, Russia is stuffed under capitalism and soft-core socialsim will take to long to bring about practical implimentations and change. (no offense to any soft-core socialists).
Stalinism is a good begining stage to drag a tatterd country out of its poor state into a modern fast working state, then social changes can happen. Dont exactly change a car tyre while your driving, you need to stop, gauge the situation and repair as quickly as possible. So really Stalinism is not good for a long term thing, it does have many down sides.
And those who say it is not communism, is a disbeleiver and a leech on the cause, it is a quick effective "temporary" system that has good short term results, you dont blame the dis-infectant on the pain of a cut or scratch do you? But in a western country changing to left wing status, social democracy and socialism is the best. But Latin american and balkan nations, well they really are shated.
but Do not beleive i would not lay down my unity of left wing status for this anyday, unity is more important than this. And please do not be a war mongerer over a pretty petty matter in the long run.