stalin - good vs bad

[yuriandropov]

the bad things about stalin weren't his purges. most who died deserved to die anyway and the numbers have been greatly exagerated. lenin would have killed the same number. the bad thing about stalin was that he was too dictatoral. he did work within a politburo, but anyone who didn't agree with him didn't really have a voice. the best example of democratic centralism in the USSR was shown by brezhnev. he didn't want to invade afghanistan, but the politburo overruled his descision. in stalins day, that wouldn't have happened. i agreed with his elimination of kulaks and i think forced collectivisation was essential to industrialise USSR, once that was done, stalin gave many peasents there land back. so basically, the only bad things about stalin were, his dictatoral powers, and his paranoia near the end of his life. now lets look at the good things. he industrialised the USSR, he turned an agrarian country with low GDP into the second biggest economy in the world, he turned a country with 10% literary rate into a country with 90% literary rate, he built what was, and still is, the best run metro system (moscow) in the world, he, or his poicies basically won WWII, he added 9 soviet republics to the union, he stretched the soviet influence to the whole of eastern europe, indo china, china (the sino-soviet split was after stalins death) and korea, he turned the 5th best (and thats being generous) army in the world to the mightiest armed forces known to man, he set up the greatest intelligance service known to man (nkvd, kgb), he turned a backward country into a superpower that could compete with the USA, he set up the program that put the first man in space, he massivly increased the standard of living in USSR, he cleaned up corruption, he cleaned up crime, he guarenteed everyone housing, education, health care, food on the table and a job (in the 40's and 50's anyway), he put in place the sports funding that would make the soviet union the most dominant sporting country ever and he defeated the political movement known as facism. responces please.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i posted this in the theroy forum in responce to the question 'if stalin wouldn't have committed the purges, would he have been a good leader'. as no one has had the guts to answer it, i'll post it under a new topic and ask people, if stalin was so bad, how come the good things outweigh the bad by a massive amount?

[gooddoctor]

stalin ruined socialism for us all.

[yuriandropov]

how?? don't just make sweeping statements without backing them up. i've given you the reasons for him being a good leader for the USSR, you give me the bad.

[Reuben]

stalin was a shit

[yuriandropov]

oh no! quick moderater, ban reuban, he is anti-stalinist, therefore, he is a racist. as we all know, anyone who disagrees with the beliefs of a group of people is a racist and thats banned from this forum isn't it? oh wait, i forgot, how silly of me, its only jews that you can't say anything about. my mistake.

PS is ANYONE going to adress the points about stalin without resorting to bull shit rhetoric and statements that aren't backed up?

[Moskitto]

No anti-Stalinist isn't racist, Racism is against an ethnic group which Stalinists are not.

Attaching Stalinism to an ethnic group however is Racist.

[RedCeltic]

Nazis love to bring up how benifical National Socialism was to Germans. Heck, if you only looked at all the good points in Hitler's government, you'd be conviced that Hitler wasn't half bad. It's just a matter of ignoring some little details like say... oh... the holicaust.

[yuriandropov]

there was no holocaust under stalin. the numbers he killed were greatly exagerrated. also, stalin killed political enemies, enemies of the people. he didn't just kill ethnic races because he thought he was superior like hitler.

come one! you can do better than that can't you?

[RedCeltic]

And Neo-Nazis say that there was no holicaust under Hiter and it's just a Jewish conspericy, or.. the numbers where greatly exagerated by enemies...

Do you forget how Jews where treated under Stalin?

[El Che]

Stalin was a scysofrenical manian obcessed with power. He murdered thousands of comrades just for the sake of keeping power under his iron, fascist grip. He became a paranoin lunatic serial killer towards the end of his life. Just like Ivan "the terrible", and with exactly the same medival totalitarian powers.

In what concerns the Socialisation of the USSR, to put it simply and shortly it was a joke. He, and those like him and after him, replaced the bourgoise with the beurocrat. Workers had no power, workers had no control over the means of production. Not because it couldn`t be done, but because that would not be in the interests of the new previleged class, the Stalinist proto fascists, the beurocrats, the pigs from animal farm, and the brainwashing dissent crushing bastards from 1984.

And while all this was happening, the world, and the socialist movement looked to the USSR to see what would happen to the important socialist revolution that ever took place, and while it happened, the Socialist movement declined to its demise. I guess your just to dumb to see the truth yuri, I dont think anyone can help you. You are no comrade and nither was stalin.

[yuriandropov]

red celtic, that was an interesting point about the similarities between the purges and the holocaust. i still stand by my view though. there is basically no evidence to back up the figures. no bodies and no population decline. at least there are bodies in the holocaust. i also personally beleive there is a difference in killing someone because of the colour of there skin, and killing someone who is a capitalist in a socialist regime. jews were treated badly by stalin for the reason i've put in 'plight of a stalinist'. chechens were also treated badly because they didn't class themselves as prolaterats or even soviets. in which case, they were potential nationalist enemies. there were some secular jews in stalins regime but a lot of them had alligiances with trotskyists. BTW USSR was in no way ready for a workers democracy in the 30's or even 80's. stalin installed bureucrats because of the leninist principal 'if everyone is a bureucrat, than in turn, noone is a bureucrat'. i don't agree that a bureucrat should be payed more than a skilled worker, but as i've said before, USSR wasn't ready for that at the time.

[Guest1]

Of course not, just as the Arabs weren't ready to gain independance in Egypt, or Algeria, and the African majority wasn't ready to have the right to vote in South Africa. Don't give me that "it was for their own good" bullshit. Stalin was a fascist asshole. Without a worker's democracy, there is no benefit in the workers revolting. They just ended up changing oppressors. Fuck that shit. We work for a system of absolute democracy, NO ONE should be the ruling class, NO MATTER HOW "benevolant" stalinists make them out to be.

[Menshevik]

Yuri I take it that you are Russian, because you claim to hold a law degree from the University of Moscow and are very passionate about defending the Russian people. Now you speak perfect english for a muscovite (you have lived in Moscow if you attended the University, right?) so you must have lived in either GB or the US (correct me if I'm wrong). But if you continue to live in the current Russian Federation, how are your views on Stalin's regime received? If you live elsewhere, how do other Russian immingrants feel about your beliefs. Explain, because I'm quite curious, danks.

[El Che]

"stalin installed bureucrats because of the leninist principal 'if everyone is a bureucrat, than in turn, noone is a bureucrat'. i don't agree that a bureucrat should be payed more than a skilled worker, but as i've said before, USSR wasn't ready for that at the time."

Bullshit and you know it.

[yuriandropov]

menshevik, thank you about the comments on my english. it is actually easy to learn english from russian and vice versa. the tone is the same. eg say if i was going to say, 'thank you very much', in russian that would be 'bal'shoye spaseeba' but it would be said in the exact same tone regardless of language unlike something like arabic for example. i'm not a muscovite, i don't particularly like moscow. i lived there for 8 years but apart from the sites, moscow isn't that good a place. i was born in ulyanovsk (named after lenin who was also born there). i lived in England from '92 to '94 teaching russian privatly. the only things i learned over in england were the swear words. then when lukasenko came in, i got a job at the belorussian kgb. anyway, about stalinism in russia. its too complex an answer to be honest. people support it for so many reasons. the youngsters support it because they want USSR to be a superpower again and the old people liked the security it brought. few are in it for ideological reasons like myself. most other communists are brezhnevites or leninists. there is a massive power base for communism in russia. give it 15 years (tops!) and we will be a communist power again. the left is split in russia, stalinsists get about 35-40% and then smaller parties like CPSU, agrarian or national bolsheviks get a few percent each. the national bolsheviks have a strong stalinist undercurrent but are way to racist. they have a large youth following though. russia's experiment at capitalism failed in '96 when communists made massive parlimentry gains. russia now is a mixture of mafia capitalism, stalinism and social democracy. foreign russian immigrants won't like communism but it you ask most normal working class russians. they want the old days back and the security. putins popularity is fading, even in moscow (what was the most staunch anticommunist city in russia) there was 100,000 at the may day march.

[Menshevik]

ok that clears up some questions. But is Stalinism really that prevelent in present day Russia? I can't say for sure because I've never lived there, but I find it hard to believe. Even if many people wanted Communism back, why would they support Stalin?

[yuriandropov]

they don't necessarily 'support' stalin. they support a lesser kind of stalinism. most people look back at the 70's as the golden years as far as standard of living is concerned. many people want to see a return to the brezhnev days. the standard of living was good and freedom of speech was pretty relaxed. in fact, jokes about brezhnevs incompitency were quite normal. eg 'a man stands outside the kremlin and yells, 'brezhnev is an idiot!'. the man got 5 months for affray and 15 years for revealing a state secret!'. westerners will tell you USSR was a police state but it wasn't that bad in the 70's and 80's to be honest. its only the real old people who want a 'new' stalin. i don't want a new stalin, i just want someone who will lead USSR into prosperity and eventually, true communism. it just so happens that i think we will need stalin style 5-year plans to do it.

[ID2002]

I'm not a fan of Stalin at all! It is true that he was a heavy handed dictator!

....he was a homicidal fool who hated those who did not ID themselves to a political front.

"a smart man would find away around bloodshed"

(Edited by ID2002 at 3:11 am on May 15, 2002)

[Menshevik]

alright Yuri, we'll have to wait and see I guess.

[Mazdak]

alright people, i brought this back. According to some brilliant people at the site, the stalinists are a bunch of 12 year old kids. I feel, this thread alone proves you wrong.

[Michael De Panama]

No. The Stalinists are either a bunch of brainless 12 year old kids, or a bunch of insane and bitter Soviet Union nostalgists.

[Mazdak]

From the arguments you were giving Yuri, i beg to differ. It seems he actually elaborated on claims, while you(not you in particular) said things like "Stalin was a monster/fucker/evil dictator." Talk about strong arguments.

[new democracy]

Quote: from Michael De Panama on 7:21 pm on Oct. 11, 2002
No. The Stalinists are either a bunch of brainless 12 year old kids, or a bunch of insane and bitter Soviet Union nostalgists.
brilliant!!! that's explains why boadicea88 is only 14 years old and already in college!!!! MDP, from now on i have come to a decision: to start treating stalinists with respect. the problem here is that most of the people say: stalin=there is nothing good about him=stalinists are idiots. i have come to a decision that from now on to treat stalinists as what they are, normal human beings. i suggest you will read this(i didn't read this book yet, i am about to): http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html . i will admit that stalin was a totalitarian monster, but that doesn't mean all his supporters are retarded. and i must say that that the claim stalin was anti semite is not true. you may not know it, but my grandmother was jewish. she lived in poland. when soviet and german troops conquered poland, the part where my grandmother lived was conquered by the soviets, but it was about to be given to the germans. so the soviet union let thousands of jewish refugees to come there and stay there legally. and you know what she saw? except one time when someone said to her and her family "you are eevrim"(eevrim means hebrews in hebrew, at that time my grandmother didn't knew hebrew), there was no anti semitism. reuben said that stalin has destroyed yiddish libraries, but when my grandmother was there she didn't saw anything like it. if i am not mistaken, your grandfathers have experience stalinism too, but from the experience i heard there was nothing like this. of course my grandmother doesn't praise stalin too much. when my grandmother was in a factory there, in the part that was written "do not look" she took a quick look and she saw that the workers in this factory were children. and also, i don't remember the exact story, but stalin tried to confuse jewws, muslims and christians by messing in some way in the days of the week so none of them will knew in which day to pray.

[Cassius Clay]

Hello there New Democracy, how is your research into Enver Hoxha going?

This YuriAndropov fellow seems interesting, why did he leave?

However I disagree with some of his statements. For example he/she sais Stalin was to much of a dictator within the politburo. This is wrong, in 1938 Stalin had nominated Malenkov to head of NKVD yet the politburo then went and voted in Beria. He also said that Stalin introduced Bueracrates, this is also flawed. Stalin had to fight against the heirachy created by Trotsky in Red Army and the attempts at restoration of Capatalism in USSR as a result of NEP.

In 1953 there were no millionaires in USSR, yet by 1975 there were over 2000.

However the people who replied really had nothing more than the old 'Arguments' of worn out rhectoric and lies not to mention outright lies.

[Mazdak]

I dont agree with him 100% either but apparently he was one of the few respected stalinists here.

[James]

Good post yuri, we have a lot in common i think...

[Nateddi]

Sigh* for a second I thought that he came back to the board.

Yuriandropov was the last hope for this forum.

It’s a shame he had to go.

He is 39 or 40 years old, he works for the Belarussian KGB at the moment. He is a veteran of the Soviet war on terrorism, and a proud patriot of the USSR. He is not a stalinist, although his evaluation of Stalin is more objective than anyone else's on this board. Rhetoric-filled simple-minded idiots like Depanama, as well as totalitarian liberal-at-heart bitter 'stalinists' like Mazdak.

You can email leonid yunovski [yuriandropov] at yunovski[email protected] I HIGHLY doubt he will respond because I do not believe he has an internet connection ATM.

You can go to thephora to PM Kryuchkov [lenin from Che-Lives] and ask him about Leonid, who is his uncle.

This board has not been the same since he left.

[Nateddi]

New democracy, i salute your objective thought. People must realize that there is a middle ground. "you either oppose stalin with everything you say 100% without any respect, or you are a stalinist"

this is the basic tendency of your average che-lives liberal, which is, ironically, the same rhetoric used by the bush administration.

Its a real shame Yuri is not here, now this thread is back and will soon be shitted upon.

(Edited by Nateddi at 12:50 am on Oct. 12, 2002)

[new democracy]

thanks, and just a question about Yuriandropov. members here are saying he was anti semite, though i didn't saw one anti semite post from him. he was realy anti semite?

[Nateddi]

i would not say so

he is anti-israel, and he is so in a very intelligent matter. he explained calmly and intelligently to man in the red suit [a jew] why israel is bad, without using personal antisemetic attacks. it is to be noted, mitrs's reasoning for backign israel was very race/religion-oriented and something which can spur antisemetic comments from non-antisemites. this of course didnt happen.

he is much more moderate than mazdak, or even lenin.

he would be more authoritarian than I am, but slightly less than lenin, or mazdak.

(Edited by Nateddi at 12:58 am on Oct. 12, 2002)

[Mazdak]

Liberal at heart... i dont know about that. I am a mix of conservativism and liberalism. But i agree, he was the most intelligent stalinist because he experienced the Soviet Union(i dont know when he was born, but he lived there and this gives makes his opinion probably more valuable than any of us non soviets. Especially on stalin and other issues)

[Guest]

Poor yuri went back to belorussia :(
Anyway yeah, I miss him too, He was a very welcome addition for me espcially after being ignored as a stalinist for months (nobody wanted to debate it and alot assumed that thine stalin was just a odd choice of SN not political standpoint) and de panama being the only who noticed it and despised me for it, I felt so glad to have someone else here to shared my views. Of course he was for a permenant authoritarian goverment, while I was for a 3 generations length of stalinism with complete totalitarianism, while he wasn't that extreme, I was more towards seeing goverment evantually evolve into better forms, the ultimate form of goverment being Utopian anarchism (which I doubt is possible as long as human beings retain individuality)...


ANnnnddd I got off topic sorry.

[Michael De Panama]

New Democracy,
Stalin was a totalitarian monster. This you recognize. His followers advocate putting another totalitarian monster in power. What's there to respect about that? As human beings, sure, they have that respect. When has anyone here ever suggested to stop treating the Stalinists like human beings? They may be worthless and disgusting human beings, but they are still human beings. However, tolerating their political agenda is as counter-revolutionary as tolerating the Nazi's political agenda, and even more counter-revolutionary than tolerating the capitalist's political agenda. We should not respect their goals, for their goals contradict the true goals of the left. It truly saddens me that you've grown such sympathy for these fascists.

Ugh...I'm going to respond to the rest of you fascists later. I'm so sick of this shit.

[new democracy]

this is your problem. you think that stalinists are just saying bullshit. if you will listen, maybe you will find that they have some point. why don't you listen to them? mazdak believe that in the final stage of stalinism is anarchism. he see totalitarianism as the way to a classless society. after i LISTENED to him, i understood he is ok. try to listen to what they say. after i research on Enver Hoxha i found out that he wasn't so bad as history books tell us. try to listen to. and even though i am not anti stalinist, give me a link to the thread when yurri tell us about his wall :biggrin:

[Cassius Clay]

So when's the bastard coming back? Iv'e checked the archive and he said that he may come back in a few months.

Michael De Panama, do you actually have a argument against Stalin other than 'Monster' or whatever else? 'Advocating putting another Tolitarian Monster in Power', oh please this is just stupid.

There are hundreds of communist parties around the world who uphold and defend Stalin (although some vigoursly others to a lesser extent) and instead of planning a evil world takeover they fight for workers rights such as minimum wages, shorter hours etc. While you Trotskyites think May-Day is all about smashing McDonalds.

New Democracy. Here's to Hoxha, Democracy and death to those Social Imperialists who threatnen are true workers paradise ;) .

[guerrillaradio]

Anything New Democracy says in defence of Stalin should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. He is trying to get in Boudicea's pants after all. Also, how can someone campaigning for democratic revolution like just about the most undemocratic leader in history??

[Cassius Clay]

Oh dear all ND has said in defence of Stalin was that perhaps not all the people who support the man are 'worthless and disgusting' (quite why I should have to put up with that insult I don't know).

Anyway Stalin believed in democracy just as much as you all claim to do.

[new democracy]

guerrillaradio, i have never said that i am a stalinist or that i want to create a stalinist society. i am just trying to look at him from an unbiased view. as thomas jefferson said:"When a long train of abuse and usurpations reveal a settled design to subject them to absolute rule, it is not only the people's right but also their duty to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security". that is why i cannot allow a stalinist revolution to happen. but that doesn't mean that i shouldn't try to listen to what they have to say and try to understand them.

(Edited by new democracy at 8:41 pm on Oct. 14, 2002)

[new democracy]

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 7:33 pm on Oct. 14, 2002
He is trying to get in Boudicea's pants after all.
i must say that i find your humor as amusing :biggrin:

[new democracy]

but i will criticize the next works, because they are an obviously blatant propaganda against party members: http://www.marx2mao.org//Stalin/TL24.html , http://www.marx2mao.org//Stalin/SDD26.html , http://www.marx2mao.org//Stalin/RDSDD26.html , http://www.marx2mao.org//Stalin/TO27.html , http://www.marx2mao.org//Stalin/BG29.html , http://www.marx2mao.org//Stalin/TRD29.html . just from reading the title you can see that this is blatant propaganda against party members.

(Edited by new democracy at 7:13 pm on Oct. 15, 2002)

[new democracy]

now when the stalinists are here, i would like to see what they have to say about my last post.

[Michael De Panama]

Cassius Clay:
Michael De Panama, do you actually have a argument against Stalin other than 'Monster' or whatever else? 'Advocating putting another Tolitarian Monster in Power', oh please this is just stupid.

If you would have read any of my posts you would have found many arguments against Stalin. The most important thing that must be taken into consideration is that the political structure of the Stalinist regime does not in any way fit the description of a communist society.

It does not abolish private property, as it only formally abolishes the property rights of the proletarian masses and puts them in the hands of the ruling elite, identicle to the power the bourgeoisie holds.

Stalin and his fellow swine controlled and profitted off of all capital, identicle to the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie.

It does not create a classless society, as it only formally concentrates power into a ruling minority that is identicle to the rule of the bourgeoisie. Any moron would see that Stalinism only gives the ruling class even more ability and power to exploit.

Not only was Stalin a monster, but he was also a coward, unable to admit, as his fellow authoritarian socialists Hitler and Mussolini eventually did, that his regime was fascist.

Do you want me to bring you more arguments against the fatass mass murdering drunk lunatic, or is this enough right now?

There are hundreds of communist parties around the world who uphold and defend Stalin (although some vigoursly others to a lesser extent) and instead of planning a evil world takeover they fight for workers rights such as minimum wages, shorter hours etc. While you Trotskyites think May-Day is all about smashing McDonalds.

First off, I'm not a Trotskyite. I'm a Democratic Marxist. I'm very anti-"democratic" (bureacratic) centralism. Second, those are not Stalinists. They're Social Democrats. Particularly, very ignorant Social Democrats.

It blows my mind that you could confuse the two.

Anyway Stalin believed in democracy just as much as you all claim to do.

Fucking hell. You can't be serious. You were being sarcastic or joking, right? Do you not even understand what totalitarianism is? Stalin believed in the anti-thesis of democracy. I recommend you open up a history book before you say anything more.


(Edited by Michael De Panama at 9:38 pm on Oct. 15, 2002)

[Michael De Panama]

All I have to say to ND:

new democracy:
mazdak believe that in the final stage of stalinism is anarchism. he see totalitarianism as the way to a classless society.

So did Hitler. Do you really believe this nonsense?

[Cassius Clay]

''If you would have read any of my posts you would have found many arguments against Stalin. The most important thing that must be taken into consideration is that the political structure of the Stalinist regime does not in any way fit the description of a communist society.''

Sorry in this thread I have not seen any valid argument other than calling me 'Worthless and Disgusting'.

''It does not abolish private property, as it only formally abolishes the property rights of the proletarian masses and puts them in the hands of the ruling elite, identicle to the power the bourgeoisie holds.''

Well ofcourse it doesn't abolish private property USSR under Stalin started of as State Capatalism and then Socialism. 'Ruling elite' in 1953 there were no millionaires in the USSR yet by 1975 there were over 2000, ask yourself who created the new elite and who fought against it?

''Stalin and his fellow swine controlled and profitted off of all capital, identicle to the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie.''

Oh you really have been reading to much of Animal Farm, if this were true then Stalin would of become the best friend of the west and the Capatalists (just like Napolean in AF). It is precisly because the USSR/Stalin were not like this that the Capatalists hated him so much.

''It does not create a classless society, as it only formally concentrates power into a ruling minority that is identicle to the rule of the bourgeoisie. Any moron would see that Stalinism only gives the ruling class even more ability and power to exploit.''

Your repeating yourself, just see above.

''Not only was Stalin a monster, but he was also a coward, unable to admit, as his fellow authoritarian socialists Hitler and Mussolini eventually did, that his regime was fascist.''

'Coward' yeah I suppose Moscow in 1941 means nothing. The rest of that paragraph is a joke, Hilter and Mussolini 'Socialists' apart from their numerous other actions remember that it was the Capatalists who continued to run the factories while the Communists and Socialists were the first in the concentration camps.

''Do you want me to bring you more arguments against the fatass mass murdering drunk lunatic, or is this enough right now?''

Certainly better arguments than all of the above, especially this part.

''First off, I'm not a Trotskyite. I'm a Democratic Marxist. I'm very anti-"democratic" (bureacratic) centralism. Second, those are not Stalinists. They're Social Democrats. Particularly, very ignorant Social Democrats.''

Well that's good news since the first step to being democratic is being anti-Trotskyite. 'Social Democrats' on what do you base this on? They are true Communist parties who uphold the name of Stalin because they know the truth and they also fight for Socialist ideals such as improving the lifes of workers.

''It blows my mind that you could confuse the two.''

My thoughts exactly.

''Fucking hell. You can't be serious. You were being sarcastic or joking, right? Do you not even understand what totalitarianism is? Stalin believed in the anti-thesis of democracy. I recommend you open up a history book before you say anything more.''

Im perfectly serious. Yes I do 'totalitarianism' is (except you don't spell it like that) and Stalin was NOT a tolitarian (spell!).

'Stalin believed in the anti-thesis of democracy'. Find me one speech or writing where he says that he is anti-democratic. I have read numerous one's where he clearly explains his believe in democracy.

It is you who needs to do some research into history. For a so called 'Leftist' you do buy into Capatalist propaganda alot.

[peaccenicked]

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Stali...'s%20Russia.htm (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Stalin's%20Russia.htm) This is broadly the consensus in the west on stalin. What is exactly wrong with it?

[redstar2000]

What's wrong with it?

Well, several errors of fact. The nickname "Uncle Joe" was actually coined by the Luce Time/Life/Fortune media empire in the U.S. to make Americans more accepting of Russia during World War II. (Stalin thought the nickname disrespectful, according to one source.)

The painting/sculpture/literary school was called "socialist realism", not "social realism". It was an attempt to fuse classical European artistic traditions with socialist or proletarian political content. Some liked it, some didn't. Attendance at art galleries and museums was not, as far as I know, compulsory under Stalin.

Attacks on churches? I've read that both Gorbachev and Yeltsin--born in the early 1930's--were, eight days after their births, duly baptised in the Russian Orthodox Church. Stalin must have been napping those days.

More seriously, I would criticize Stalin for NOT DEMOLISHING ALL the churches and cathedrals in Russia (he did knock down a few). I think Stalin and his colleagues were, at best, really lazy about the struggle against superstition (religion).

People trying to read unapproved/unofficial material were persecuted? There wasn't anything like that TO READ. I know some folks like to paint Stalin as the devil incarnate; but at least try to keep it reasonable.

The other material in the link accords with what I've learned. The fundamental criticism of Stalin is that while he promised communism, what he delivered in fact was capitalism without capitalists...and later on, of course, the capitalists did return. Haven't we all learned enough yet to scrap the "devil"/"great man" theory of history???

[Mazdak]

Redstar2000, although debating with you at one forum is enough, i dont undersstand. I criticize Stalin's laziness on persecuting the Church myself.

He did not deliver capitalism. Khrushchev and his cronies delivered it.

[redstar2000]

I know it's tough, comrade Mazdek, but I'm your nemesis; I'm just going to follow you from forum to forum until I can get you to learn something about Marxism and drop the "great man" (Stalin)/"devil"(Trotsky) theory of history. It just ain't right that intelligent people should keep on eating that shit.

And you misunderstood again, so I'll repeat it. Stalin delivered capitalism WITHOUT CAPITALISTS; the lesson of the USSR strongly suggests that capitalism without capitalists LEADS TO capitalism WITH capitalists!

Clear???

[Mazdak]

Does anyone understand what the fuck he just said?!!

[Michael De Panama]

I'm sorry it's took so long for me to respond. I've had a hard time trying to gather up enough desire to actually do so. Arguing for me is enjoyable, but when I have to argue with someone who has absolutely no idea what he's talking about it becomes drudgory.

Oh you really have been reading to much of Animal Farm, if this were true then Stalin would of become the best friend of the west and the Capatalists (just like Napolean in AF). It is precisly because the USSR/Stalin were not like this that the Capatalists hated him so much.

What nonsense. The reason the USSR and the USA had such bitter tensions and weren't "best friends" with one another is the same reason why the Pepsi and Coca-Cola corporations aren't best friends with one another. It's the same reason Nike and Adidas aren't best friends with one another. It's the same reason why Honda and Toyota aren't friends with one another.

Capitalists (that's the way it's spelled, by the way, since you happen to be so keen on your spelling there) are not friends with one another. The entire theory of capitalism is that one group will compete with another group.

And so, I will repeat myself, Stalin and his fellow swine controlled and profitted off of all capital, identicle to the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie.

'Coward' yeah I suppose Moscow in 1941 means nothing. The rest of that paragraph is a joke, Hilter and Mussolini 'Socialists' apart from their numerous other actions remember that it was the Capatalists who continued to run the factories while the Communists and Socialists were the first in the concentration camps.

If you are reffering to Stalin's actions during the war as proof that he is not a coward, need I remind you of the little treaty that he signed with Hitler prior to the attacks? I can't say that Stalin didn't kick the Nazis asses, but he only did so because his interests were in doing such. Regardless, this does not deny Stalin's cowardice in admitted that his regime had become fascist.

As for your other point, I'd just like to point out the little amount of Party members that were sent to the gulags. Those that were were the ones labelled as "dissidents" in Stalin's paranoid frenzy.

Im perfectly serious. Yes I do 'totalitarianism' is (except you don't spell it like that) and Stalin was NOT a tolitarian (spell!).

This one really is great. You are telling me you know what a "totalitarian" is, yet you tell me it's spelled "tolitarian".

I'll agree with you. Stalin WASN'T a "tolitarian". I have no idea what a "tolitarian" is. Where can I find this mystical creature known as a "tolitarian"?

Whatever it is, it certainly is not a "totalitarian", which Stalin was a perfect example of. I honestly don't know why you deny that. All the other Stalinists recognize his totalitarian nature. Do you just honestly just not know what the word "totalitarian" means?

It is you who needs to do some research into history. For a so called 'Leftist' you do buy into Capatalist propaganda alot.

And on this note, do you not know what "democracy" means?

Or is it that you are just completely unaware as to how Stalin ran his regime? Do you think Stalin was elected into power, then ruled solely as a representative? Do you even believe that Stalin took power or had a regime at all, or is this all "capitalist propaganda" as well?

[James]

i'd just like to contribute...


Something that must be remembered is that democracy will always exist hand in hand with dictatorship.

Many find it hard to get it into their heads why trotsky was exiled. As has been stated recently else where on the site, he supposedly wasn't elected (its not for me to say whether or not this is valid though...), thus the masses didn't want him. The masses wanted stalin. So when trotsky was spewing out propaganda and eventually turning violent :- he had to be shown the door. Its a dictatorship over the minority. Which is what democracy is in my opinion. The question is simply, who is under the dictatorship? The masses, or the minority.

Kinda unrelated - but meh, there's my "two cents"

[Stormin Norman]

Nice hammer and sickle, you communist, subhuman monstrosity.

[James]

cheers, i love you two

*moron and james hug and kiss*

Awww, your a crap kisser . . .

[Cassius Clay]

'I'm sorry it's took so long for me to respond. I've had a hard time trying to gather up enough desire to actually do so. Arguing for me is enjoyable, but when I have to argue with someone who has absolutely no idea what he's talking about it becomes drudgory.'

Quite why you feel the need to resort to insults I don't know, oh well.

''What nonsense. The reason the USSR and the USA had such bitter tensions and weren't "best friends" with one another is the same reason why the Pepsi and Coca-Cola corporations aren't best friends with one another. It's the same reason Nike and Adidas aren't best friends with one another. It's the same reason why Honda and Toyota aren't friends with one another.''

Right and this would explain why the west got on so well with Trotsky and other 'Democratic Marxists' who were infact nothing of the sought and only helped fight against the workers. You see the reason the west was so scarred of the USSR up until 1953 was because it represented a workers state and naturally Capatalists do not like this.

However what you have described would be the regimes in current China, in Romania in the 1980's or Yugoslavia under Tito. What did all these 'Communist' Nations have in common, they were/are best friends of the U$.

Your point (which happen's to be nothing other than speculation and only partly right) though may stand up if you compared it to the USSR of the 1970's and 1980's. Try Reading Enver Hoxha's 'Revolution and Imperialism'.

''Capitalists (that's the way it's spelled, by the way, since you happen to be so keen on your spelling there) are not friends with one another. The entire theory of capitalism is that one group will compete with another group.''

You know you actually make a valid point but once again why do you feel the need to appear like a idiot by saying 'Oh look my spelling's better than yours'?

''And so, I will repeat myself, Stalin and his fellow swine controlled and profitted off of all capital, identicle to the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie.''

So why is it then that when Stalin dies there are no millionaires in the USSR? Workers have the right to criticise their bosses and elect their party representatives. Why is it that Stalin lives in a small Kremlin office? Why is it that American economists of the 1950's actually generally feared that the standard of living for a average Soviet may eventually take over that of a American?

''If you are reffering to Stalin's actions during the war as proof that he is not a coward, need I remind you of the little treaty that he signed with Hitler prior to the attacks? I can't say that Stalin didn't kick the Nazis asses, but he only did so because his interests were in doing such. Regardless, this does not deny Stalin's cowardice in admitted that his regime had become fascist.''

'Coward' for signing the pact? Stalin and the Soviet Union had been calling for pre-emptive action and a 'United Anti-Fascist' Front for years, only due to the actions of French and British Imperialists and Polish Landlords was the Soviet Union forced to sign that pact. Only because it was in his 'Interests', well guess what. It was in Alexander I's interest to beat Napolean, it was in Churchill's interest to beat Hitler in 1940, it was in the Belgium's Royal Family's interest to fight in 1914 and hell it was even in Hitler's interest to beat the D-Day landings. But because it was Stalin I suppose he was only doing it for his selfish 'Interests'.

To your last point. So because little Michael De Panama thinks Stalin was a evil Fascist the Soviet Union is suppossed to say this in a front page article in Pravda?

''This one really is great. You are telling me you know what a "totalitarian" is, yet you tell me it's spelled "tolitarian".''

First of all I said that I had spelt it wrong. However this needs you to base your whole argument round the fact that I spelt a word wrong. Well good for you.

''I'll agree with you. Stalin WASN'T a "tolitarian". I have no idea what a "tolitarian" is. Where can I find this mystical creature known as a "tolitarian"?''

You really do make yourself look like a little brat, I'm sure you aren't so why the need to bother?

''Whatever it is, it certainly is not a "totalitarian", which Stalin was a perfect example of. I honestly don't know why you deny that. All the other Stalinists recognize his totalitarian nature. Do you just honestly just not know what the word "totalitarian" means?''

I cannot give you a complete accurate description of that word but I have a fair idea. Basically a 'Totalitarian' country would have a evil Dictator where everybody follows that dictator and which is ruled by a brutal police who arrest anybody who even looks like their thinking the wrong things.

This was NOT Stalin or the Soviet Union.

What other 'Stalinists' (there's no such thing but still)? Do you mean that crazy kid Stalin Solidiers?

''And on this note, do you not know what "democracy" means?''

Yes it is two words from Angient Greece. Demos and Krats I can't tell you anything else at the moment but If it bothers you that much I'm sure I can find out.

''Or is it that you are just completely unaware as to how Stalin ran his regime?''

Well it wasn't his 'Regime' but just to not annoy you Yes I'm aware of how he ran the Soviet Union. Evidently more than you.

''Do you think Stalin was elected into power, then ruled solely as a representative?''

Yes he was elected to power but he did not rule 'Solely' and the party could of jucked him out at any time if they had so wished.

[James]

Why is it that Stalin lives in a small Kremlin office?

I was personally under the impression (been told, and read it i think) that he lived in a place...

[Smoking Frog II]

The only good thing about Stalin was:

1: Efficiency. Russia more than caught up with the rest
of Europe by 1955 easily. They got into space first.

[Zippy]

Quote: from yuriandropov on 11:54 am on May 13, 2002
most who died deserved to die anyway
*laughs* Thats a classic, really. Its hillarious.

Zippy.

[Mazdak]

That's right Zippy, murderous saboteurs DONT deserve to die right?

Now that is funny.

[alphaq]

Stalin?

The only thing Stalin believed in was his own power. But if you want ignore the 20 (!) million that Stalin killed and all the rest (as some idiots here seem to want to do), the most damning argument against Stalinism is that the USSR wasn't even a worker's state! Compare the USSR to the RSFSR of Lenin's time and tell me which one was actually closer to socialism?

[Mazdak]

20 million now eh? More exaggerated figures. Give us proof that isnt ultra biased Robert Conquest propoganda.

Stalin did what needed to be done. Socialism had to adapt and Stalin made it adapt.