How Stalin betrayed the Revolution

[Comrade Hector]

I'm a former Stalinist, just for the record. I eventually found myself won to Trotskyism. This is my view on Stalinism.

GREAT BRITAIN 1926, GENERAL STRIKE: The UK General Strike, coal miners throughout the country stages a wave of strikes to stop the British government's wage reductions and against the worsening of the living and working conditions of coal miners. Councils were set up all over the workers' disctricts in the UK, over 1.75 million workers and miners were on strike. Frightened by the revolutionary spirit of the miners and its effectiveness, the reformist trade union bosses called off the strike. Stalin had set up the Anglo-Russian Committee linked directly to the bureaucracy of the Trade Union Congress. During the strike break, Stalin refused to call for the workers to break from the strike breakers, and continue the struggle. Stalin told them to submit to the pro-capitalist union leadership. Workers who went back to work and then blacklisted. Result: What could've evolved into a revolution and topple the British monarchy and free those enslaved by the evil British Empire was lost.

CHINESE REVOLUTION 1927: In response to the Japanese imperialist invasion of China, Stalin tells the CP to unite with the pro-capitalist Kuomintang.
Result: Kuomintang murdered tens of thousands of Communists and militant workers; Revolution derailed.

USSR, early 1930s: Stalin takes his first step in forming diplomatic relations with the U.S imperialists, and makes deals with American corporations who supply contractors to assist Soviet industry. Soviet muscles strain to produce the utopia of 'Socialism in one country' while American contractors vacationed on Soviet beaches.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS 1934: Stalin has the Soviet Union join the imperialist League of Nations, which had tried to topple the Bolshevik government during the Civil War. Lenin denounced the League of Nations as a "den of thieves".

FRANCO-SOVIET PACT 1935: Stalin betrays French workers and signs Franco-Soviet Pact with French imperialist PM Pierre Laval against Nazi Germany.
Result: French Communist Party told not to oppose French imperialism; no workers mobilization against French imperialism.

SPANISH CIVIL WAR 1936-1939: Stalin abandoned the POUM Communists holding their fronts against Franco's fascists backed by Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, United States, and Great Britain. Many of these brave POUM revolutionaries were pulled from the front and shot by Stalinists.
Result: Fascist victory; imperialists: Nazis, Italians, Americans, British, French, League of Nations, and others happy that no workers state was established, Revolution crushed, Stalin upheld his image to the imperialists as a respectable statesman.

POLISH COMMUNIST PARTY 1937: Great Purges, 90% of the Communist Party of Poland were killed under Stalin's orders including Adolf Warski, Henryk Walecki, and Wera Kostrzewa. Party later dissolved by Stalin for refusing Stalinization.
Result: Pilsudski and the Polish ruling class secured.

NAZI-SOVIET PACT 1939: Stalin signs Nazi-Soviet Pact with Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. Stalin is assured that no aggression will be taken against the USSR by Nazis. Result: Poland invaded and divided, Stalin gets Baltic states and does not support class struggle against Nazis. Many Communists from Germany and Austria who sought refuge in the Soviet Union from Nazi terror(such as Austrian revolutionary Franz Koritschoner) are handed over to Nazis who then executed them.

USSR 1936-1940, GREAT PURGES: All of Lenin's comrades, the old Bolsheviks are charged with treason and executed. The same men who led the revolution that overthrew the imperialist regime loyal to the USA and Britain. Leon Trotsky, Bela Kun, Jaan Anvelt, Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Vladimir Osveenko, and all the rest are dead by 1940. The Red Army too is decapitated of its generals including Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Iona Yakir and 90% of the Red Army commanders are dead on Stalin's orders.
Result: Stalin's bureaucracy in place; Nazis then attacked and with so few generals Red Army is beaten back.

WORLD WAR II 1941-1945: The second interimperialist war; after the Nazi-led attack on the USSR, Stalin sides with the imperialist Allies against the imperialist Axis. He also kept pressuring the imperialists to invade Europe from the west on behalf of the Soviet Union. Heroic Red Army defeated fascists, but Stalin shares Europe with the imperialists.
Result: division of Europe, western European workers chained to imperialism.

POST WAR EUROPE, late 1940s: By agreement between Stalin and the imperialists Europe is divided between a Soviet sphere and a U.S led imperialist sphere. Stalin promises not to promote revolution in U.S sphere and agrees to stay within the Eastern Bloc; established deformed workers states in Poland,and Hungary without working class mobilization. Eventhough the Red Army liberated Germany from Nazi hordes, Stalin allows imperialist occupation, and agrees to divide Germany. Stalin also agreed to the creation of the U.N, and joins the USSR in this U.S controlled imperialist institution.
Result: Western European workers chained to capitalism and U.S imperialism, Eastern European workers subjugated to Stalinist misrule and lies.

GREEK CIVIL WAR 1946-1949: Stalin collaborating with the imperialists cuts Europe in half. Greece is given to that capitalist tub of lard Churchill. Stalin assures Churchill that he has no interest in seeing a Red Greece, stops all support for the Greek Communists, thus leaving them to be slaughtered by the British and their right-wing fanatics.
Result: Greek ruling class secured, Revolution smashed, tens of thousands of Communists abandoned to their deaths.

ITALY AND FRANCE, late 1940's early 1950's: Stalin orders Communists to embrace U.S/British imperialist invasion of Europe, and let the French and Italian bourgeoisie take power. Communist resistance is then ordered to throw down their guns.
Result: Capitalist regimes in France and Italy.

AUSTRIA, OCTOBER STRIKE, September-October 1950: Austrian workers led by the Communist Party stage a nation-wide strike that began in the nitrogen plants in the American sector. Workers councils were formed and established Communist commandos who took over factories all over the Austria. Stalin tells the Austrian CP to stop the strikes and trust the social-democrats. Stalin also ordered the Red Army in Austria not to intervene.
Result: Strikes ended. Austria remains a neutral capitalist country. I guess that explains why post-war occupied Austria is left out of the history books.

[mykittyhasaboner]

well organized post comrade, i hate that guy, someone should have assassinated him real early.

[Ismail]

So Stalin should of diplomatically isolated the USSR from the rest of the world (which wouldn't of gone well and not of been very internationalist) and should of done imperialist actions like invade Austria? Revolutions happen on their own. Any attempt to export a revolution will end in failure because it's a sign that said workers in the nation aren't strong enough.

Nevermind all that though, the USSR had GLORIOUS SOVIET POWER on its side and would of defeated all the capitalist states by invading the fuck out of them. World revolution in the span of weeks!

Also the Nazi-Soviet Pact was amid fears from the USSR that Germany wanted to invade them, something clearly proved in 1941. Stalin had called upon France and UK for an anti-Fascist alliance, but they didn't want to do it. I shudder to think what would of happened if USSR didn't have the parts of Poland it got (which were historically part of the Ukraine), the Baltic's, etc. Also note that the Kuomintang were seen as more progressive than the Japanese (and their puppet, Qing Emperor Pu-Yi) and warlords. Of course the Kuomintang turned on Mao and co. later on.

Also people misunderstand what socialism in one country is about. It's the same policy as Lenin had, only it was called as such to distinguish itself from Trotskyism.

But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete and final victory of socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of only one country it can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration? No, it does not. For this the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore, the development and support of revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries.
Lenin expressed this thought succinctly when he said that the task of the victorious revolution is to do "the utmost possible in one country f o r the development, support and
* My italics. -- J. St. page 38
awakening of the revolution in all countries." (See Vol. XXIII, p. 385)
http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/FL24.html

Lenin in On the Slogan for a United States of Europe:

A United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism—about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others.http://eprints.cddc.vt.edu/marxists///archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm

[thejambo1]

good post comrade hector. stalin sold various people out when it suited him as you point out.

[Ismail]

good post comrade hector. stalin sold various people out when it suited him as you point out.Considering you're an anarchist, you should think the same of Lenin considering Brest-Litovsk and such.

[OI OI OI]

Great post comrade ! Very well organized and stated .

Some cases are a classic example of how treacherous to the proletariat is the theory of the stages, which was used in China in 1927 and what "socialism in one country " is in practice.

Thank you for this post.

[Winter]

GREAT BRITAIN 1926, GENERAL STRIKE: The UK General Strike, coal miners throughout the country stages a wave of strikes to stop the British government's wage reductions and against the worsening of the living and working conditions of coal miners. Councils were set up all over the workers' disctricts in the UK, over 1.75 million workers and miners were on strike. Frightened by the revolutionary spirit of the miners and its effectiveness, the reformist trade union bosses called off the strike. Stalin had set up the Anglo-Russian Committee linked directly to the bureaucracy of the Trade Union Congress. During the strike break, Stalin refused to call for the workers to break from the strike breakers, and continue the struggle. Stalin told them to submit to the pro-capitalist union leadership. Workers who went back to work and then blacklisted. Result: What could've evolved into a revolution and topple the British monarchy and free those enslaved by the evil British Empire was lost.

Here is Stalins own rebuttal to this:



The British general strike was defeated for a number of reasons, of which the following, at least, should be pointed out:

First. The British capitalists and Conservative Party, as the course of the strike has shown, proved in general to be more experienced, more organized, more resolute and, therefore, stronger than the British workers and their leaders in the persons of the General Council and the so-called Labour Party. The leaders of the working class proved not to be equal to the tasks of the working class.

Secondly. The British capitalists and the Conservative Party went into this tremendous social conflict fully armed and undoubtedly prepared, while the leaders of the British labour movement were caught unawares by the mineowners' lock-out and did nothing, or next to nothing, in the way of preparatory work. Here it should be noted that not more than a week prior to the conflict the, leaders of the working class were expressing their conviction that there would be no conflict.

Thirdly. The staff of the capitalists—the Conservative Party—conducted the fight unitedly and in an organised manner, striking blows at the decisive points of the struggle, while the staff of the labour movement, the Trades Union Congress General Council and its ‘political commission’—the Labour Party—proved to be internally demoralised and degenerate. It is known that the head people of this staff were found to be either direct traitors to the miners and the British working class in general (Thomas, MacDonald, Henderson and Co.), or spineless fellow-travellers of these traitors who feared the struggle and still more the victory of the working class (Purcell, Hicks, etc.).
It may be asked, how could it happen that the powerful British proletariat, which carried on the fight with unexampled heroism, proved to have leaders who were either capable of being bribed, or cowardly or simply spineless? This is a question of great importance. Such leaders did not appear all of a sudden. They grew out of the labour movement, they passed through a definite schooling for labour leaders in Britain, the schooling of that period when British capital, raking in super-profits, was able to make a fuss of the labour leaders and use them to make compromises with the British working class; moreover, by coming close to the bourgeoisie in their ways of life and status, these leaders of the working class thereby broke away from the working masses, turned their backs on them and ceased to understand them. These are the kind of leaders who have been blinded by the glamour of capitalism, whom the power of capital has overwhelmed, and who dream of ‘becoming somebody’ and of joining the ‘people of substance’.
Without doubt these leaders—if I may call them that—are an echo of the past who now do not suit the new situation. Without doubt they will in time be compelled to give way to new leaders who do correspond to the fighting spirit and heroism of the British proletariat. Engels was right when he called such men bourgeois leaders.

Fourthly. The staff of British capitalism—the Conservative Party—understood that tie gigantic strike of the British workers was a fact of tremendous political importance, that a serious struggle could be waged against such a strike only by measures of a political character, that in order to break the strike the authority of the King and the authority of the House of Commons and the Constitution must all be invoked, that the strike could not be ended without mobilising the troops and proclaiming a state of emergency. Meanwhile the staff of the British labour movement—the General Council—did not, or would not, understand this simple thing, or were afraid to admit it, assuring all and sundry that the General Strike was a purely industrial dispute, that it did not want or intend to transform the struggle into a political struggle, that it was not thinking of striking at the general staff of British capital, the Conservative Party, and that it—the General Council—did not intend to raise the question of power.
The General Council thereby doomed the strike to inevitable failure. For, as history has shown, a general strike which is not developed on the lines of political struggle must inevitably fail.

Fifthly. The staff of the British capitalists understood that international aid to the British strike constituted a mortal danger to the bourgeoisie, while the General Council did not understand, or pretended not to understand, that the strike of the British workers could only be won with the aid of international proletarian solidarity. Hence the refusal of the General Council to accept the financial aid of the workers of the Soviet Union [3] (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/06/08s.htm#n3) and of other countries.
Such a gigantic strike as the General Strike in Britain could yield tangible results given two basic conditions at any rate: the development of the strike on political lines and the transformation of the strike into an act of struggle of the proletarians of all the advanced capitalist countries against capital. But the British General Council, with the peculiar ‘wisdom’ distinguishing it, rejected both these conditions, thereby pre-determining the failure of the General Strike.

Sixthly. Without doubt a role of no little importance was played by the more than ambiguous behaviour of the Second International and of the Amsterdam Trade Union International in the matter of aid to the British General Strike. In essence, the platonic decisions of these organisations of the Social Democrats concerning aid to the strike amounted to the actual refusal of all and any financial help in practice, for in no other way than as ambiguous behaviour on the part of the social democratic International can one explain the fact that the trade unions of Europe and America together contributed not more than one-eighth of the amount of financial aid which the trade unions of the Soviet Union found it possible to afford their British brothers. I need not dwell on the aid of another nature, in the form of stopping the import of coal, in which respect the Amsterdam Trade Union International is literally behaving in blackleg fashion.

Seventhly. There is likewise no doubt that the weakness of the British Communist Party was of no small importance in the defeat of the General Strike. It should be said that the British Communist Party is one of the best sections of the Communist International. It should be pointed out that its policy throughout the time of the strike in Britain was perfectly correct. It must, however, also be admitted that its prestige among the British workers is still weak. And this circumstance could not fail to play a fatal part in the course of the General Strike.
These are the circumstances, at any rate the most important of them, which we are able to ascertain at the present time and which determined the undesirable outcome of the General Strike in Britain.

Further, precisely because the present passing, temporary stabilisation still remains, for that very reason capital will try and attack the working class. Of course the lesson of the British strike should show the whole capitalist world how risky for the life and existence of capital is an experiment like that which was undertaken by the Conservative Party in Britain. That the experiment will not be without effect upon the Conservative Party, of that there is no reason to doubt. Neither can it be doubted that this lesson will be taken into account by the capitalists of all countries. Nevertheless, capital will all the same endeavour to make a fresh attack upon the working class, for it thinks its position insecure and cannot but feel the need to make itself more stable. The task of the working class and of the Communist Parties is to prepare their forces to resist such attacks on the working class. The task of the Communist Parties is, while continuing the organisation of the united working class front, to bend all their efforts towards transforming the attacks of the capitalists into a counter-attack of the working class, into a revolutionary offensive of the working class, into a struggle of the working class for the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and for the abolition of capitalism.

Finally, the working class of Britain, in order to fulfil these immediate tasks, has first and foremost to get rid of its present leaders. You cannot go into war against the capitalists with such leaders as the Thomases and MacDonalds. It is impossible to hope for victory with such traitors in the rear as Henderson and Clynes. The British working class will have to learn to replace such leaders by better ones, for it is one of two things: either the British working class will learn to remove the Thomases and MacDonalds from their posts, or they will no more see victory than they can see their own ears.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/06/08s.htm

[Holden Caulfield]

well organized post comrade, i hate that guy, someone should have assassinated him real early.

i'm with this guy,

rep coming to the writer of the OP

[jaiden]

i really cannot understand how anyone can defend stalin, let alone anyone who calls themselves communist as that is a blatant contradiction.

[RHIZOMES]

i really cannot understand how anyone can defend stalin, let alone anyone who calls themselves communist as that is a blatant contradiction.

Posts: 6

Maybe you should talk to some Stalinists rather than be taken in by anti-communist propaganda so easily.

[jaiden]

i have and they use the same crap; the western media spews out lies that he ZOMG actually killed people.

[Sendo]

Or you so desperate for a hero you'd put Stalin on this altar? Why is it when Stalin is criticized 90% of these so-called Marxist-Leninists and Hoxhaists just dismiss all criticism with lengthy ramblings or the "WESTERN MEDIA EXAGGERATES STALIN'S CRIMES"

Well, yeah, the western media exaggerates it.

And yes, some good came from Stalin, but only in the sense that he could have been worse. He at least kept the welfare state and slowed down US imperialism. That's it.

But the Chinese and Catalonian examples are always ignored by Stalin apologists. It's true what Chomsky says about people wholly ignoring criticisms--it means they have no argument against it, so you just avoid the argument and move on to something else, brush over it, or use ad hominem/false dilemma/straw man arguments, et al.

[Ismail]

Or you so desperate for a hero you'd put Stalin on this altar? Why is it when Stalin is criticized 90% of these so-called Marxist-Leninists and Hoxhaists just dismiss all criticism with lengthy ramblings or the "WESTERN MEDIA EXAGGERATES STALIN'S CRIMES"It goes beyond that actually. They portray Stalin as a "great man of history" so to speak, as in they protray him as having unlimited power. This is where most of the "OH GOD YEAH STALIN WITH GLORIOUS SOVIET POWER RNNNGHH" types come from. The media goes beyond that by saying that Stalin shouldn't of even been in power, and that Trotsky was the right man for the job. The media goes beyond that, and defines what Leninism means. It isn't "he killed some guys because he's an asshole", it's "HE KILLED EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING AND DESTROYED THE WORLD COMMUNIST MOVEMENT SO THIS IS WHAT SHOULD OF HAPPENED OH MY GOD"

http://rationalred.blogspot.com/2008/02/anarchists-trotskidiots-liberals-oh-my_09.html

Read.

I think the biggest problem is that most people have never actually read Stalin or anything like that. I mean it isn't like his work is composed of "HELLO I AM JOSEPH STALIN AND I EAT TASTY BABIES", rather if you look at his works then most Trots (assuming they aren't council commies posing as Trots, since most Trots aren't the Trots of the 30's and 40's) would agree that he does say genuine stuff. Stalin never introduced 'market socialism', which we know is a codeword for "let's embrace capitalism!", in fact Khrushchev and such condemned him and his supporters as 'Stalinists' and would wave that word around every time someone was against his reforms.


But the Chinese and Catalonian examples are always ignored by Stalin apologists.Chinese example?

Anyway, I call on all those who want to see the other side, how we can support Stalin, to read the following:
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html (be sure to read Appendix 3 after you finish, which talks about how market socialism was treated in the USSR, and note that every single quote is sourced, some even from bourgeois articles)
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/FL24.html
http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/EPS52.html
http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv4n2/5convers.htm
http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

At the very least, I want people to recognize the massive differences between Stalin and Khrushchev. Anyone who compares them makes the baby Jesus crap blood all over the world.

[Yehuda Stern]

Pretty good post. I would like to add that you can easily dig up many more examples from before 1926 and, more importantly, from the 1950s to this day.

[Comrade B]

i have and they use the same crap; the western media spews out lies that he ZOMG actually killed people.
Yes, the west greatly overkilled the evils of Stalin, but that does not make him not evil.

[Comrade B]

Might I recommend a sticky of this on the Trotskyist forum? or something of the sort.

[RHIZOMES]

Might I recommend a sticky of this on the Trotskyist forum? or something of the sort.

So the Stalinists can't post in it? :lol:

[Comrade B]

Nah, it is a good list of reasons to hate Stalin and why Trotskyists are so opposed to him.

[OI OI OI]

Might I recommend a sticky of this on the Trotskyist forum? or something of the sort.


Seconded

[RHIZOMES]

Nah, it is a good list of reasons to hate Stalin and why Trotskyists are so opposed to him.

With the added bonus no Stalinists can respond! :thumbup1:


Or you so desperate for a hero you'd put Stalin on this altar? Why is it when Stalin is criticized 90% of these so-called Marxist-Leninists and Hoxhaists just dismiss all criticism with lengthy ramblings or the "WESTERN MEDIA EXAGGERATES STALIN'S CRIMES"

Well, yeah, the western media exaggerates it.

And yes, some good came from Stalin, but only in the sense that he could have been worse. He at least kept the welfare state and slowed down US imperialism. That's it.

Lol welfare state? :lol:

And even the act of slowing down US imperialism is a monumental achievement for the international working class, the fact that you say "That's it" is frankly a bit insulting.


But the Chinese and Catalonian examples are always ignored by Stalin apologists. It's true what Chomsky says about people wholly ignoring criticisms--it means they have no argument against it, so you just avoid the argument and move on to something else, brush over it, or use ad hominem/false dilemma/straw man arguments, et al.

So what, every decision Stalin makes has to be the right one, he can't make any mistakes? Is he supposed to see in the future now? I didn't know Stalin was THAT much of a great man in history. :laugh: United fronts against a common enemy are common tactic among the left, and Stalin saw that Japanese imperialism was AT THE TIME a greater threat to China than the Kuomintang was. Remember that this was the same tactic Mao used that got the Japanese out of China in the end, with him temporarily allying with the Kuomintang for a united front against Japanese imperialism. And then dealing with the Kuomintang later.

Now, maybe if in the China example, instead of advocating a temporary alliance to defeat a greater enemy to the Chinese revolution (in his non-paranormal analysis of the situation :lol:), he had advocated... that the Soviet Union ally with the Kuomintang over the Communists and judged them to be the force that was to bring about socialism in China... then the example would have any merit at all.

[Charles Xavier]

First of all to blame all the good on Stalin is metaphysical, and to blame all the bad on him is metaphysical.

The problems and successes lie on the Soviet Working Class and their Leadership the Communist Party.

Stalin made mistakes, but he also did a lot of correct things.

But the following are not a list of his mistakes nor the Soviet Working Class and its Party's mistakes. You blame the whole working class movement across the world not being magical on Stalin. This is highly metaphysical and I will rebute these.


I'm a former Stalinist, just for the record. I eventually found myself won to Trotskyism. This is my view on Stalinism.

GREAT BRITAIN 1926, GENERAL STRIKE: The UK General Strike, coal miners throughout the country stages a wave of strikes to stop the British government's wage reductions and against the worsening of the living and working conditions of coal miners. Councils were set up all over the workers' disctricts in the UK, over 1.75 million workers and miners were on strike. Frightened by the revolutionary spirit of the miners and its effectiveness, the reformist trade union bosses called off the strike. Stalin had set up the Anglo-Russian Committee linked directly to the bureaucracy of the Trade Union Congress. During the strike break, Stalin refused to call for the workers to break from the strike breakers, and continue the struggle. Stalin told them to submit to the pro-capitalist union leadership. Workers who went back to work and then blacklisted. Result: What could've evolved into a revolution and topple the British monarchy and free those enslaved by the evil British Empire was lost.

Wrong, the Soviet Union has no control over the British Working Class. The the Right-wing Social Democrat leadership settled for meager reform. The General Strike would in no way have evolved into a revolutionary movement that would topple the monarchy, it was not a revolutionary situation. This is a complete overestimation on how strong the left was in Britain at that time


CHINESE REVOLUTION 1927: In response to the Japanese imperialist invasion of China, Stalin tells the CP to unite with the pro-capitalist Kuomintang.
Result: Kuomintang murdered tens of thousands of Communists and militant workers; Revolution derailed.
This is a correct tactic, the Imperialists would only love the Chinese to be bitterly divided in order to move in and conquer. The Chinese Communist Party would not have won the trust of the people by attacking the Chinese state when the Japanese Invaded.



USSR, early 1930s: Stalin takes his first step in forming diplomatic relations with the U.S imperialists, and makes deals with American corporations who supply contractors to assist Soviet industry. Soviet muscles strain to produce the utopia of 'Socialism in one country' while American contractors vacationed on Soviet beaches.
The Soviet Union should not raise any capital to industrialize?


LEAGUE OF NATIONS 1934: Stalin has the Soviet Union join the imperialist League of Nations, which had tried to topple the Bolshevik government during the Civil War. Lenin denounced the League of Nations as a "den of thieves".
The League of Nations is a den of thieves, but its better to work cooperate with the thieves as long as possible to stall them from stabbing you in the back. The Soviet Union was at great lengths trying to avoid an imperialist war against it.



FRANCO-SOVIET PACT 1935: Stalin betrays French workers and signs Franco-Soviet Pact with French imperialist PM Pierre Laval against Nazi Germany.
Result: French Communist Party told not to oppose French imperialism; no workers mobilization against French imperialism.
Nowhere the comintern says, "French Communist Party please support French Colonization." The Soviet Union was trying to avoid a war. It did not want to give any Casus Belli to anyone.



SPANISH CIVIL WAR 1936-1939: Stalin abandoned the POUM Communists holding their fronts against Franco's fascists backed by Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, United States, and Great Britain. Many of these brave POUM revolutionaries were pulled from the front and shot by Stalinists.
Result: Fascist victory; imperialists: Nazis, Italians, Americans, British, French, League of Nations, and others happy that no workers state was established, Revolution crushed, Stalin upheld his image to the imperialists as a respectable statesman.
My main man, Dimitrov has it covered here:

"
Was it inevitable that the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy should have triumphed in Spain, a country where the forces of proletarian revolt are so advantageously combined with a peasant war?
The Spanish Socialists were in the government from the first days of the revolution. Did they establish fighting contact between the working class organizations of every political opinion, including the Communists and the Anarchists, and did they weld the working class into a united trade union organization? Did they demand the confiscation of all lands of the landlords, the church and the monasteries in favor of the peasants in order to win over the latter to the side of the revolution? Did they attempt to fight for national self-determination for the Catalonians and the Basques, and for the liberation of Morocco? Did they purge the army of monarchist and fascist elements and prepare it for passing over to the side of the workers and peasants? Did they dissolve the Civil Guard, so detested by the people, the executioner of every movement of the people? Did they strike at the fascist party of Gil Robles and at the might of the Catholic church? No, they did none of these things. They rejected the frequent proposals of the Communists for united action against the offensive of the bourgeois-landlord reaction and fascism; they passed election laws which enabled the reactionaries to gain a majority in the Cortes (parliament), laws which penalized the popular movement, laws under which the heroic miners of Asturias are now being tried. They had peasants who were fighting for land shot by the Civil Guard, and so on.
This is the way in which the Social-Democrats, by disorganizing and splitting the ranks of the working class, cleared the path to power for fascism in Germany, Austria and Spain."







POLISH COMMUNIST PARTY 1937: Great Purges, 90% of the Communist Party of Poland were killed under Stalin's orders including Adolf Warski, Henryk Walecki, and Wera Kostrzewa. Party later dissolved by Stalin for refusing Stalinization.
Result: Pilsudski and the Polish ruling class secured.
The Polish communist party was killed off by the fascist government not by Stalin in purges.




NAZI-SOVIET PACT 1939: Stalin signs Nazi-Soviet Pact with Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. Stalin is assured that no aggression will be taken against the USSR by Nazis. Result: Poland invaded and divided, Stalin gets Baltic states and does not support class struggle against Nazis. Many Communists from Germany and Austria who sought refuge in the Soviet Union from Nazi terror(such as Austrian revolutionary Franz Koritschoner) are handed over to Nazis who then executed them.

What should the Soviet Union do instead attack a better armed Germany? I fail to find any political emigrants refused entry into the Soviet Union. If you may recall the Soviet Union assisting the political emigrants all accross eastern Europe against the fascist terrorist governments.




USSR 1936-1940, GREAT PURGES: All of Lenin's comrades, the old Bolsheviks are charged with treason and executed. The same men who led the revolution that overthrew the imperialist regime loyal to the USA and Britain. Leon Trotsky, Bela Kun, Jaan Anvelt, Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Vladimir Osveenko, and all the rest are dead by 1940. The Red Army too is decapitated of its generals including Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Iona Yakir and 90% of the Red Army commanders are dead on Stalin's orders.
Result: Stalin's bureaucracy in place; Nazis then attacked and with so few generals Red Army is beaten back.
Trotsky had openly declared that he had contact with 600 officers within the Soviet Red Army and was planning a putsch against the Soviet Union. To overthrow the government. What levelheaded leadership would not take this as a serious threat not to mention if Trotsky infiltrated 600 officers, what about the imperialists and old guard? I would definitely want to find out who is cooperating with the enemy in my armed forces.



WORLD WAR II 1941-1945: The second interimperialist war; after the Nazi-led attack on the USSR, Stalin sides with the imperialist Allies against the imperialist Axis. He also kept pressuring the imperialists to invade Europe from the west on behalf of the Soviet Union. Heroic Red Army defeated fascists, but Stalin shares Europe with the imperialists.
Result: division of Europe, western European workers chained to imperialism.

You want the Soviet Union to declare war on the whole world? After losing 27 Million sons and daughters how much more blood to you want to spill. Why wouldn't the Soviet Union want allies against the aggressive fascist onslaught?



POST WAR EUROPE, late 1940s: By agreement between Stalin and the imperialists Europe is divided between a Soviet sphere and a U.S led imperialist sphere. Stalin promises not to promote revolution in U.S sphere and agrees to stay within the Eastern Bloc; established deformed workers states in Poland,and Hungary without working class mobilization. Eventhough the Red Army liberated Germany from Nazi hordes, Stalin allows imperialist occupation, and agrees to divide Germany. Stalin also agreed to the creation of the U.N, and joins the USSR in this U.S controlled imperialist institution.
Result: Western European workers chained to capitalism and U.S imperialism, Eastern European workers subjugated to Stalinist misrule and lies.
The UN is an imperialist institution?



GREEK CIVIL WAR 1946-1949: Stalin collaborating with the imperialists cuts Europe in half. Greece is given to that capitalist tub of lard Churchill. Stalin assures Churchill that he has no interest in seeing a Red Greece, stops all support for the Greek Communists, thus leaving them to be slaughtered by the British and their right-wing fanatics.
Result: Greek ruling class secured, Revolution smashed, tens of thousands of Communists abandoned to their deaths.
Stalin didn't collaborate, with the fall of fascism the Communist and Socialist Parties in those countries successfully overthrew the bourgeoisie, in many cases Social Democracy was shown to be bankrupt. In Greece they failed because the social democrats sided against the workers.



ITALY AND FRANCE, late 1940's early 1950's: Stalin orders Communists to embrace U.S/British imperialist invasion of Europe, and let the French and Italian bourgeoisie take power. Communist resistance is then ordered to throw down their guns.
Result: Capitalist regimes in France and Italy.

Stalin did not order Italy and French workers to support capitalism. There is no comintern document that would ever state this. The Social Democrats sided with the Bourgeois against the workers. What is the Soviet Union suppose to do? Invade France and Italy?


AUSTRIA, OCTOBER STRIKE, September-October 1950: Austrian workers led by the Communist Party stage a nation-wide strike that began in the nitrogen plants in the American sector. Workers councils were formed and established Communist commandos who took over factories all over the Austria. Stalin tells the Austrian CP to stop the strikes and trust the social-democrats. Stalin also ordered the Red Army in Austria not to intervene.
Result: Strikes ended. Austria remains a neutral capitalist country. I guess that explains why post-war occupied Austria is left out of the history books.The Social Democrats betrayed the Revolution in Austria, the Communist Party was not strong enough to go in alone. What else was the Soviet Union suppose to do? Declare war on Austria?

[Bronsky]

Sorry to disagree with a comrade with only my second post on here but I have to take up Ismails point that revolutions happen on their own. The objective conditions might exist for a revolution, but it is the roll of revolutionists to enter into those conditions through a revolutionary party to ensure they are favourable of the workers revolution.

The Commintern wasn’t set up to “export revolution” Its roll was to ensure were the conditions existed that a trained revolutionary leadership also existed and was able to take advantage of the conditions. In those countries where the conditions were not yet ripe to recruit socilaits to form revolutionary parties, even reforming old socialist movements into communist ones.


Stalin alongside Kamenev and Zinoviev faltered after the February Revolution when Lenin returned he demanded to know why a Marxist party was hanging on to the coat tails of the bourgeois government. He immediately set out the policy for taking the power. All three repeated their fears at the time of the insurrection, they were three leading figures in the party but represented a faction within Bolshevism that couldn’t break from the old socialist parties belief on the necessity for a period of capital before socialism could have a chance.



When the civil war the blockade and the famine that followed ravaged the workers state many more of the old Bolsheviks and a large untrained section of the new members looked to just consolidate their place in history, for Lenin and Trotsky the defence of the Soviet Power rested exclusively with the international working class.



Lenin’s death brought out into the open divisions that had bubbled underneath the surface since before the revolution. Those who wanted to keep to the international perspective of the party and those who had agreed that capitalism had to go through a period before it could be overthrown. After 1917 it was this group who whished for some respite, they tied the parties policy to their own gloom. If the correct action regarding Lenin’s last testament had been taken then the world most certainly would have moved through a different history.



I think Comrade Hector outlined fairly well the defeats brought about by Stalin and what was left of the Commintern and I also agree that this policy that was by this time given a name, Peaceful Coexistence, was carried forward after Stalin’s death. Trotsky in his Revolution Betrayed makes a very valid prediction. Either Stalin is overthrown or the Revolution will fall and Capitalism will be restored.

[Benos145]

GREAT BRITAIN 1926, GENERAL STRIKE:
In 1926 Trotsky denounced the alliance between the Soviet and British trades unions in the Anglo-Russian Committee, on the grounds that the TUC had betrayed the General Strike, although the committee was basically formed to prevent imperialist aggression against the Soviet Union. The Trotskyite faction ignored Lenin’s advice that communists must be prepared to form temporary alliances with vacillating unreliable allies. What the Trotskyites want to do here is to blame Stalin for the defeat of the General Strike, or to prove that he contributed to its defeat. This absurd position can only be maintained by people who ignore concrete factors. For instance, the small size of the communist party and its relative inexperience. We can include the arrest of the party leaders, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of the middle strata in the Britain of 1926 remained on the side of the bourgeoisie.



CHINESE REVOLUTION 1927
Trotsky’s criticism of the Comintern’s role in the Chinese revolution was of a pseudo-left character. In essence, Trotskyism’s advice to the weak Chinese working class was that it should take on the various imperialist powers, the feudal lords, and the bourgeoisie all at the same time. The Trotskyite position was based on the theory of permanent revolution. The essence of this theory is that it remains at the level of the general. It fails to take account of the possibilities of the intervention of concrete factors, which can serve to transform any theory. Trotskyites run around trying to impose Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution on any set of conditions which they face. Lenin was fond of quoting Goethe: theory is grey my friend, but green is the eternal tree of life.


USSR, early 1930s
In the retreat of the world revolution Trotsky opposed the policy of building socialism in one country as part of the world revolutionary process. Trotsky took the position that the choice was between world revolution and socialism in one country. ( This position meant completely going against dialectical logic)The opportunists in the Second International had betrayed the working class at the time of the of 1914-1918 war. In the individual countries they refused to lead the struggle against their own ruling class. Their excuse was that socialism was not possible in one country. This view later found an echo in Trotskyism. In several passages Lenin deals with the issue. The following is a good example: ‘ a United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the union and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism until the complete victory of communism brings about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic state. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of the United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others’. (V.I. Lenin. CW. Vol.21) It is quite clear from the above citation that Lenin saw the slogan for a United State of the World, at that time, as premature, first because this slogan merges with socialism, and secondly because, in Lenin’s own words… ‘it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others’.

TROTSKYITE OPPOSITION TO THE POLICY OF BUILDING SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY LEADS TO DEFEATISM. Marxist-Leninists argue: once it was accepted that in the conditions of the Soviet Union socialism could not be built and the world revolution had been delayed, then the logical development would be the restoration of capitalism. The Trotskyite position, although appearing left, actually, objectively speaking, served the interest of the bourgeois counterrevolution. The Mensheviks even praised Trotsky’s struggle against Stalin, viewing it as a means to bring down the Soviet regime. This was the view of the bourgeois counterrevolution in general in regard to the Trotskyite opposition.


SPANISH CIVIL WAR 1936-1939
In the Spanish revolution Trotsky advocated socialist revolution as the immediate goal. For communists the immediate goal was to build the widest anti-fascist unity possible against Franco, in the defence of Spanish democracy, that is to win the Civil War. The Spanish Communists placed the emphasis on wining the civil war. Any other policy would have been doomed to disaster from the start. The Trotskyites do not see this of course. Again, the explanation is their congenital incapacity when it comes to making a concrete, dialectical analysis.



USSR 1936-1940, GREAT PURGES
In 1936 Trotsky published his book called ‘Revolution Betrayed’. The aim of this book was to undermine support for Stalin by showing that he had betrayed the revolution. What the book really demonstrates is Trotsky’s anti-Marxist approach. He praised the advances made by the Soviet Union, but claims that this had nothing to do with Stalin. If we follow Trotsky’s logic then all the advances of the Soviet Union was attributable to a counterrevolutionary leadership. No reasonable person would underestimate the difficulties associated with the transition from capitalism to socialism in a relatively backward country surrounded by imperialism and preparing for war. Marxists could not hope to rid such a society of social differentiation overnight. Trotsky himself argued, in his Revolution Betrayed, that the distribution of goods was more equal than in the most advanced capitalist countries at the time.


ON BUREUCRACY

Was the Soviet bureaucracy ‘Stalinist’? Trotskyism developed the view that the Stalinists (supporters of Stalin) represented the Soviet bureaucracy. Trotsky went against the Marxist-Leninist line on the question of fighting Soviet bureaucracy. Trotsky put forward the abstract theory of a ‘counterrevolutionary Soviet bureaucracy’, and the need to overthrow it by means of a political revolution. This theory failed to take account of the heterogeneous nature of the bureaucracy. Marxist-Leninists recognise the contradictory nature of the bureaucracy, and develop a correct policy on the basis of this recognition. Communists must use the bureaucracy and fight against it at the same time. This is based on the Leninist view that the struggle against bureaucracy is a long term affair, and also Lenin’s correct position that under socialism bureaucracy cannot be overthrown, but withers away. Trotsky’s abstract theory of a counterrevolution Soviet or Stalinist bureaucracy is what Trotskyism is recognised for today. However, the purges against the Soviet bureaucracy in the Stalin period, leads Marxist-Leninists to the conclusion that the Soviet bureaucracy was more anti-Stalinist than pro-Stalin.

We arrive at a view opposite to Trotskyism, that of an essentially anti-Stalinist Soviet bureaucracy, which Stalin waged a long struggle against, especially at the higher levels. Trotsky’s call for political revolution objectively served the interest of bourgeois counterrevolution. On the question of the Soviet bureaucracy Marxist-Leninist rejected the Trotskyite slogan calling for the overthrow of a supposedly counterrevolutionary bureaucracy, and defended the struggle to purge the counterrevolutionary elements from the bureaucracy. No one can deny that this is the correct Marxist-Leninist line.However, Trotskyites have maintained the fiction of the ‘Stalinist bureaucracy’, oblivious to concrete analysis and experience. We need to remember Lenin’s admonition ‘The fight against bureaucracy is a long and arduous one’. (Lenin: Vol.32;p. 52)

[Bronsky]

Stalin’s report on the collapse of the British General Strike of 1926 is nothing more than an after the facts arss covering exercise.

He doesn't mention that those within the leadership of the British Trade Union Movement he demonised were in fact part of the Anglo Russian Committee set up by him that was a cover for the very same leaders who betrayed the British working class time and time again. They had made several high profile visits to Moscow amid grand fanfares of workers unity.

It was a committee set up between Russian Trade Unions and the British General Council, to even take Stalin’s report in face value is to deny the roll handed down from Moscow of the British Communist Party. The rank and file had confidence in their trade union leadership isn’t it obviously they thought they were supportive of the communist movement, allies in the class struggle, when in fact all the Anglo Russian Committee was to Purcell and the rest, nothing more than a left cover for their betrayals.

Stalin blames everyone and everything but the policy of the BCP and the Commintern. Even after the defeat Stalin and Radek clung to the roting corpse of the A-S Committee. It was the British Trade Unions that broke with the Soviet side after the strike, obviously their usefulness was now obsolete.

Stalin was adapt at making sure he was not the one to carry any blame for the deadly errors of the Soviets. China and his insistence on the CCP liquidating itself into the Kuomintang was one of the most graphic examples. If the CCP had kept its identity and fought as it should on class principles and not the nationalist ones dished out by the arch nationalist Stalin himself. The future of China would have been a socialist workers state and not a peasantry dominated nationalist one.

The zig zags that flowed through the Soviet leadership during the 20s and 30s created total confusion within the international working class, who due to the objective conditions of the collapse of capital stood on the threshold of revolution, Stalin as the report above shows blamed the working class for not being revolutionary, but that denies the roll of the revolutionary party, he dismisses the BCP with a wave of his hand as being not up to the job, he was the leader of the international working class, if they where not up to the job where is the analysis of their roll in this defeat.

Is it not alarming that throughout a period of deep crisis within capitalism not one successful revolution was carried out, in fact the rise of Hitler Mussolini and Franco the dregs of human society tells us that those in opposition to fascism where at the least not up to the job and should have been removed, or where more likely treacherous to the core intent on holding on to their own positions.

Trotsky was right in his demand to break with the British Trade Union leaders, you do not hold alliances with class traitors isn't that obvious. How do you explain to defeated workers your position? Sorry lads but we come first, is it any wonder that after this defeat the British working class spent decades as a demoralised force dragged into another war by capitalism, one that the BCP was first against and then for when Russia was invaded. This sealed their believe that the Soviet Union and its international Communist Parties were about themselves and nothing more.
The question of holding on to power is a very complex one. You might have to do deals with foreign governments as they did with Germany after the revolution but above all it is not the safety of the USSR that was at stake it was the future of the international working class. Lenin and Trotsky both agreed that the future of the USSR lay with the international working class, yes they might have had to do deals with reactionary regimes but those policies where not done behind the backs of the workers and did not decide the class struggle in any of those nations, they were prepared to break with these regimes if by being aligned with them they compromised their revolutionary principles. . First and foremost was the struggle of the international working class to take the power.

[Ismail]

Sorry to disagree with a comrade with only my second post on here but I have to take up Ismails point that revolutions happen on their own. The objective conditions might exist for a revolution, but it is the roll of revolutionists to enter into those conditions through a revolutionary party to ensure they are favourable of the workers revolution.Yes, going beyond trade-union consciousness and such. However, my point is that you can't export a revolution, which brings us to...


The Commintern wasn’t set up to “export revolution” Its roll was to ensure were the conditions existed that a trained revolutionary leadership also existed and was able to take advantage of the conditions. In those countries where the conditions were not yet ripe to recruit socilaits to form revolutionary parties, even reforming old socialist movements into communist ones.I wasn't talking about the Comintern. I was talking about how the original poster got angry when Stalin told the Red Army not to intervene in Austria. Invading Austria would of been an imperialist action. Do you doubt this?

Reminds me of posters here who are defending Russia's invasion of Georgia since Russian imperialism is apparently preferable to USA imperialism whereas both should be equally rejected. Imperialism is still imperialism, even if you're hoisting a red flag and proclaiming it's ones "internationalist duty" to fight. (See: Soviet invasion of Afghanistan)

[Comrade Hector]

So Stalin should of diplomatically isolated the USSR from the rest of the world (which wouldn't of gone well and not of been very internationalist) and should of done imperialist actions like invade Austria? Revolutions happen on their own. Any attempt to export a revolution will end in failure because it's a sign that said workers in the nation aren't strong enough.

Nevermind all that though, the USSR had GLORIOUS SOVIET POWER on its side and would of defeated all the capitalist states by invading the fuck out of them. World revolution in the span of weeks!

Also the Nazi-Soviet Pact was amid fears from the USSR that Germany wanted to invade them, something clearly proved in 1941. Stalin had called upon France and UK for an anti-Fascist alliance, but they didn't want to do it. I shudder to think what would of happened if USSR didn't have the parts of Poland it got (which were historically part of the Ukraine), the Baltic's, etc. Also note that the Kuomintang were seen as more progressive than the Japanese (and their puppet, Qing Emperor Pu-Yi) and warlords. Of course the Kuomintang turned on Mao and co. later on.

Also people misunderstand what socialism in one country is about. It's the same policy as Lenin had, only it was called as such to distinguish itself from Trotskyism.

http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/FL24.html

Lenin in On the Slogan for a United States of Europe:
http://eprints.cddc.vt.edu/marxists///archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm
(http://eprints.cddc.vt.edu/marxists///archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm)

For months no one replied to this, I'm surprised at the number of replies. Had Stalin been a dedicated Communist, he would've promoted revolution abroad instead of trying to appease the imperialists. This does not mean misusing the Red Army as a conquerer, but promoting workers to do the same as was done in Russia. But such a course of action would been an end to Stalin's bureaucratic caste with its privelages and leechng off the workers state. Funny you should mention isolation, my Hoxhaist friend. That's exactly what Enver did to Albania. So essentially what you're saying is capitalists and imperialists can be progressive to the workers. Name one time when such a traitorous unity benefitted the workers. And it was right for Stalin to embrace them, in spite of the fact that they wanted his head. Stalinism kept the workers states isolated which led to capitalist counter-revolution.

[DiaMat86]

For months no one replied to this, I'm surprised at the number of replies. Had Stalin been a dedicated Communist, he would've promoted revolution abroad instead of trying to appease the imperialists. This does not mean misusing the Red Army as a conquerer, but promoting workers to do the same as was done in Russia. But such a course of action would been an end to Stalin's bureaucratic caste with its privelages and leechng off the workers state. Funny you should mention isolation, my Hoxhaist friend. That's exactly what Enver did to Albania. So essentially what you're saying is capitalists and imperialists can be progressive to the workers. Name one time when such a traitorous unity benefitted the workers. And it was right for Stalin to embrace them, in spite of the fact that they wanted his head. Stalinism kept the workers states isolated which led to capitalist counter-revolution.

The counter-revolution was built in to socialism in that it retains some the worst parts of capitalism such as wage differentials. As far as bureaucracy goes, I think you are referring to the Red Bourgeoisie as the counter revolutionary force. The soviet union was a big place, everything could not be centralized because of expediency there needed to be local bureaus to represent the party outside of Moscow. Socialism is another wage system and history show us that it is a pre-capitalist phase. Internationalism does not fundamentally change that.

[Comrade Hector]

Wrong, the Soviet Union has no control over the British Working Class. The the Right-wing Social Democrat leadership settled for meager reform. The General Strike would in no way have evolved into a revolutionary movement that would topple the monarchy, it was not a revolutionary situation. This is a complete overestimation on how strong the left was in Britain at that time.

So what you're saying is a Socialist Revolution is only possible if the Soviet Union under Stalin had his iron grip on the British workers. The Russian Revolution was made with strikes and protests. British workers during the Russian Civil War struggled openly in the defense of the Bolsheviks with strikes. If this is not revolutionary, I don't know what is.


This is a correct tactic, the Imperialists would only love the Chinese to be bitterly divided in order to move in and conquer. The Chinese Communist Party would not have won the trust of the people by attacking the Chinese state when the Japanese Invaded.

Stalinism 101: "Lets embrace bourgeois nationalism and kick aside revolutionary internationalism. Lets embrace our own bourgeoisie and not recognize Japanese workers." The imperialists must've had wet dreams in the Russian Civil War seeing Russians divided. Tens of thousands of Communists and militant workers being slaughtered is a correct tactic???????


The Soviet Union should not raise any capital to industrialize?
The League of Nations is a den of thieves, but its better to work cooperate with the thieves as long as possible to stall them from stabbing you in the back. The Soviet Union was at great lengths trying to avoid an imperialist war against it.

If you read your Communist Manifesto carefully, you'd notice that it is confirmed that the revolution cannot survive in a single country. So it was necessary to work with the very same powers that tried to drown the revolution in blood? Stalin failed miserably on the last one, with his actions allowed the Nazis to almost destroy the USSR.


Nowhere the comintern says, "French Communist Party please support French Colonization." The Soviet Union was trying to avoid a war. It did not want to give any Casus Belli to anyone.

No it didn't. But the French Communist Party leaders suspended the call for self-determination for those under French colonial rule as well as all political action against the French capitalists.


My main man, Dimitrov has it covered here:

"
Was it inevitable that the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy should have triumphed in Spain, a country where the forces of proletarian revolt are so advantageously combined with a peasant war?
The Spanish Socialists were in the government from the first days of the revolution. Did they establish fighting contact between the working class organizations of every political opinion, including the Communists and the Anarchists, and did they weld the working class into a united trade union organization? Did they demand the confiscation of all lands of the landlords, the church and the monasteries in favor of the peasants in order to win over the latter to the side of the revolution? Did they attempt to fight for national self-determination for the Catalonians and the Basques, and for the liberation of Morocco? Did they purge the army of monarchist and fascist elements and prepare it for passing over to the side of the workers and peasants? Did they dissolve the Civil Guard, so detested by the people, the executioner of every movement of the people? Did they strike at the fascist party of Gil Robles and at the might of the Catholic church? No, they did none of these things. They rejected the frequent proposals of the Communists for united action against the offensive of the bourgeois-landlord reaction and fascism; they passed election laws which enabled the reactionaries to gain a majority in the Cortes (parliament), laws which penalized the popular movement, laws under which the heroic miners of Asturias are now being tried. They had peasants who were fighting for land shot by the Civil Guard, and so on.
This is the way in which the Social-Democrats, by disorganizing and splitting the ranks of the working class, cleared the path to power for fascism in Germany, Austria and Spain."

Dimitrov was an advocate for the popular front, unity with the liberal bourgeoisie. He called for unity of all the parties of the left in spite of their bourgeois nature.




The Polish communist party was killed off by the fascist government not by Stalin in purges.

Check the dates on the three I mentioned above, as well as all the known members. They were murdered in the USSR on Stalin's orders.


What should the Soviet Union do instead attack a better armed Germany? I fail to find any political emigrants refused entry into the Soviet Union. If you may recall the Soviet Union assisting the political emigrants all accross eastern Europe against the fascist terrorist governments.

Decapitating the Red Army is hardly a way of securing the USSR from imperialist attack, now is it? Trusting an imperialist leader who has shown his total hatred for everything the USSR stood for? I'm sure it offering an invisible protective shield. I never said Stalin refused political emigrants to the Soviet Union. He handed those from Germany and Austria to the Gestapo. What a Communist, huh?


Trotsky had openly declared that he had contact with 600 officers within the Soviet Red Army and was planning a putsch against the Soviet Union. To overthrow the government. What levelheaded leadership would not take this as a serious threat not to mention if Trotsky infiltrated 600 officers, what about the imperialists and old guard? I would definitely want to find out who is cooperating with the enemy in my armed forces.

Why not? With his old comrades who defended the Soviet state from the Whites and imperialist onslaught. Trotsky's struggle was a politicl revolution to sweep away Stalin's parasitic bureaucracy undermining the Soviet workers state. To get rid of bureaucratic dictatorship and replace it with workers democracy. Decapitating the Red Army when faced with imperialist war makes the USSR stronger? Making treasonous treaties with imperialists is not cooperating with the enemy? Earlier this is what you advocated: cooperation with the enemy.


You want the Soviet Union to declare war on the whole world? After losing 27 Million sons and daughters how much more blood to you want to spill. Why wouldn't the Soviet Union want allies against the aggressive fascist onslaught?

Of course not. I wanted the Soviet Union to take up its native internationalist buried by Stalin, and assist workers to overthrow their own bourgeoisie. Not by invasion. Why do you think 27 million Soviet citizens died? The Red Army was completely off gaurd and decapitated when the Nazis and their allies attacked. Stalin's impotence as a military leader lead to many being killed in senseless attacks. Remember the Cold War? The Soviet Union was once against threatened by imperialist onslaught, the same that Stalin embraced. How so secure.



The UN is an imperialist institution?

No, its an institution where world revolution, proletarian internationalism, Communism, class struggle is planned and carried out all over the world.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rol leyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Stalin didn't collaborate, with the fall of fascism the Communist and Socialist Parties in those countries successfully overthrew the bourgeoisie, in many cases Social Democracy was shown to be bankrupt. In Greece they failed because the social democrats sided against the workers.

A telegram to Churchill assuring him that no action will be taken on behalf of the Greek Communists, and that he has no interest in a Red Greece isn't collaboration? It gave Greece back to the bourgeoisie. Stalinism is the bankrupt and traitorous dogma.


Stalin did not order Italy and French workers to support capitalism. There is no comintern document that would ever state this. The Social Democrats sided with the Bourgeois against the workers. What is the Soviet Union suppose to do? Invade France and Italy?

Well, they didnt oppose or fight against the allied imperialist invasion. The French and Italian CP stood by and watch the bourgeiosie regain control. The fact that Stalin told the CPs not to oppose the allied imperialists did just this. A dedicated Communist would've told his comrades to oppose ALL imperialism. That's what the Soviet Union was supposed to do.


The Social Democrats betrayed the Revolution in Austria, the Communist Party was not strong enough to go in alone. What else was the Soviet Union suppose to do? Declare war on Austria?

So because the CP is not strong enough, they should just back down and not attempt to win over the misled workers from the Social Democrats? But the Austrian CP did go in alone. Under their leadership a revoltion was emerging. The Red Army soldiers could've intervened on the side of the workers. They could've gotten rid of the Austrian bourgeoisie together with Austrian workers. But no. Glorious Comrade Stalin must show the imperialists he can be a respectable statesman and drink champagne with them.

There never would've been a Russian Revolution if people like you had been in control. Your words prove you think its better to embrace the bourgeois parasites instead of struggling against them. Mensheviks in Bolshevik cloaks. That's all Stalinists are.