Stalinists/Hoxhaists/Maoists?

[RedFlagComrade]

In reponse to MTLYOUTHs thread calling for Satalinists n Maoists to be banned-Im not advocating anything as radical as that but id just like to know...

Why would you support autocratic stalinist or maoist ideaologies-surely your not advocating totalitarian dictatorships as better societys than what we have now?Weve seen in the past that these stalinist systems are definately not viable.So id just like to know what attracts you to these ideologies?

[Herman]

Why would you support autocratic stalinist or maoist ideaologies-surely your not advocating totalitarian dictatorships as better societys than what we have now?Weve seen in the past that these stalinist systems are definately not viable.So id just like to know what attracts you to these ideologies?

"Stalinists" as you call them, do not support autocracy. They view Stalin positively and as a genuine marxist-leninist who did his best given the circumstances. They also see the USSR during his time as democratic and a worker's state.

The same applies to maoists, but in China.

[RedFlagComrade]

They also see the USSR during his time as democratic and a worker's state.


And how do they convince themselves of that when it wasnt true?

[Herman]

And how do they convince themselves of that when it wasnt true?

There are books and works by historians (such as Ludo Martens) who have a more positive account of the USSR during Stalin's time (note that many of them are not marxists). They base their historical knowledge on those historians and the data they show.

[bezdomni]

Everybody who asks this question should read Mao's critique of Stalin's "On the Problems of Socialism in the USSR" and "On the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat".

Good quotes from both respectively (from marx2mao):


In the struggle to defend the legacy of Leninism . . . [Stalin] proved himself to be an outstanding Marxist-Leninist fighter. . . . Stalin's works should, as before, be seriously studied . . . [to] see what is correct and what is not.
-Mao (1956)


. . . Stalin emphasized only technology, technical cadres. He wanted nothing but technology, nothing but cadre; no politics, no masses. . . . Stalin speaks only of the production relations, not of the superstructure, nor of the relationship between superstructure and economic base. . . . Stalin mentions economics only, not politics.
-Mao (1958)

http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/CSE58.html#WRITTEN

[Dros]

We dispute your silly Bourgeois understanding of history as anti-Communist propaganda.

We are attracted to Maoism because we believe (read "know") that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the only thing that can actually liberate the working class and lead to the kind of society that everyone wants.

I suggest you read "Another View of Stalin" and "Fanshen" for a more leftist view of the history of these countries and for a better understanding of the historical experience of the DoP.

[RedFlagComrade]

Mao may have started out with the right ideas and his theories on how to go about liberating the proleatariat may have been good, but power had well and truly corrupted him by then time he started murdering thousands of intelligencia in the reign of terror known as the cultural revolution.

[RedFlagComrade]

Do you Stalinists approve of the way Stalin decimated his party by having innocent people confess to crimes they didnt commit in the purges and the show trials(because they were tortured or their families threatened) and executed or sent to the gulag concentration camps to die, simply because in his crazy paranaoia he thought they were a threat to his power.

[Unicorn]

In reponse to MTLYOUTHs thread calling for Satalinists n Maoists to be banned-Im not advocating anything as radical as that but id just like to know...

Why would you support autocratic stalinist or maoist ideaologies-surely your not advocating totalitarian dictatorships as better societys than what we have now?
The Soviet society under Stalin was definitely better than bourgeois liberal democracies. I am not sure of Mao or Hoxha. Their systems were national-chauvinist dictatorships and they oppressed workers. Mao's Cultural Revolution was basically anarchism and he supported genocidal dictators like Pol Pot with US imperialists.

Stalin had many faults and the personality cult was the greatest of them but these mistakes was later corrected by Brezhnev, Suslov, Shelepin and other Marxist-Leninists who were firmly opposed to left or right deviations.



Weve seen in the past that these stalinist systems are definately not viable.So id just like to know what attracts you to these ideologies?
The Soviet system was very viable. Economic growth was much faster than in capitalist societies after World War II and citizens had more rights and liberty.

[RedFlagComrade]

citizens had more rights and liberty.

No they didnt-no free multi party elections, no free speech etc. etc.

[Unicorn]

No they didnt-no free multi party elections,
The Communist Party worked democratically and there was much diversity of opinion within the party. Elections in the Soviet Union were free (after Stalin died). The elections in capitalist countries are not, they are manipulated by the bourgeois government and the differences between the parties are minimal.



no free speech etc. etc.
The Soviet Constitution (1977):

Article 50. In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations.
Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public buildings, streets and squares at the disposal of the working people and their organisations, by broad dissemination of information, and by the opportunity to use the press, television, and radio.

[RedFlagComrade]

The Communist Party worked democratically and there was much diversity of opinion within the party.


In fact after Stalin succeeded Lenin, all diversity in the party was shut down-fear of the purges I suppose.Lenins Russia operated under a Party Dictatorship (acceptable if not ideal) Stalins Russia was a single person dictatorship

As for the rest-All came after Stalin died so irrelevent to the issue here.

[nvm]

Mao and Stalin were a bunch of bureaucrats,
you can advocate anything you want but don't close your eyes to the truth.
There was no workers democracy in the USSR because if there was there would be freedom of expressing ideas and Trotsky would not have been exiled ...duh!!
They purged their political opponents and they directly or because of their stupid policies killed millions. Holodomor was a result of Stalin sending in the Red Army for expropriating the kulaks while he was the one who bred them while Trotsky from 1923 was advocating the GRADUAL collectivization of the land.
There was no democracy and freedom in the USSR.
The Soviets lost their power especialy after 1936.
It was a degenerated workers state.
Stalin was a totalitarian bastard.

[nvm]

these mistakes was later corrected by Brezhnev, Suslov, Shelepin and other Marxist-Leninists who were firmly opposed to left or right deviations.

But those who you mentioned were themselves bureaucrats.
Did they bring workers democracy? I dont think so. Otherwise the bureaucratic caste would not have sold out the USSR for their own interests.

[Dros]

Mao may have started out with the right ideas and his theories on how to go about liberating the proleatariat may have been good, but power had well and truly corrupted him by then time he started murdering thousands of intelligencia in the reign of terror known as the cultural revolution.

no study, no right to speak

I've already said we critique your view of history.

Now, you can choose to spew anti-Communist propagandistic versions of history, or you can go read something and do a careful study of the GPCR instead of just blabbering your bullshit on and on and on ad nauseum.

[Unicorn]

But those who you mentioned were themselves bureaucrats.
Did they bring workers democracy?
Yes. I credit Suslov for his crucial role in restoring a true people's democracy to the USSR.

[RedFlagComrade]

Did Mao or did he not cause the deaths of literally tens of millions of people through mass executions, 'reform through labor' camps, the so-called anti-rightist movement that persecuted those alleged to have displayed opinions that did not correlate with those of his government, and the largest famine in human history as a result of the Great Leap Forward which crippled Chinas economy??

-Just answer the questions will you?

-Whats more Stalin caused the biggest ever genocide/mass murder in human history (more people killed than even Hitler managed!) against his own russian people.Mao came in second place.

-Do you deny that as well?

[Dros]

Did Mao or did he not cause the deaths of literally tens of millions of people through mass executions, 'reform through labor' camps, the so-called anti-rightist movement that persecuted those alleged to have displayed opinions that did not correlate with those of his government, and the largest famine in human history as a result of the Great Leap Forward which crippled Chinas economy??

-Just answer the questions will you?

no

[RedFlagComrade]

So your denying that he commited these atrocities-which he certainly did commit?Or just refusing to answer?

[RHIZOMES]

Mao may have started out with the right ideas and his theories on how to go about liberating the proleatariat may have been good, but power had well and truly corrupted him by then time he started murdering thousands of intelligencia in the reign of terror known as the cultural revolution.

Yeah, and those intelligentsia were trying to reinstate capitalism. Even the bourgeoisie historians admit this.


Did Mao or did he not cause the deaths of literally tens of millions of people through mass executions

No. There were executions sure, but "tens of millions" is fucking ludicrous.


'reform through labor' camps

Yeah but again, not "tens of millions". No more than the death rates seen in your average prisons.


the so-called anti-rightist movement that persecuted those alleged to have displayed opinions that did not correlate with those of his government

Yeah all of the ideas boiled down to wanting to restore capitalism. Class struggle continues even after the revolution. See Deng Xiaopeng for an example of when the working class lets their guard down.


and the largest famine in human history as a result of the Great Leap Forward which crippled Chinas economy??

And that famine wasn't Mao's fault. there have been famines that were of that scale in China BEFORE Mao. It had nothing to do with him, more to do with pure and simple BAD WEATHER. In India around the same time there was a famine which killed "tens of millions" of people yet noone calls whoever the fuck leaded India at time a "mass murderer". Anti-communist bullshit.


-Whats more Stalin caused the biggest ever genocide/mass murder in human history (more people killed than even Hitler managed!) against his own russian people.Mao came in second place.

Actually you're wrong even by bourgeoisie historians accounts. Mao "killed" 75 million, while Stalin "killed" 30 million. Never mind the fact that Soviet population figures cannot account for this at all, the only two major blips are when they ceded shitloads of territory.

[Dros]

So your denying that he commited these atrocities-which he certainly did commit?Or just refusing to answer?

no study, no right to speak


We deny that your anti-Communist propaganda is history. Mao was not a mass murderer. There were NOT millions of executions. This pseudo-history has been refuted by historians and communists for decades.

Your willingness to sleep with anti-Communist lies is disturbing.

[Unicorn]

no study, no right to speak


We deny that your anti-Communist propaganda is history. Mao was not a mass murderer. There were NO millions of executions. This pseudo-history has been refuted by historians and communists for decades.

Your willingness to sleep with anti-Communist lies is disturbing.
Boohoo, TASS reported of Mao's atrocities and all communists in the Soviet Union and in the West heard of them. TASS is a reliable source.

[Awful Reality]

In reponse to MTLYOUTHs thread calling for Satalinists n Maoists to be banned-Im not advocating anything as radical as that but id just like to know...

Why would you support autocratic stalinist or maoist ideaologies-surely your not advocating totalitarian dictatorships as better societys than what we have now?Weve seen in the past that these stalinist systems are definately not viable.So id just like to know what attracts you to these ideologies?

Coming from an Anarkiddy who is mostly going to find support here among Trotskyists, your point of view is worthless. First, use the spellcheck function. Second, do some research regarding Stalin's USSR. Because it was not autocratic. It was the opposite- bureaucratic. Just because it was not a workers' state does not mean in was akin to, say, Fascist Italy, which was autocratic.

Calling them not viable is the pot calling the kettle black. Do you think Anarcho-Communism is viable? I haven't even the patience to argue with you about this.

Go away. You should be banned.

[Dros]

Boohoo, TASS reported of Mao's atrocities and all communists in the Soviet Union and in the West heard of them. TASS is a reliable source.

You're a complete idiot. TASS is the Soviet Press agency. Under Stalin, when the USSR was still socialist, TASS was very favorable to Mao. After the Sino-Soviet split, when USSR became capitalist, it became very anti-Mao. This makes a lot of sense considering China and Russia were on the verge of war and the USSR was peddling the same anti-Communist propaganda as the rest of the capitalist world.

I can't believe in you would be that thick.

[Awful Reality]

Boohoo, TASS reported of Mao's atrocities and all communists in the Soviet Union and in the West heard of them. TASS is a reliable source.

If you are really a New Communist, why are you calling Mao atrocious? Oh yeah, I almost forget you were an idiot right there.

And now, Drosera is exactly right.

And of course, since the west agreed, TASS is reliable. Fits you perfectly.

[Unicorn]

If you are really a New Communist, why are you calling Mao atrocious? Oh yeah, I almost forget you were an idiot right there.
I told TragicClown that I oppose Maoism and I am pro-CPSU like 90% of the communists in Europe after the Sino-Soviet split. In my view Mikhail Suslov represents Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy.

And dont' forget that you are a Trot. You are supposed to call Mao atrocious.

[Awful Reality]

I told TragicClown that I oppose Maoism and I am pro-CPSU like 90% of the communists in Europe after the Sino-Soviet split. In my view Mikhail Suslov represents Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy.

And dont' forget that you are a Trot. You are supposed to call Mao atrocious.

Way to evade the point.

I like Mao. I like many facets of Maoism. I also like Trotsky. I like almost all facets of Trotskyism.

[Unicorn]

Way to evade the point.

I like Mao. I like many facets of Maoism. I also like Trotsky. I like almost all facets of Trotskyism.
Then you are confused. Maoists are people who like Stalin and claim that Mao represents Stalin's and Lenin's Marxist-Leninist thought.

Trotskyists are people who hate Stalin and don't consider him a real Marxist.

[Awful Reality]

Then you are confused. Maoists are people who like Stalin and claim that Mao represents Stalin's and Lenin's Marxist-Leninist thought.

Not really. Maoists think Stalin was decent Marxist- there I disagree; Mao was not uncritical of Stalin and they differed on many positions.

[Unicorn]

Not really. Maoists think Stalin was decent Marxist- there I disagree; Mao was not uncritical of Stalin and they differed on many positions.
Yes but real Trotskyites consider Mao's China a deformed Stalinist dictatorship. Mao criticised Stalin on issues in which Stalin remained faithful to Marxist theory and had worse, revisionist views himself.

[Dros]

Yes but real Trotskyites consider Mao's China a deformed Stalinist dictatorship. Mao criticised Stalin on issues in which Stalin remained faithful to Marxist theory and had worse, revisionist views himself.

Instead of trying to side track this conversation with your petty sectarianism, Unicorn, how about you address my post about how TASS isn't a reliable source and defend your anti-Communist bullshit argument.

[Unicorn]

Instead of trying to side track this conversation with your petty sectarianism, Unicorn, how about you address my post about how TASS isn't a reliable source and defend your anti-Communist bullshit argument.
The USSR was a socialist state under Khruschev and Brezhnev and TASS as the news agency of that state is generally a reliable source. Mao's China was not socialist. It was actually a chauvinist state seeking world domination. Examples of PRC's misdeeds include killing Soviet soldiers at Ussuri river, support for Pol Pot and a war against the socialist Vietnam. Cultural Revolution was basically anarchism. Pro-Soviet Chinese communists were murdered and persecuted.

[Andres Marcos]

The USSR was a socialist state under Khruschev and Brezhnev
Oh goodness, you mean Before or AFTER they and their ''allies'' started to accept credits from the west, purged REAL Marxist-Leninists like Malenkov, Kaganovich, and Molotov from the Party, run industries by profit, started to promote ''peaceful coexistence'',''the party of all the people''', and ''the socialist division of labor'', etc. etc.


Mao's China was not socialist. It was actually a chauvinist state seeking world domination.

Oh the Irony.
China's stance was moderate compared to the all out capitalism and imperialism the USSR had set to restore. Mao's China was built exactly like your Brezhnevite Soviet Union in that it promoted a domestic bourgeoisie to make profits in Mao's case it was a ''moderate'' stance to the non comprador bourgeoisie and in Brezhnev's case it was ALL bourgeoisie irregardless even letting foreign businesses to do business in the USSR. Secondly, Mao never made China susceptible to loans he couldn't pay which the Soviet Union had doomed its ''allies'' into doing.



Examples of PRC's misdeeds include killing Soviet soldiers at Ussuri river, support for Pol Pot and a war against the socialist Vietnam. Culturally Revolution was basically anarchism. Pro-Soviet Chinese communists were murdered and persecuted.1. That issue was propagated by the Chinese due to the fear of the Soviet Union and justly so. The USSR by this time was a gun-ho state expanding its empire into every corner of the globe lets not forget the USSR by this time had initiated a blockade on Albania, invaded Czechoslovakia, and attempted to overthrow Kim Il Sung. I also find it ironic you are talking about the PRC wanting to take over the world when the USSR played a key role in murdering Hafizullah Amin and destablizing Afghanistan to put in one of their puppets.
2. The Sino-Vietnamese War was AFTER Mao had died.
3. You are correct on the GPCR however, the fact that Pro-Soviets were persecuted is of little relevance as the Soviets would have done the same to Pro-Sino elements.

[RedFlagComrade]

Are Stalinists
-1.in favor of totalitarian dictatorships?
-2.against free multiparty elections that highlight the will of the masses?
-3.against free speech?In favor of censorship?
-4.against equal rights for women?
-5.against spreading socialism around the world?
-6.in favor of capital punishment?

If yes? Why????
Try to convert me!

Do you at least accept that Stalins purges and show trials happened-do you agree that they were terrible abuses of power by a paranoid dictator?

[Dros]

The USSR was a socialist state under Khruschev and Brezhnev and TASS as the news agency of that state is generally a reliable source. Mao's China was not socialist. It was actually a chauvinist state seeking world domination. Examples of PRC's misdeeds include killing Soviet soldiers at Ussuri river, support for Pol Pot and a war against the socialist Vietnam. Cultural Revolution was basically anarchism. Pro-Soviet Chinese communists were murdered and persecuted.

Your a dipshit. You would have LOVED Ronald Reagan you reactionary little turd.

But even if this is true, you still haven't addressed my argument about how TASS is unreliable as a source on the PRC post-split.


-1.in favor of totalitarian dictatorships?

"Stalinists" (Marxist-Leninists) uphold the Marxist notion of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Read my sig. to see what Lenin had to say about this. Democracy for the masses, suppression of counter-revolution.


-2.against free multiparty elections that highlight the will of the masses?

This is a liberal myth. "Free" multi-party democracy has never done anything except suppress the masses.


-3.against free speech?In favor of censorship?

Censoring who and under what circumstances? Censorship of reactionary elements trying to organize a counter-revolution? Yes. Censorship of the proletariat and the intelligentsia in terms of political dialogue? HELL NO! I suggest you read what Bob Avakian has to say about his. Although he is much derieded by much of the crypto-liberals on this site, much of his contributions to theory arise out of pretty much this exact same question.

Link. (http://www.rwor.org/avakian/avakian-works.html.)


-4.against equal rights for women?

That is patently absurd. Marxist-Leninist countries have been universally light years ahead of every other country in terms of gender relations. Mao said "Women hold up have the heavens" and he believed it and acted on it. In fact, the Cultural Revolution is probably the best place to have been a woman in history. Including the modern US and Western Europe.Check out the Red Detachmend of Women. (http://www.revmedia.net/rdow.html) This is a GPCR era Chinese opera. Look at how women are portrayed compared to other societies.


-5.against spreading socialism around the world?

BULLSHIT. The theory of "socialism in one country" means that, because of uneven development caused by capitalism/imperialism, it is necessary for the revolution to occur on a country by country or segment by segment basis because there won't be a global, simultaneous upsurge. It is simply not viable from a scientific perspective due to this uneven development. That means that countries that have revolutions can begin to build socialism. Marxism-Leninism ("Stalinism") is still an internationalist ideology and still advocates a global socialist system and later a Communist future.


-6.in favor of capital punishment?

Hell yeah. If you are unwilling to suppress your bourgeoisie and reactionary elements, your revolution, if it ever happens won't last a week.

[RNK]

RedFlagCommie is a prime example of how not to be a communist -- by being an ignorant doofus who seems to have accidently wandered here while checking out his highschool friends' myspace pages.


So your denying that he commited these atrocities-which he certainly did commit?

And who ascertains that these atrocities certainly were committed?

On the one hand, we have reactionary sectors of the Chinese population who fled or struggled against the communists.

We have "leftists" who arbitrarily pick-and-choose choice quotes and information to come to shallow conclusions.

And then we have morons who insist it is infallable truth, when they actually don't know anything about it.

Nigel Harris is a prominent exposer of Mao's "crimes" -- he wrote the book "Mandate of Heaven" where he talks at length about the Chinese communist experience, provides lots of quotes and "evidence" of Mao's "criminal intent". I tore through that book like shit through a goose; it's nothing less than ignorance and at times fabrication -- I literally found dozens of quotes "showing Mao's criminal intent" which were taken entirely out of context and painted in the worst possible light. One example was a quote of a CCP mandate ordering that local granaries in a recently liberated town in the late 1940s be put under armed guard, and Harris made the assumption and implication that it was done to starve the population -- he left out an important part of the mandate explaining that the food stores were being looted and hoarded and that the CCP authorities had to step in to ensure fair distribution of food.

I can't blame people like you, you've only got all of society repeating this same information, cycling the same bullshit so many times that its indistinguishable from truth.

No, Mao did not "massacre millions". In the mid-1950s, as the fledgling revolutionary government began enacting industrialization and agricultural reforms and collectivization, a natural famine, compounded by logistical problems and failures, led to mass starvation in much of the country. By the late 1950s Mao admonished the party cadres at all levels for this failure, including himself.

The vaunted "re-education camps" which everyone goes on about are a rural legend born out of the Cultural Revolution. During that period, a huge number of people became fanatically devoted to revolutionary ideals and lifestyles and communism; they organized themselves into what they called the Red Guard, and they took it upon themselves to try and carry out the tasks of late-stage transitional socialism. They declared "war" on the government and the communist party, and pressured all Chinese to do the same. From what I've heard, a lot of these Red Guard would go off to the countryside to teach the edicts of communism and Maoism to the peasants. They were responsible for many of the excesses of the cultural revolution -- excesses like dousing university faculty leaders with black ink, writing big character posters about people thought to be "bourgeois" in lifestyle, and other acts of public humiliation (the idea of frothing armed madmen roaming the streets killing at will is largely another legendary tale).

So no, Mao did not massacre millions. His experience and the experience of Chinese revolution are filled with both successes and failures. And regardless of whether Mao was "evil" or not, that experience must be looked at objectively, for regardless of the outcome there is still much we can learn from it, and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

[RedFlagComrade]

RedFlagCommie is a prime example of how not to be a communist -- by being an ignorant doofus who seems to have accidently wandered here while checking out his highschool friends' myspace pages.


Thanks!

Any way reply to drossera
Re:No.1. In what way did stalins dictatorship of the prolatariat offer democracy to the masses-he abused and was corrupted by his power and the dictatorship of the prolatariat became the dictatorship of one single lunatic-Stalin-a man completely heedless of the will of the masses
-a will that certainly didnt call for the wiping out of an entire class simply because they were wealthier than many of the workers-if that is what the prolatariat mean to do when they are emancipated then Ive lost all faith in the revolution
-how did the masses have an input into the decisions of Stalins regime-they didnt!

2.Free elections-dont fight capitalist lies with more lies-it cannot be denied that free elections have done more towards enacting the will of the vast majority of the people ("democracy for the masses") than any other political system-certainly more than Stalins false one party system-and on that note why did Stalin hold false elections at all if he didnt intend to heed them unless that he realised that elections were the logical decision making system in such a large communist country but he just didnt want to relinquish power.If you have to block out the voice of the people for fear that the majority will vote to oust you ypou must be doing something wrong

3.Free Speech-Theres a lot of Hypocricy in allowing our views to be expressed but not the views of the opposition-take this the next step to Stalins point of view where any criticism of him was met with imprisonment or death-hardly fair or reasonable.

4. Womens Rights-I know that most communist countries were outstanding examples of feminism-but Stalin reversed the trend-he made it much more difficult for women to get a divorce as a part of his (almost neo-con) 'family values' policies and he closed down the Zhenotdel (Womens Office) that was set up by Lenin to guarantee equal rights for women.

5.fair enough.

6.Fair enough.Many leftist including me denounce capital punishment as barbaric. I was just checking that you werent some hypocrite who is against capital punishment in a capitalist country but would then start executing people in a communist country.

[bezdomni]

RedFlagComrade, you suffer from the delusion that communists who uphold Stalin do so with an uncritical dogmatism. While this may be true for some fake communists, it is not at all the case with Maoists. Mao criticized Stalin extensively in Critique of Stalin's "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR". (http://marx2mao.com/Mao/CSE58.html#WRITTEN)

I strongly suggest you read it, because it clarifies the materialist way of looking at the USSR under Stalin.

To answer your questions briefly, I'd like to point out a few things.

1) The USSR under Stalin was not a model example of the dictatorship of the proletariat or the transition to communism. This is the case for a number of reasons, but mainly there are two things that I think retarded socialism in the USSR under Stalin. The first thing is that communist methodology had very notable flaws dating back from Marx. Stalin didn't represent "the fall" (so to speak), he was the logical continuation of Marx and Lenin. The general methodology of communists at the time could be summed up as "what is good for the proletariat must be true", which was the motive behind lots of the attacks on anti-communist "free speech". Although really, most people could get away with saying most things in the Soviet Union most of the time. If Joe Schmoe in the USSR said "Stalin is a big old monkey", probably nothing would happen to him.

When people in the Communist Party itself were basically advocating counterrevolution, well...we saw what happened.

Mao changed a lot of this way of looking at things, but even still he was susceptible to it. However, he did recognize that Stalin was metaphysical and not dialectical in his understanding of contradictions among the masses - which led to a mechanistic, technical way of dealing with contradictions both among the masses and in the party, rather than fostering the political education of the masses and unleashing them against the reactionaries and counterrevolutionaries. Maoists rely on the masses, if there are no masses then there is no movement. Stalin did not rely on the masses, as Mao said, "he wanted only technical cadre".

But also, Mao didn't have to deal with a Nazi invasion...which is another reason why the USSR under Stalin was not a model of socialism. Not even the most fanatic supporter of Stalin would say that it would be good to repeat the experience in Stalin's USSR. Despite the gulags, despite the NKVD, despite the kirov trials....the biggest thing that sucked in the USSR was the Nazi occupation, which is obviously not a desirable way to a socialist state in any capacity. This is also where most of the "people Stalin killed" count gets its numbers from...World War II casualties. I think it was around 20 million people in the Soviet Union died during the war. If that's true, then how could Stalin have possibly afforded to kill off another 50 million or whatever the fuck it is the bourgeoisie like to say?

[Unicorn]

Your a dipshit. You would have LOVED Ronald Reagan you reactionary little turd.
Aren't you capable of discussing without throwing around stupid ad hominems?



But even if this is true, you still haven't addressed my argument about how TASS is unreliable as a source on the PRC post-split.
You have to burden of proof that TASS was unreliable. What factual mistakes did TASS make in reporting? You have a biased opinion of TASS because you want to defend Mao's atrocities.

[Unicorn]

But also, Mao didn't have to deal with a Nazi invasion...which is another reason why the USSR under Stalin was not a model of socialism. Not even the most fanatic supporter of Stalin would say that it would be good to repeat the experience in Stalin's USSR. Despite the gulags, despite the NKVD, despite the kirov trials....the biggest thing that sucked in the USSR was the Nazi occupation, which is obviously not a desirable way to a socialist state in any capacity. This is also where most of the "people Stalin killed" count gets its numbers from...World War II casualties. I think it was around 20 million people in the Soviet Union died during the war. If that's true, then how could Stalin have possibly afforded to kill off another 50 million or whatever the fuck it is the bourgeoisie like to say?
Even the bourgeois don't claim that Stalin killed millions of people after World War II. The anti-communist historians actually claim that the famine in Ukraine was intentionally caused by Stalin. This claim is untrue.

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

However, it is true that millions of people died in the famine and a part of the blame belongs to Stalin who mismanaged the agriculture exporting too much grain, for example.

[RNK]

Thanks!

You're welcome.


Re:No.1. In what way did stalins dictatorship of the prolatariat offer democracy to the masses-he abused and was corrupted by his power and the dictatorship of the prolatariat became the dictatorship of one single lunatic-Stalin-a man completely heedless of the will of the masses

First of all, you're asking the question from the vantage point of believing you already know the answer. "How did Stalin foster democracy when he was a viscious dictatorial villain?" If you showed even one iota of humility and open-mindedness, perhaps you would be deserving of more respectful answers; but as it stands, you made this thread to pointedly accuse Stalinists and Maoists of something, not legitimately question or analyse a topic.


-how did the masses have an input into the decisions of Stalins regime-they didnt!

Why ask a question when you provide the "answer"?


-certainly more than Stalins false one party system-

Please, check your liberal bullshit at the door. "One-party" and "multi-party" are synonymous with their own methodology. The west is a good example of how "multi-party" democracy leads to "multi-party dictatorship" -- the faux pas that freedom equates to having a small number of incredibly powerful cliques running society is an idiot's fantasy. What matters is how the masses are represented in the halls of governance; and whether it's a single party or a handful of them is impertinent.


Theres a lot of Hypocricy in allowing our views to be expressed but not the views of the opposition-

But at what cost will free expression come? Greed and power are very prominant human traits and even in the most socialistic society these traits will exist in the hearts and minds of some, and undoubtedly they will use these traits to try and sway public opinion for counter-revolutionary aims.


Many leftist including me denounce capital punishment as barbaric.

Good for you. I bet you're also subscribed to Greenpeace, and have your parents donate money to PITA every once in awhile. Give yourself a pat on the back.

[chegitz guevara]

And that famine wasn't Mao's fault. there have been famines that were of that scale in China BEFORE Mao. It had nothing to do with him, more to do with pure and simple BAD WEATHER.

That's not true. The Four Pests campaign laid the seeds for famine, as one of the pests was sparrows, and sparrows eat locusts. With the destruction of the sparrows, a massive locust swarm came about that ate a lot of crops. There was also an unfortunate attempt by Mao to put Lysenkoism into practice, over seeding the ground on the notion that seeds of the same class wouldn't compete and plowing the seeds deep into the ground to build strong roots.

In addition, rather than admit the failure of the GLF, the PRC continued exporting grain at a time when it was starving. How much of that was due to Mao's ego and how much was due to lower level bureaucrats refusing to admit that things weren't working, thus giving the central bureaucracy bad information, is left to conjecture.

All of this <i>combined</i> with the bad weather, led to the famine. Without one or the other, there wouldn't have been a famine.

[Dros]

Aren't you capable of discussing without throwing around stupid ad hominems?

I usually have to go to OI to find people like you to swear at. However, no. I'm not capable of arguing with willfully ignorant, anti-Communist, bullshit revisionists without argumentum ad hominem.


Any way reply to drossera
Re:No.1. In what way did stalins dictatorship of the prolatariat offer democracy to the masses-he abused and was corrupted by his power and the dictatorship of the prolatariat became the dictatorship of one single lunatic-Stalin-a man completely heedless of the will of the masses
-a will that certainly didnt call for the wiping out of an entire class simply because they were wealthier than many of the workers-if that is what the prolatariat mean to do when they are emancipated then Ive lost all faith in the revolution
-how did the masses have an input into the decisions of Stalins regime-they didnt!

Are you here to learn or assert your silly pseudo-history. GO READ A GOOD BOOK ABOUT THE SOVIET UNION.


2.Free elections-dont fight capitalist lies with more lies-it cannot be denied that free elections have done more towards enacting the will of the vast majority of the people ("democracy for the masses") than any other political system-certainly more than Stalins false one party system-and on that note why did Stalin hold false elections at all if he didnt intend to heed them unless that he realised that elections were the logical decision making system in such a large communist country but he just didnt want to relinquish power.If you have to block out the voice of the people for fear that the majority will vote to oust you ypou must be doing something wrong

There is no "democracy for the masses". You sound like a Hillary Clinton supporter.


3.Free Speech-Theres a lot of Hypocricy in allowing our views to be expressed but not the views of the opposition-take this the next step to Stalins point of view where any criticism of him was met with imprisonment or death-hardly fair or reasonable.

No there isn't. We say that we must liberate the proletariat. We do this by establishing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. What would be hypocritical would be to allow reactionaries (who are quite strong in a post revolutionary society) to destroy that state and restore the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie and with that all the harms it brings.


4. Womens Rights-I know that most communist countries were outstanding examples of feminism-but Stalin reversed the trend-he made it much more difficult for women to get a divorce as a part of his (almost neo-con) 'family values' policies and he closed down the Zhenotdel (Womens Office) that was set up by Lenin to guarantee equal rights for women.

We do not deny Stalin's numerous errors. We simply understand them within a very specific historical context.


6.Fair enough.Many leftist including me denounce capital punishment as barbaric. I was just checking that you werent some hypocrite who is against capital punishment in a capitalist country but would then start executing people in a communist country.

I do oppose a lot of capital punishment in the capitalist world. This is because the same thing is qualitatively different in different economic systems. For instance, the death penalty is often a tool of suppression as with abu Jamal under the capitalist system. However, that suppression is reactionary suppression. Under the socialist system, this suppresses the reaction of the bourgeoisie. That's a good thing.

[Unicorn]

I usually have to go to OI to find people like you to swear at. However, no. I'm not capable of arguing with willfully ignorant, anti-Communist, bullshit revisionists without argumentum ad hominem.
If you can't prove that TASS reported about the Cultural Revolution incorrectly, shut up.

[Dros]

If you can't prove that TASS reported about the Cultural Revolution incorrectly, shut up.

Link me to the specific reports you're referencing.

PS: still waiting for you to justify TASS as a "neutral source". That's like me asking you to prove that the Wall Street Journal was reporting incorrectly on the Soviet Union. TASS was directly controlled by the government of the USSR which was on the verge of war with China. It's called PROPAGANDA.

[Unicorn]

I usually have to go to OI to find people like you to swear at. However, no. I'm not capable of arguing with willfully ignorant, anti-Communist, bullshit revisionists without argumentum ad hominem.
Hahaha, yet you argue with the revisionist RedFlagComrade who does not support the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[RedFlagComrade]

In fact i do 100&#37; support the dictatorship of the prolatariat-i just believe that it can be achieved without causing thousands of deaths-be they bougeoisie or otherwise. We cant murder people (however reactionary and revisionist they might be) simply as a result of their honest political ideologies

Drossera and RNK-All right I'll rephrase my first question less provocatively-In what way did Stalins dictatorship of the prolatariat offer democracy to the masses??This time could you please answer it unevasively?

[3A CCCP]

In reponse to MTLYOUTHs thread calling for Satalinists n Maoists to be banned-Im not advocating anything as radical as that but id just like to know...Why would you support autocratic stalinist or maoist ideaologies-surely your not advocating totalitarian dictatorships as better societys than what we have now?Weve seen in the past that these stalinist systems are definately not viable.So id just like to know what attracts you to these ideologies?

Firstly, there is no such thing as "Stalinism." It was a word invented by the imperialists to denigrate comrade Stalin and his followers. What the capitalist calls "Stalinism" is simply Marxism-Leninism practiced correctly.

There is also no such thing as "libertarian-Communism." This sounds like an invention of people who are ashamed to call themselves what they are - social democrats.

Your statement that Stalin's system was not viable demonstrates a total ignorance of the period when comrade Stalin was at the helm of the CPSU. The USSR was industrialized so quickly and agriculture was collectivized in such short order that it had the capitalists crapping in their pants. (This was one of the reasons that Hearst and Conquest began spreading their lies about comrade Stalin and the CPSU. Lies that people like yourself believe to this day without any proof.)

Comrade Stalin and the CPSU were "viable" enough to absorb the initial brunt of the fascist attack, regroup, counterattack and drive the Nazi bastards from Soviet soil. (Not one German soldier was left on Soviet soil by June, 1944 when the U.S. launched D-Day.)

Comrade Stalin and the CPSU were "viable" enough" to rebuild the nation after the war and set up a front of defense against U.S. worldwide imperialism.

I believe what is not "viable" is the myth that you are a Communist!

3A CCCP!

Mikhail

[RedFlagComrade]

Youre looking at this from a purely economic (capitalist) perspective.Sure the USSR under stalin was an industrial miracle-but a high price was paid by the millions who died in avoidable famines, paranoid party purges, political repression, and industrial accidents caused by the ruthless expansion rate.

I suppose thats one major difference between Stalinists and other communist-Stalinists hold economic figures in higher regard than the lives of the people and as a result percieve Stalins Russia as a resounding success.

[3A CCCP]

Youre looking at this from a purely economic (capitalist) perspective.Sure the USSR under stalin was an industrial miracle-but a high price was paid by the millions who died in avoidable famines, paranoid party purges, political repression, and industrial accidents caused by the ruthless expansion rate.I suppose thats one major difference between Stalinists and other communist-Stalinists hold economic figures in higher regard than the lives of the people and as a result percieve Stalins Russia as a resounding success.

Your unsubstantiated statements ring of Hearst and Conquest. I guess Trotskyites are now calling themselves "Libertarian-Communists" and it appears they love to throw around figures just like Hearst, Conquest, and their Western masters.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[RedFlagComrade]

I think youre confusing liberal with libertarian.Liberals are centrists/right-wingers with anti-authoritarian tendancies in the anarcho-capitalist direction.Libertarian-communists are anti-authoritarian far-leftists in the anarcho-communist direction(but not as radically anti-state)they support human and civil rights, free speech, and free secret ballot elections within the post-revolutionary communist society.

[RNK]

Of course, the USSR doesn't/didn't. I mean, Wolf Blitzer on CNN said so, and then Christian Amanpour did that one thing. There's no possible way that news media would report on false news, or skew fact, or any of that sort. And that one guy who wrote some big book, yeah, he was there, man, he lived in the USSR and he knew. He knew...

There is no "difference" between "Stalinists" and "other people".

First of all, millions did not die in the USSR, except during WW1 and WW2. I wrote about this in a thread in the CC; if you look at the population growth, year-by-year, of the Soviet Union between 1921 and 1941, there is no inexplicable drop in population, or population growth, especially not in the millions.

Also, according to KGB records declassified after the collapse of the Soviet Union, political persecution during the pre-WW2 Stalin era amounted to several tens of thousands, not the millions claimed; and those are blanket persecutions, not executions, and range from everything from probation to property seizure, short-term incarceration, etc.

And according to the same reports, the total number of persons incarcerated in Soviet jails was no higher than it is currently (as a population percentage).

This whole quagmire of "political killings", "disappearances", "purges" and "deportations" are largely myths, exploded by decades of layers of misinformation, lies, and erroneous reports, all organized in the mainstream media, political community and in the minds of average citizens into understood solid "fact".

Yeah, famines happen; I'd hardly call them "preventable" -- hindsight is always 20/20.

[wes]

Perhaps some more accurite qustions should be asked.

1. How did the proletarian hold political power in the Soviet Unoin and for how long?

2. What political parties were banned and why?

3. How many people were arresed and why?

4. What caused the great famine?

5. Between 1949 and 1976 what role did china play with the international working class.

6. What role did the "Stalinist" and Maoist movements play in the world.

[shorelinetrance]

when will you bleeding heart liberals realize the persecution of the ruling class is necessary.

so sick of the altruism towards the ruling class.

[ReDSt4R]

All I have to say is I don't agree with "Marxist-Leninist", "Maoist" or even "Leninist" (If you insist that any of these ideologies are related, believe what you like) approaches to political organization. But the fact is trying to remove these comrades would be a massive mistake and anti-productive. The same would be the case if they tried "purging" comrades of the farther left. I don't agree that any of the Leninist views are the only way as they claim but I also do not agree that they can't work or could not lead to a democratic revolution or haven't already. But to assume that one ideological blueprint would work universally in every country is well....retarded. As far as bourgeoisie persecution well they will get what they deserve so long as the stand in our way but a witch hunt is only an excuse to remove fellow comrades from having a voice/position of power to their benefit.

[bezdomni]

6. What role did the "Stalinist" and Maoist movements play in the world.
The bulk of the international communist movement has been Marxist-Leninist/Maoist.

Let's see...Soviet Union from 1917-1956, China from 1949-1979, Albania for some period of time were all socialist states led by anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism.

The Marxist-Leninist and Maoist inspired movements that I can think of off the top of my head all over the world would be:
Communist Party of Peru (Shining Path)
Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)
Communist Party of India (Naxalite)
Students for a Democratic Society in the U.S. 1960s
Weatherman Underground Organization in the U.S. 1960s/1970s (broke off from SDS)
Black Panther Party in the U.S. 1960s and 1970s
Black Liberation Army in the U.S. 1970s
Paris Student Rebellions in 1969
Wars for anti-fascist liberation in Albania, France, Italy, and other parts of Europe after WWII
Communist Party of Iran (Maoist), Anti-Shah rebellions
War for Liberation in Vietnam
War for Liberation in Algeria
Bay Area Revolutionary Union in U.S. 1970s (eventually formed Revolutionary Communist Party)
L.A. Riots
the list goes on and on.....

[Dros]

1. How did the proletarian hold political power in the Soviet Unoin and for how long?

They exorcised power through the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as embodied in the government of the USSR. The details of this are outside of the scope of this thread.

They exorcised this power in one form or another between 1918 and 1954-ish.


2. What political parties were banned and why?

The Vanguard party of the proletariat was the only political party. Others were banned because the dictatorship of the proletariat and the vanguard party are necessary for a socialist state to succeed.

This is not in any way synonymous with the end of pluralism or democratic involvement.


3. How many people were arresed and why?

See RNK's post above. They were arrested for a variety of reasons. Some committed crimes (felonies like robbery, rape, murder, etc...) others were counterrevolutionaries actively involved in attempting to restore the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.


4. What caused the great famine?

A variety of things can cause famines. The great famine in Europe was caused by draught and by an infestation of fungus that ruined crops in Russia and in countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia which were NOT controlled by the USSR (at that time).


5. Between 1949 and 1976 what role did china play with the international working class.

A truly inspirational and revolutionary one. Would you care to ellaborate on the question?


6. What role did the "Stalinist" and Maoist movements play in the world.

An overwhelmingly positive one. Again, what's your question?

[PigmerikanMao]

Did Mao or did he not cause the deaths of literally tens of millions of people through mass executions, 'reform through labor' camps, the so-called anti-rightist movement that persecuted those alleged to have displayed opinions that did not correlate with those of his government, and the largest famine in human history as a result of the Great Leap Forward which crippled Chinas economy??

-Just answer the questions will you?

-Whats more Stalin caused the biggest ever genocide/mass murder in human history (more people killed than even Hitler managed!) against his own russian people.Mao came in second place.

-Do you deny that as well?

No, you fail on epic proportions. The dead the historians reffer to under Stalin were caused by the nazi invasion in '41, the following final solution campaigns against the jews in Russia, as well as the following war effort combined with the famine caused by natural disasters and the inability of Russia to cope with it (the invasion and all) were the reason for most of those deaths. What deaths remained were those of the gulags which were instated to hold nazi prisoners. Stalin, himself, caused few deaths purposely.
The same can be said of Mao, in the cultural revolution and anti-rightist campaigns, many people were executed, yeah, but most were caused by mob violence of the red guard and other groups, not by Mao himself- though most deaths were caused by the famine caused by natual disasters- statistics have shown that the Great Leap Forward movement, however, seriously helped to alleviate the starvation that ensued.

[Unicorn]

The bulk of the international communist movement has been Marxist-Leninist/Maoist.
That is a lie. The bulk of the communist movement followed the CPSU line after the Sino-Soviet split and later went Eurocommunist.



Students for a Democratic Society in the U.S. 1960s
Weatherman Underground Organization in the U.S. 1960s/1970s (broke off from SDS)
SDS and Weathermen were NOT Maoist. Your list seems inaccurate.



L.A. Riots
LA Riots were Maoist? LOL.

[bezdomni]

SDS and Weathermen were NOT Maoist. Your list seems inaccurate.

They were Maoist influenced (especially the WUO which broke off from the SDS), hence the words "Maoist influenced" at the top of the list.


LA Riots were Maoist? LOL.
The RCP played a leading role in the L.A. riots. So yeah, a lot of that was very strongly Maoist influenced.

[Random Precision]

Firstly, there is no such thing as "Stalinism." It was a word invented by the imperialists to denigrate comrade Stalin and his followers.

No. It was invented by Lazar Kaganovich and used liberally in the USSR pretty much up until the man's death. For example, a lot of party correspondence from the 30s and 40s heaps praise on "our wise and strong Leninist-Stalinist leadership".

[Comrade Krell]

'Stalinism' is nothing but a counter-revolutionary Trot mythical bogeyman, Stalin merely advanced the science of Marxism-Leninism.

It really makes me sad how these new age 'leftists' pretty much spit out verbatim the same McCarthyist Hitlerite anti-communist drivel. When the topic is about capitalism they are as vicious as ever, but when discussing actually existing socialist societies they become unrecognizable from any other rapid anti-communist or right-winger...

Those 'leftists' who criticize Stalin are merely capitulating the cultural hegemony of the bourgeois state and bowing to their 'standards' and 'ethics'.

[Dros]

'Stalinism' is nothing but a counter-revolutionary Trot mythical bogeyman, Stalin merely advanced the science of Marxism-Leninism.

It really makes me sad how these new age 'leftists' pretty much spit out verbatim the same McCarthyist Hitlerite anti-communist drivel. When the topic is about capitalism they are as vicious as ever, but when discussing actually existing socialist societies they become unrecognizable from any other rapid anti-communist or right-winger...

Those 'leftists' who criticize Stalin are merely capitulating the cultural hegemony of the bourgeois state and bowing to their 'standards' and 'ethics'.

Oh so true.


Welcome to the board comrade.

[Random Precision]

'Stalinism' is nothing but a counter-revolutionary Trot mythical bogeyman, Stalin merely advanced the science of Marxism-Leninism.

It really makes me sad how these new age 'leftists' pretty much spit out verbatim the same McCarthyist Hitlerite anti-communist drivel. When the topic is about capitalism they are as vicious as ever, but when discussing actually existing socialist societies they become unrecognizable from any other rapid anti-communist or right-winger...

Those 'leftists' who criticize Stalin are merely capitulating the cultural hegemony of the bourgeois state and bowing to their 'standards' and 'ethics'.

Sorry, I don't think the brush you're painting with is big enough. :lol: