Question about Stalinists - Are they for real?

[alphaq]

I have a question about these so-called Stalinists. I was wondering if these people actually believe in Stalinist govenrments and all that it entails; ie limited freedom, dictatorships, rule from above... I myself am a Marxist (in the pure sense of the term) and I find it hard to believe how anyone can support Stalinism in this day and age, given recent history. What facet of Stalinism appeals to you (stalinists)? What facet of Stalinism makes it a more viable alternative than true Marxism, that is, a democratic workers state? Hopefully you Stalinists can fill me in...

[Guest]

Stalinism isn't appealing to anyone, nor should it be, but it is the direct result of any communist revolution and required for a communist goverment to stay in power, if you want marxism, go through stalinism for more than a century and you'll evantually get it.

[Nateddi]

Stalinism isn't the only option by any means IMO. Nevertheless you cannot have a libertarian society quickly, you are a marxist alphaq, so am I. How do you go about forming your marxist society?

[peaccenicked]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/wo...37/1937-sta.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1937/1937-sta.htm)

[Nateddi]

Good article peacenik; I've always enjoyed trotskys analysis on bolshevism vs stalinism.

[Michael De Panama]

You're just a bit too late. Most of the Stalinists are gone. There was somewhat of a war here about a month ago.

[Ho Chi Minh]

De panama, read what I have wrote about you in Q/A section of this site.

[GuerillaPurserTwo]

Natedi, how did u get up 2 five stars?

[alphaq]

How do I think a Marxist society can be formed? Well i don't think that Stalinism is a neccessary step in the progression of a Marxist society. Marx often stressed that a successful socialist revolution can only occur in a well developed capitalist country, which Russia was not. In a country without advanced industry and resources, it is easy for one small group of people take advantage of such a situation. There are examples (however short lived) of socialist 'states' that bypassed the Stalinist era... for example - the Paris Commune, Solidarnosc, etc. I think Stalinism only rears its head when there are not enough resources and wealth to go around, which allows one group to take advantage of this and control the resources, wealth, and ultimately, the political power.

[PunkRawker677]

Nateddi, from what my screen shows me, has 4 stars, not 5.. back to the point..

Stalinists are "ethereal" on this board.. they come and go.. they're existance is a nuisance yet no one takes any great pains to deal with them as they know, just like all before them, they will be gone before long..

/
this was a joke. =)

[Nateddi]

The anarchists in spain were crushed by fascists
The paris commune was crushed by government reorganizing and staging a civil war, it lasted for two months.

There will always be strong opposition to communism. By strong, does not necesserily mean large in numbers, rather strong in power. Name one communist government or movement ever which was left to rise and fall on its own. Either exiles from your country, or your capitalist neighboors from the other will attempt to re-gain power; whether it be through a propaganda campaign (Radio Free Europe in the 50's, Italian elections in 48, Greece in the early 50's, etc) or through a direct invasion (Vietnam, bay of pigs, Chile, Greneda, Nicaragua, many others), or other means, there will always be literarly strong opposition. More liberal movements only works for a massive revolution in the west; everywhere else, you will likely be crushed before you get into power.

This ofcourse doesn't require Stalinism, though it does require something strong and to some extent authoritarian.

[RGacky3]

Most of them are still here only they don't post as much, they left for a bit after the Authoritarian/Liberal war, and then things got really boring, but the're slowly coming back.

[Michael De Panama]

Quote: from Ho Chi Minh on 4:36 am on July 17, 2002
De panama, read what I have wrote about you in Q/A section of this site.

Yeah. You're a real bright one, by the way.

[Michael De Panama]

It looks like the Stalinist ringleader has returned...

I guess you aren't too late.

[alphaq]

It would require authoritarianism if it was isolated to one country, but as Lenin said, socialism cannot survive if it is isolated. Therefore I think it is possible to arrive at a Marxist society while by passing authoritarianism if, say, a revolution spread to other countries. Had the German and Italian uprisings after the first world war been successful, the the future of the USSR could have been very different.

[Hattori Hanzo]

interesting theory, alphaq

[Nateddi]

Are other revolutions going to happen immediatly after one started? No! Will they ever? Probably someday gradually.

Communism was growing at a steady pace up until the mid-80's. Even when over 1/3 of the world was communist, after the growth was extremely fast, authoritarian style governments still were needed because all the western states, especially the US were alive and well ready to invade.

Unless there are massive uprisings throughout the west, communism cannot be liberal or it will be crushed. Your theory is probably true, alphaq, but it is very unlikely that the circumstances required for it to succeed will come into place.

[STALINSOLDIERS]

before there is true communsim (marxism) there should be stalinism..especially here in the unites states, why? because here there is uncontrollable people like gangs,drug dealers,prostitutes,and so on...most of these people dont show respect for anyone not even cops or society. they are scums of society something that capitalism needs to survive..such dirty money..well if stalinism or some authorian government was to rule it would be good until like guest said youll need stalinsim for at least a century or more untill society calms down and respect one another...

[Nateddi]

Why Stalinism?

All marxist theorists were to a certain degree authoritarian, though most were not Stalinist.

[Brian]

Quote: from STALINSOLDIERS on 6:52 pm on July 18, 2002
before there is true communsim (marxism) there should be stalinism..especially here in the unites states, why? because here there is uncontrollable people like gangs,drug dealers,prostitutes,and so on...most of these people dont show respect for anyone not even cops or society. they are scums of society something that capitalism needs to survive..such dirty money..well if stalinism or some authorian government was to rule it would be good until like guest said youll need stalinsim for at least a century or more untill society calms down and respect one another...
Blah,blah,and blah.

[Hattori Hanzo]

Brian is so annoying

[STALINSOLDIERS]

yes he is annoying i dont know why he still here.....i can tell he doesnt know what to talk about.......and natteddi some people got there ideas on how to improve communism and some dont thats why they are so many ideas.....like leninism,stalism,marxism,trotskyism,i think you get the point..

[Brian]

Whats annoying is your grammar!

[Hattori Hanzo]

who SS?

[Brian]

Yes!

[marxistdisciple]

True marxism must take place in a stable country when the right conditions are met. no "communist" country has had that situation yet. In a western country, when a decent infastructure...police, hospitals, schools, industry etc etc already exists, it makes a huge change like that much easier to cope with. It would have to happen through socialism firstly of course. The problem is that the US is moving towards an authoritarian capitalist agenda - that damages a chance of liberal change. Europe however is becoming gradually more liberal - many countries are already very socialist, albeit in a capitalist economy.

What if the EU were to attempt a change to complete socialism....as a gradual process, from more redistribution, to eventual abolishment of currency? This would have to happen over a long period.

If you have a huge change over a long period, new generations will grow into a socialist country, their ideals will be changed, and they will experience a different kind of living - no need for revolutions.
It is huge change that causes the wars and problems we have seen in the past, of course a complete change of philosophy can't happen with one revolution! It takes years and years, generations and generations before capitalism is just history. It must be gradual, and over a huge time, that is why it has never worked yet. It's like the change to the euro - it will take a few years before people even get used to a change of currency! A a philanthropic society like this will never be created in a short time scale, and not in our lifetimes. What we need to do is make sure it heads that way, make sure we route out the people that value money over life, and don't believe in humanity. Make sure our society is as socialist as it can be within it's structural boundaries....only then will it be possible to envisage a change to a true socialist democracy.

[Severwright]

couldn't have put it better myself

[maoist3]

In contast with what Marxistdisciple says here,
we pro-Stalin, pro-Mao people are not for waiting
for conditions to develop. Class struggle goes on
all the time. For example, even after the restoration
of capitalism in China in 1976, China did not go all
the way back to where it was in 1927. So yes,
Mao used real world methods to achieve goals,
and his achievements lasted.

What idealists of all stripes fail to recognize is that
if you FAIL to change the status quo, you are
responsible for it. Words are not enough.
Your anti-Stalin ideals may comfort your religion-needing souls, but they do nothing for the real world.
Stalin and Mao brought about huge change while
their mushy critics did not.

What is attractive--to answer the original post--
what is attractive about proletarian dictatorship
as opposed to bourgeois dictatorship is that
the average persyn benefits more from proletarian
dictatorship. Attending to survival needs IS authoritarian. Why? Because the humyn species
is flawed and could not even end slavery after
thousands of years without massive use of force.
Now slavery is 99% gone, but the imperialist
country majority still believes it has the right to
starve people to death and otherwise deny
survival rights. We pro-Stalin and pro-Mao people
uphold a new order, one that says, no, there is no
right to deprive others of food, shelter, clothing etc.
People who believe so must be repressed. Why?
Because if such people are not repressed, we get
Yeltsin in the communist party and various others
profiteering from their positions. Next thing you know,
you have open capitalism, like in Russia today.
Then the life expectancy goes DOWN, which means
that ACTUAL survival rights went down.

Like it or not, you are either for or against the violence
of the capitalist status quo. Stalin and Mao created
change and prevented earlier capitalist restorations--reducing violence in the world far more than other
leaders of the 20th century. Trotsky (except for his brief years of service under Lenin) and countless dissidents have not done anything but serve as figleafs for the status quo.

[Stormin Norman]

Well, AlphaQ, by being a Marxist (in it purest form), then you chose to either ignore the nature of the theory you proport or support what it entails. Either way, that makes you guilty of advocating a system that begins with murder, mayhem, theft, and anarchy; and ends with a corrupt dictatorship that uses the modes and means of production as a way to suppress its citizens into submission.

[komsomol]

maoist3, why the hell do you type out your posts in some wierd format?

As for Stalinism, I agree with Nateddi there are many more authoritarian flavours of Communism.