Mazdak - the heartless bastard

[Hayduke]

Here's is the conversation with me and mazdak in short.

( Mazdak was defending the murders of stalin )

D-Day:

Mazdak,

Imagine one of your family members death.
Imagine all your family members death.
Imagine all your family members and friends death.

You are an ignorant little kid, talking about Stalin like he's
a great hero, he put the curse on us communist.
He's the fact why we are so hated and feared today.

Mazdak :

No. I can imagine that. If it were for the cause, i have no problems. I dont think personal relationship with a person should influence your treatment of them. That is why i do not see family as something important. The revoltuion comes before everything. Its a shame you dont believe so to.

D-Day:

Sorry but my family and friends are everything to me.

Mazdak:

That is your weakness. Family and friends are everything to you? Go back and live in your capitalist la la land. You aren't needed in a revolution then. You should be willing to sacrifice everything. It isnt for you, you bunch of greedy bastards, but for posterity. The revolution is NOT overnight. Its effects arent felt instantly. GET IT THROUGH YOUR FREAKING HEADS.

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


Mazdak, do you even listen to what you are saying ?
You are defending a murderer. That killed almost the whole communist parlement.
No he didnt do it for the cause, he did cause it were close friends to lenin.
You are defending a murder that planned hunger for people and killed thousands with it.
Stalin was never ready for leadership. Lenin travelled the world, Stalin came from
a farmers village. Lenin said: Whatever you do never let Stalin get in Control.

And from your words, it seems that you are no difference.
You dont care about people anymore, its about the ecnomics and powers you care about.
And maybe you have forgetten it, but communism was theory for the people.
not to use people like Stalin and his precious 5 year plan, that cost so
many innocent lives.

you are a monster Mazdak,

[Moskitto]

Many people on here make me sad, Mazdak just makes me angry.

[Anonymous]

the last person taht had the same theory that mazadk has was Mao! he lost his family and dint give a damn! and for revenge he killed everybody he could!

[Edelweiss]

I feel sorry for Mazdak, I think he's just a little kid who needs to label himself with something radical in order to get some attention.

[Mazdak]

Negative. And D-Day, as i said before to you you stupid little fuck, i dont know why you are suddenly trying to criticize/single me out. If you think you know so much about what stalin did... You complain a bout a quote which you have no understanding of. How stupid can you be. You haven't even realized that my avatar was Nicolai Yezhov you stupid shit. Or do you not know who that is?

Why the fuck shouldyour personal life screw up a revolution. Stalin killed ENEMIES of the PEOPLE. Of course, you eat up anti stalinist propoganda rather eagerly. Why not try to learn a thing or two about stalin before you attack someone who supports stalin(or at least some of what he does).

And now i come hear for attention right? If i wanted fucking attention i would be a nazi. I didnt come hear to get a pat on the back from anyone. I came at first to learn, and then, to some extent, to debate. Obviously the little children at this forum cant handle death of a stranger let along death of a family member. I should have known better.

[Edelweiss]

And now i come hear for attention right? If i wanted fucking attention i would be a nazi.

LOL, you even admitted that you once was a Nazi.

[Xvall]

Quote: from Malte on 4:12 pm on Aug. 27, 2002


And now i come hear for attention right? If i wanted fucking attention i would be a nazi.

LOL, you even admitted that you once was a Nazi.

I think that was Thine Stalin..

[Mazdak]

Really, i would like to hear this one. I never once admitted i was nazi, so please malte, entertain me on this one.

[Moskitto]

Stalin killed ENEMIES of the PEOPLE

Yeah, Enemies of the people. Parents who's kids decided that they wanted to inherit all their property early, those enemies of the people.

[Mazdak]

My last post was directed at Malte.

[Mazdak]

Anyone else want to join this new Mazdak fan club?

[Marxist1848]

Mazdak...your a nazi???
thats suprising..lol
well while were at the mazdak name game.
Mazdak you are also a woman. yes and a kkk member.
aldo you are a NB...yes.. and you are homosexual and a midget. you are also physically deformed beyond beleif and.....
your ugly
oh
and im a nazi...im fat...and my mom is the queen of the world
oh what fun!!!

I love the use of dusliked groups of people to be insulting...and malte...he asked you where he said this?
Did you make it up?...you havent yet responded!

[death b4 dishonour]

malte, you need to stop smoking so much pot... its killing ur braincells or sumthign, accusing every stalinist of admitting that they were once a nazi.

o and d day, didnt marx promote the disestablishment of the family?

[Edelweiss]

I'll find that thread...

[Mazdak]

Good. I knew it. and Plato promoted the dissestablishment of of the family as well. He was one oof the first to express communist ideology. But, hey, if Malte wants to believe i am a nazi, then fine, but first, i want him to show me the thread.

[Edelweiss]

Quote: from Mazdak on 8:02 pm on Aug. 27, 2002
Good. I knew it. and Plato promoted the dissestablishment of of the family as well. He was one oof the first to express communist ideology. But, hey, if Malte wants to believe i am a nazi, then fine, but first, i want him to show me the thread.

I haven't said that you still are a Nazi...Although you aren't that far away from being one...

[Anonymous]

Who are the "enemies of the people" mazdak?

[vox]

I've made it clear that I believe Mazdak to be a fascist who places the rights of the State above the rights of people. This is a common belief with authoritarian thugs. I haven't read every post Mazdak has ever written, but I've yet to see him say anything about the liberation of the working class. He only seems to talk about oppression of those he, personally, doesn't like.

I believe that Stalin was anti-Marxist, and I offer Mazdak the same challenge I offered to maoist3 regarding the attack on Stalinism from Harrington that I quoted on page eight of the Long Live Stalin thread. You can find the post here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=663&start=70), it's the second to last post on the page.

I also believe that people like Mazdak do far more harm to the Left than any right-winger could ever hope to.

vox

[new democracy]

"Who are the "enemies of the people" mazdak? "
well, in the stalinist state everybody could be "an enemy of the people".

[Moskitto]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 8:12 pm on Aug. 27, 2002
Who are the "enemies of the people" mazdak?


I allready said, they're people who's kids decided they wanted all their parents possesions so made up allegations so they could be given their possesions as rewards.

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from vox on 3:14 pm on Aug. 27, 2002
people like Mazdak do far more harm to the Left than any right-winger could ever hope to.Agreed!

Mazdak, there is a problem with your defense of Stalin's numbers. You said that he only killed enemies of the people. While it is true that he killed some of his fellow corrupt, psychotic Party hacks (who were indeed enemies of the people) most of his victims were the people themselves.

Also, you said that these deaths were necessary. I feel that I need to repeat myself: If three people needed to die for millions to be liberated, I'm sure very few people would be against that. If twenty million needed to die for 100 million to be liberated, that's strictly a value judgement. But if twenty (or however-many) million die for no reason and the promised workers' paradise never arrives, only a sadistic bastard would condone this.

Your favorite Enemy of the People

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Mazdak on 4:09 pm on Aug. 27, 2002
Stalin killed ENEMIES of the PEOPLE.

He killed the entire Politburo, and arrest, exiled or murdered every Bolshevik who was in the revolution. Not to mention a certain gentleman called Trotsky. Are they the people's enemies?? If so, then blow my fucking guts out you moronic Hitlerjunge wannabe.

[Lardlad95]

Enemies of the people?

More like Enemies of Stalin...oh wait stalin represented the people right?

If he did then how come he made decisions on his own behalf?

Enemies of the people my ass.

Stalin gave shit about the people

[Moskitto]

I think he's just unsure as to what he believes, therefore he has to kill anyone who might question what he believes to prevent himself being converted to other ideas.

[Mazdak]

no. This is not true either. I have never believed what was said about Stalin, and still don't. Only 1 million died as politicals in Stalin's gulags. The purges rooted out anything that remained of the capitalist threat. I am not as unsure as i was when i came to the board, a i see how much stalin is either loved or hated. There is no middle ground. I dont agree with senseless killing, but i agree with executing criminals.

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from Mazdak on 6:59 pm on Aug. 27, 2002
but i agree with executing criminals.

Well than you have something in common with the Governer (Pataki) and the President for that matter.. :(

[Anonymous]

There is a book that explains very well what stalinism does to people its called Animal farm!

Just check the spanish civil war and see the massacres the stalinist did! in one way there were franco troops and the moors kiling and raping, in the other hand there were stalinist so friendly of the people! kiling and turturing too! it was a bloody cycle of violence, and the stalinist were there to make the things worse!

[Marxist1848]

"If you tolarate capitalism, then your children will be next!
Love & ®evolution"

quick to critisize but your quote says that your kids will be next if you support capiTALISM. Against murder of criminals are we? Against stalin killing the DANGERS AND THREATS TO HIS NATION!!! well then why kill the cappy's children. FOR A DIFFERENT BELIEFE THATS WHY!
worse than what stalin did. dont be a hypocrite!!!

[Anonymous]

no my quote means taht if oyu tolarate capitalism then your children will be the nest victims of it!

[Marxist1848]

Might wanna rephrase it then. When you say to someone..."Your next!" it usually means i am gonna beat the bubbly piss out of you the next time i see you or that you will soon kill them.
i implies that you will kill the children of capitalists (although being a capitalist pretty much seales your fate)

[Anonymous]

i understend the problem it may couse, i will rephrase it! but it wasnt with bad intencions believe me!

[canikickit]

I wouldn't bother rephrasing it, it makes perfect sense. That guy's an idiot.

[boadicea88]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 8:15 am on Aug. 27, 2002

Quote: from Malte on 4:12 pm on Aug. 27, 2002


And now i come hear for attention right? If i wanted fucking attention i would be a nazi.

LOL, you even admitted that you once was a Nazi.

I think that was Thine Stalin..


What thread was that in?

I support Mazdak at least 95%. The other 5% is stashed while I learn more about Stalin. It's very hard to find stuff about him that doesn't portray him as some kind of evil, baby-eating monster.

[Mazdak]

Once again i thank you for supporting me. amazing.

[boadicea88]

Not a problem. Peace, comrade.

[maoist3]

Quote: from I Will Deny You on 9:16 pm on Aug. 27, 2002
Mazdak, there is a problem with your defense of Stalin's numbers. You said that he only killed enemies of the people. While it is true that he killed some of his fellow corrupt, psychotic Party hacks (who were indeed enemies of the people) most of his victims were the people themselves.

Also, you said that these deaths were necessary. I feel that I need to repeat myself: If three people needed to die for millions to be liberated, I'm sure very few people would be against that. If twenty million needed to die for 100 million to be liberated, that's strictly a value judgement. But if twenty (or however-many) million die for no reason and the promised workers' paradise never arrives, only a sadistic bastard would condone this.

Your favorite Enemy of the People


maoist3 replies for MIM:
You have no facts to support this. Quite the contrary,
life expectancy doubled under Stalin. That's
because Stalin by-and-large executed the right people.
And let's not forget that Russia was able to put up
a fight against Hitler while others like Norway were
taken over by Hitler supporters who were tolerated
and not executed prior to the war.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K18832071 has the
table. The same thing can be found in Mao's China.
There were NEVER faster gains in life expectancy
anywhere in the world.

The inability to connect facts to your political views
is called "dogma." This anti-Stalin dogma of the
West was already crushed in the "Long Live Stalin!!!"
thread.

[peaccenicked]

by and large
EXECUTED


the RIGHT families of the dissenters.

[maoist3]

Quote: from boadicea88 on 3:36 am on Aug. 28, 2002

I support Mazdak at least 95%. The other 5% is stashed while I learn more about Stalin. It's very hard to find stuff about him that doesn't portray him as some kind of evil, baby-eating monster.



Here, scroll through this page for starters:
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/stalin.html

That will give you some pro-Stalin info.

As you can see, Malte and Peacenicked cooperate
with the powers-that-be, so I'd suggest getting the
material and stashing it. You never know when
this sort of discussion will be shut down.

[peaccenicked]

StALINISTS ARE dense bastardS.

wHY GIVE THEM SPACE?

cRUSHING DISSENT HELPS THE ECONOMIEEEEEEEEEEE

BIG ELITISTS on bAD shit.

[boadicea88]

Thank you, Maoist3, that page was very helpful. I'll be back ;)

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 9:30 pm on Aug. 27, 2002
He killed the entire Politburo, and arrest, exiled or murdered every Bolshevik who was in the revolution.

I demand an answer to that Mazdak.


Quote: from Mazdak on 4:09 pm on Aug. 27, 2002
Stalin killed ENEMIES of the PEOPLE.

If Stalin had had his way, there would be no people left. You're a pathetic misguided fool. If you lived in Northern England, you'd have joined the BNP by now. Fuck off and read some Orwell or Solzhenistyn and then try and claim to be a Stalinist.

[Cassius Clay]

Read Solzhenistyn! the darling of the western media, the freedom fighter against those evil Stalinists who murdered 110 million innocent people and fought all his life for freedom and liberty. Ah yes Solzhenistyn.

First of all I do not agree with the reason he was arrested, which was because he kept on making remarks to his troops (he was an officer in GPW) that they should make peace with the Germans. Despite this rather strange opinion which was shared by very little of the Soviet population it was his opinion and he was entitled to it.

But remember the time he was saying this in, 1944 when the Red Army was winning anyway and had murdered something like 25 million innocent Soviets. And here is Solzhenistyn suggesting that they make peace. Also people could and were (and in France shot) put in prison in Britain and America for making similar comments. Just the system by the morals and circumstances of the day.

Anyway he was put in prison, realesed and eventually defected to the west. Where he is welcomed as a hero by the CIA and various Republicans (strange how he never had to work for living) lives the live of luxury and proceeds to dedicate the rest of his life to tarnishing the Soviet Union's image abroad through out right lies. Despite the fact that the Soviet government gave him the right to write, publish and speak what he wanted.

To cut a long story short he earns a tidy income and rights rubbish while being treated as a hero. THen in 1975 one General Franco dies, for the next few months Spain goes through political turmoil until stablising under a 'Demorcratic Monarchy' under Juan Carlos.

The Spanish who are now free from Franco's Fascist Tyranny welcome him as a fellow freedom fighter. THe CIA sensing a propaganda coup send him to Spain to help spread the word of American Demorcracy. So he goes to Spain and is welcomed as a hero once again, but then he really puts his foot in it so badly not even the CIA can forgive him.

All was going well until he appeared on a TV show and was asked how he thought Spain should procceed now it was free from Franco. Solzhenistyn answered that he thought these reforms were dangerous and the gov't of Juan Carlos was going to soft on leftists, Socialists, Liberals and others of their like. After being further quizzed by the TV interviewer he said that Spain would be better of under Franco because his own country had 'Murdered 100 Million innocents' when it had let demorcracy go to far. This was to far even for the CIA who disowned for the next five-ten years.

There you have it Solzhenistyn was a Fascist who dedicated his whole life to spreading lies and seeking attention.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 12:48 pm on Aug. 28, 2002
Read Solzhenistyn! the darling of the western media, the freedom fighter against those evil Stalinists who murdered 110 million innocent people and fought all his life for freedom and liberty. Ah yes Solzhenistyn.

First of all I do not agree with the reason he was arrested, which was because he kept on making remarks to his troops (he was an officer in GPW) that they should make peace with the Germans. Despite this rather strange opinion which was shared by very little of the Soviet population it was his opinion and he was entitled to it.

But remember the time he was saying this in, 1944 when the Red Army was winning anyway and had murdered something like 25 million innocent Soviets. And here is Solzhenistyn suggesting that they make peace. Also people could and were (and in France shot) put in prison in Britain and America for making similar comments. Just the system by the morals and circumstances of the day.

Anyway he was put in prison, realesed and eventually defected to the west. Where he is welcomed as a hero by the CIA and various Republicans (strange how he never had to work for living) lives the live of luxury and proceeds to dedicate the rest of his life to tarnishing the Soviet Union's image abroad through out right lies. Despite the fact that the Soviet government gave him the right to write, publish and speak what he wanted.

To cut a long story short he earns a tidy income and rights rubbish while being treated as a hero. THen in 1975 one General Franco dies, for the next few months Spain goes through political turmoil until stablising under a 'Demorcratic Monarchy' under Juan Carlos.

The Spanish who are now free from Franco's Fascist Tyranny welcome him as a fellow freedom fighter. THe CIA sensing a propaganda coup send him to Spain to help spread the word of American Demorcracy. So he goes to Spain and is welcomed as a hero once again, but then he really puts his foot in it so badly not even the CIA can forgive him.

All was going well until he appeared on a TV show and was asked how he thought Spain should procceed now it was free from Franco. Solzhenistyn answered that he thought these reforms were dangerous and the gov't of Juan Carlos was going to soft on leftists, Socialists, Liberals and others of their like. After being further quizzed by the TV interviewer he said that Spain would be better of under Franco because his own country had 'Murdered 100 Million innocents' when it had let demorcracy go to far. This was to far even for the CIA who disowned for the next five-ten years.

There you have it Solzhenistyn was a Fascist who dedicated his whole life to spreading lies and seeking attention.


Whatever Solzhenistyn's political allegiance, he is an essential author to read before claiming to be a Sovietist. I don't doubt that he was anti-left, but many would claim that the USSR was, judging by its treatment of trade unions both at home and in Eastern Europe.

[Cassius Clay]

Why is he essential reading if he is not only anti-Soviet but anti anything remotly left wing? Or have I misunderstood you, if so sorry.

[Capitalist Imperial]

I must say, I have to respect Mazdak.

He is one of the few commies here who openly admit and acknowledge what real-world communism is all about.

[new democracy]

mazdak, let say that you live under a stalinist regime. you know that there is a good chance that you could be killed. and dont tell me shit like "the dictator will not kill me because i am a stalinist" because khrushchev himself said that in the last years of stalin life NO SOVIET CITIZEN WAS SAFE!!!! and to maoist3: fuck marxism-leninism-maoism!!!!! fuck shining path!!!!! fuck communist party of nepal(maoist)!!!!! fuck Maoist Internationalist Movement!!!! fuck stupid maoists!!!!! fuck revolutionary communist party usa!!!!!!! fuck stalin!!!!! fuck stalinism!!!!! fuck pol-pot!!!!!! fuck kim il sung!!!!! fuck nazism(which is the same as maoism)!!!!!!!!!

[Mazdak]

110million people??? Cassisu Clay.. lmao. That is the funniest thing i ever heard. first of all, there is no such thing as an innocent person. Second if you add 20 million to that it would make 130 million people! Russias Total population would have been nothing after the war! So where is the part where Stalin makes russia a superpower? Surely all of you know that killing 110million people won't help and Stalin is 10x smarter then the smartest person on this board( as are most successful revolutionaries). Even this supposed 50 million is too many. russia would have been nazi if Stalin had done this. And as Lenin/Dzerzhinksy pointed out, where are all the bodies? Did they all just vanish into thin air?

GR- u want me to answer you yet you still have not replied to my thread aobut the Secret Police Chiefs. When you do, then we will talk.

And no, i would be safe because i wouold do nothing to make me suspicious.

[Cassius Clay]

I was being sarcastic

[new democracy]

stalin killed his wife!!!!! stalin killed his advisors!!!!! stalin killed his friends!!! i wish that you will live under a stalinist dictatorship and then the dictator will kill you for no reason!!!!!

(Edited by new democracy at 9:16 pm on Aug. 28, 2002)

[Mazdak]

Hello! Heis wife killed herself. The other died of sickness. I didnt know Stalin knew how to control disease or peole's minds enough to have them kill themselves.

Cassius Clay, I apologize. I see we are on the same level here.

[new democracy]

it is not sure if he killed his wife or she killed herself. but still, no soviet citizen at that time was safe.

[Mazdak]

Well, my neighbors are russian and Her father fought in the revolution. She was safe! Just because Stalin had her father purged didnt do anything. She and her family were fine. I guess. But that is beside the point. If you followed the rules and didnt whine or ***** about them , you would be scot free( unless you were an NKVD chief before Beria).

[vox]

"If you followed the rules and didnt whine or ***** about them , you would be scot free."

What a novel idea: obedience as liberation.

vox

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 9:42 pm on Aug. 28, 2002
Well, my neighbors are russian and Her father fought in the revolution. She was safe! Just because Stalin had her father purged didnt do anything. She and her family were fine. I guess. But that is beside the point. If you followed the rules and didnt whine or ***** about them , you would be scot free( unless you were an NKVD chief before Beria).



What if the rules stated you had to be Stalin's personal ***** atleast once in your life.

And after your turn was served you had to write Stalin once a year telling him how much you enjoyed it.

Then those who are so choosed had to do the same thing for local governors.

Would that be a rule you would be willing to follow and not whine about

[Cassius Clay]

Mazdak I would disagree with the previous post. As John Reed once said 'If you purge dissent you purge the Revolution' or something along those lines.

As for NKVD Cheifs well Yagoda was put on trial because he was part of the Zinovite/Trotskyite conspiracy. Yezhov is a rather tragic figure, he was a very fanatical Bolshevik but was not the type of intellectual who would read Marx and Engels at night. In the end the job got to him and he took to the booze which basically got him the sack. He then went an managed a energy plant or something, until in 1941 (don't quote me on this I may be wrong) he murdered his wife.

As for Beria, well he was a child abuser and nothing can condone that. Note Stalin wanted Malkenkov to head of NKVD while Party/Politburo voted Beria.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 7:28 pm on Aug. 28, 2002
Why is he essential reading if he is not only anti-Soviet but anti anything remotly left wing?

You must know your enemy. How can you claim to have a strong opinion if you haven't read the opposing viewpoints?? And Solzhenistyn and Orwell are the best anti-hardline Communist literature around.

[new democracy]

you just said that stalin purged her dad!!!!!! if stalin was needed scapegoat, he could blame this women for following her father ways!!!!! if khrushchev said that nobody was safe at that time why would you say that it is not true?

[new democracy]

you never lived under a stalinist dictatorship. you know we should let you live in north korea and than see what you think about stalinism.

[Mazdak]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 10:31 pm on Aug. 28, 2002
Mazdak I would disagree with the previous post. As John Reed once said 'If you purge dissent you purge the Revolution' or something along those lines.

As for NKVD Cheifs well Yagoda was put on trial because he was part of the Zinovite/Trotskyite conspiracy. Yezhov is a rather tragic figure, he was a very fanatical Bolshevik but was not the type of intellectual who would read Marx and Engels at night. In the end the job got to him and he took to the booze which basically got him the sack. He then went an managed a energy plant or something, until in 1941 (don't quote me on this I may be wrong) he murdered his wife.

As for Beria, well he was a child abuser and nothing can condone that. Note Stalin wanted Malkenkov to head of NKVD while Party/Politburo voted Beria.




Incorrect. Yezhov never murdered his wife. He was probably executed in 1939 or 1940. It was Yezhov who wanted Malenkov to work for the NKYD, but Stalin chose Beria. and what is this shit about Beria being a pedaphile. Please provide proof.

[man in the red suit]

I'll bet you that Mazdak didn't mean what he said.

I would probably say something outrageously heartless if I were really pissed off and wanted to blow off steam.

Personally when I am angry I like to make others angry to make me feel better.

this isn't really a good thing but maybe Mazdak feels the same way. I can't imagine Mazdak Really not caring about family and considering it a weakness.

Mazdak, am I

a.) correct 100%

b.) wrong, you just overexagerated

c.) wrong, you are a complete loony

d.) all of the above

or

c.) just plain wrong

[Mazdak]

X. I think the revolution should be put before family. I dont need anyone trying to clear my name, but thanks for the offer.

I dont hate my family. I might even love them. But that shouldn't influence my judgement of them compared with everyone else"economically." "I am speaking from Jim Jones's standpoint(jim jones= political leader i just made up)

[man in the red suit]

I'm sorry but I feel I have an obligation to butt in and save your ass.

But I guess you'l fight this on your own.

My opinion, if you care: you are a complete madman.

but then again, so am I.

[I Bow 4 Che]

I'm sorry but I must support Mazdak here. Though I strongly dislike Stalin I do not hate him and Mazdak made some good points that prove the propaganda wrong.

And btw, I personally wouldn't care if my family or "friends" *cough* died, yes they support*cough* me greatly but they are still strangers to me, I would much rather live under that bridge charging people to cross as I have said numerous times before this.

Kids, stop playing with your action figures and start drinking some tea :P

[I Bow 4 Che]

Kids, stop playing with your action figures and start drinking some tea :P

I really have no idea what the above statment means...it just sounds cool so...worship my sayings "ya'll"

[vox]

IB4C,

You do realize that Stalin was against the Left, don't you? He was a right-winger all the way.

vox

[I Bow 4 Che]

I understand that...I'm not just pulling things out of my ass note that i said I "strongly dislike him" :P

[vox]

I'm curious, however, where you think Mazdak proved the "propaganda" wrong. Can you cite an example for me, please?

vox

[I Bow 4 Che]

Of course vox dear, I will cite three examples for you. But keep in mind the propaganda is what is taught AT MY SCHOOL and such...so if you disagree that is all I will reply with

"Only 1 million died as politicals in Stalin's gulags"
American propaganda states otherwise, they usually exagerate and publish with that number plus a couple more 0's

"Stalin is 10x smarter then the smartest person on this board"
Many posts often describe him useing the ever-popular adjective "stupid"

"Hello! Heis wife killed herself."
Once more it is rumored and taught that Joseph Stalin murdered his own wife even if this "is" true seeing as how it is still in doubt, they TEACH you that's what happened, and do not tell you they are still unsure


and please do not get the wrong idea about me, I am anti-stalinist, after what he did to one of my favorite composers LOL...no no not only that, his political views in general...

[Moskitto]

I was always told that Stalin's wife killed herself because she couldn't stand what Stalin was doing.

[vox]

"Stalin is 10x smarter then the smartest person on this board"
Many posts often describe him useing the ever-popular adjective "stupid"


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

This was taught to you at school? This board was taught to you at school?

I find that hard to believe. Indeed, I find it hard to believe anything you write after a statement like that.

Perhaps one million wasn't enough for you?

Okay.

I just wanted to know where you stand.

Now I do.

vox

[Mazdak]

Stalin was a right winger right? When will the BS end. I will actually come of with more for this pointless debate in the near future.



(Edited by Mazdak at 5:20 pm on Aug. 29, 2002)

[Cassius Clay]

[quote]Quote: from new democracy on 11:00 pm on Aug. 28, 2002
you just said that stalin purged her dad!!!!!! if stalin was needed scapegoat, he could blame this women for following her father ways!!!!! if khrushchev said that nobody was safe at that time why would you say that it is not true?

Khrushchev was very Anti-Leninist-Stalinist. Even Robert Conquest said 'Nothing Anti-Communist writers had ever said about Joseph Stalin equaled the charges leveled at that night by his successor'.

[I Bow 4 Che]

Quote: from vox on 10:04 am on Aug. 29, 2002
"Stalin is 10x smarter then the smartest person on this board"
Many posts often describe him useing the ever-popular adjective "stupid"


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

This was taught to you at school? This board was taught to you at school?

I find that hard to believe. Indeed, I find it hard to believe anything you write after a statement like that.

Perhaps one million wasn't enough for you?

Okay.

I just wanted to know where you stand.

Now I do.

vox



*sigh* Vox OBVIOUSLY that one was not taught at school but many people outside of this board do call him stupid!

[I Bow 4 Che]

and also note the "and such" following my statment...I hate arguing about this shit

[Mazdak]

Stalin was a right winger who somehow supported collectivization and all the leftist economic theories of Marx. He is an interesting right winger. Vox you are delusional.

[boadicea88]

LOL

[Guest]

Quote: from D DAY on 2:08 pm on Aug. 27, 2002
Here's is the conversation with me and mazdak in short.

( Mazdak was defending the murders of stalin )

D-Day:

Mazdak,

Imagine one of your family members death.
Imagine all your family members death.
Imagine all your family members and friends death.

You are an ignorant little kid, talking about Stalin like he's
a great hero, he put the curse on us communist.
He's the fact why we are so hated and feared today.

Mazdak :

No. I can imagine that. If it were for the cause, i have no problems. I dont think personal relationship with a person should influence your treatment of them. That is why i do not see family as something important. The revoltuion comes before everything. Its a shame you dont believe so to.

D-Day:

Sorry but my family and friends are everything to me.

Mazdak:

That is your weakness. Family and friends are everything to you? Go back and live in your capitalist la la land. You aren't needed in a revolution then. You should be willing to sacrifice everything. It isnt for you, you bunch of greedy bastards, but for posterity. The revolution is NOT overnight. Its effects arent felt instantly. GET IT THROUGH YOUR FREAKING HEADS.

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


Mazdak, do you even listen to what you are saying ?
You are defending a murderer. That killed almost the whole communist parlement.
No he didnt do it for the cause, he did cause it were close friends to lenin.
You are defending a murder that planned hunger for people and killed thousands with it.
Stalin was never ready for leadership. Lenin travelled the world, Stalin came from
a farmers village. Lenin said: Whatever you do never let Stalin get in Control.

And from your words, it seems that you are no difference.
You dont care about people anymore, its about the ecnomics and powers you care about.
And maybe you have forgetten it, but communism was theory for the people.
not to use people like Stalin and his precious 5 year plan, that cost so
many innocent lives.

you are a monster Mazdak,


Sorry, didn't read any replies and doubt I will, too lazy, but I don't think stalin killed non-dissidents. So first words are wrong, stalin was not some evil devil running around with machine gun and grenades in some bizarre video game killing everyone he saw. He was alot more reasonable than you make out.

[boadicea88]

Yeah he was, as you see in the book Blackshirts and Reds. The world (Americans especially, I think) has been brainwashed to think of Stalin as a cruel, bloodthirsty tyrant.

(Edited by boadicea88 at 3:54 pm on Aug. 30, 2002)

[Mazdak]

Exactly my point. Just like how "los Gusanos" in miami brainwashed all the Cubans into believing that Castro ATE BABIES. Wow. it doesnt get any more retarded than that.

[Nateddi]

Boadicea,

you read Blackshirts & Reds??

Do you read parenti?? I thought i was the only one =

[vox]

"Stalin was a right winger who somehow supported collectivization and all the leftist economic theories of Marx. He is an interesting right winger. Vox you are delusional."

What was Marx's position on collectivism? I think you'll find that he was against it.

Also, it could well be argued that the Soviet Union wasn't collectivist in any real sense of the word. The Party owned the means of production but the proletariat had no control over the Party. In the USSR, the protletariat was not only exploited in the same sense that Marx used, but were denied any access to political power.

That is not socialism. That is fascism.

vox

[Turnoviseous]

Stalin was a right winger who somehow supported collectivization and all the leftist economic theories of Marx. He is an interesting right winger. Vox you are delusional.


Stalin was opportunist. He was jumping from a right wing to ultra-leftism. Left Opposition was calling years before collectivization took place, that it will be necessary to make collectivization. Stalinists did not listen and urged kulaks to get more money. When Stalinists got almost burried under danger of kulaks, they went to ultra-leftist policies of forced collectivization.

Here is little part from book "Lenin and and Trotsky - What they really stood for?"

Author sometimes reffers to ´Monty Johnstone´ (he was a leading Stalinist in Britain). This book was reply to Monty´s article...


Trotsky and the Five Year Plans

Monty Johnstone, by a most peculiar piece of mental gymnastics, attributes to Trotsky a "defeatist" attitude in relation to socialist planning in the Soviet Union. Wherein lay Trotsky's alleged "defeatism"?

As we have seen, Trotsky and the Left Opposition had struggled for a whole period (1923-27) for the idea of the development of industry through the agency of Five Year Plans, in the teeth of opposition and ridicule from the Stalinists. Following the expulsion of the Left Opposition (1927), the Stalin faction opened up a struggle against the "Right deviation" of Bukharin and, in order to strike a blow against this group, took over, in a caricatured form, certain aspects of the programme of the Left Opposition.

While ignoring the sections referring to the need for workers' democracy, the Stalinists appropriated the idea of industrialisation and Five Year Plans. The danger of capitalist restoration, which the Left Opposition had warned against, and which the Stalinists repeatedly denied in the previous period, was now used by the Stalin faction as a stick to beat their erstwhile Bukharinite supporters.

In dealing with this manoeuvre of the Stalinists, Monty Johnstone writes:

"It is one of the myths of vulgar Trotskyism that the implementation by Stalin after 1928 of more far-reaching plans [?] than had been put forward by the Opposition in itself proves that the latter was correct. As Maurice Dobb writes: "It does not follow that what may have been practicable in 1928-9 was necessarily practicable at an earlier date when both industry and agriculture were weaker." However, I would accept the argument that, if the Party had heeded earlier the Opposition's warnings against the dangerous growth in the power of the Kulaks [rich peasants] in the countryside, the process of collectivisation in 1929-30 could have been less violent [!] As against this, though the Trotskyists' economic policies favouring the exploitation of the countryside by the town [!] through a system of price differentials which would keep up the price of industrial products at the expense of agricultural prices (see e.g. The New Economics by Preobrazhensky, the Opposition's chief economist) anticipated theoretically much of the approach to the peasantry that from 1929 Stalin was to apply in practice. [!]" (Cogito, page 25 footnote)

Of Stalin's "more far-reaching plans", we will say more later. But first, let us deal with the "Red Professor", Maurice Dobb. Is it true to say that it was easier to begin the policy of industrialisation and Five Year Plans in 1928- 9 than in the earlier period? Monty Johnstone answers this piece of nonsense himself when he refers to the Opposition's warnings against the Kulak danger.

As against the Stalin-Bukharin policy of concession to the Kulaks and speculators ("Nepmen" ) at the expense of the poor peasants and industrial workers, the Opposition advocated the taxing of the rich peasants, in order to provide the necessary investment for industrialisation; on the basis of industrialisation alone, the villages could be provided with the means of overcoming the age-old backwardness of Russian agriculture. Only on the basis of the mechanisation of agriculture could collectivisation by example be carried out. To describe this policy of hitting the Kulaks as "the town exploiting the countryside" is merely to repeat the slanders hurled at the Left Opposition by the Stalinists - before they went over to the maniacal policy of collectivisation by force!

When, after the expulsion of the Left Opposition, the Stalinists were forced to turn against the "Rights" - behind whom stood the gathering menace of Kulak reaction - the situation in the countryside was already desperate, while heavy industry, the necessary basis of socialist construction, had stagnated for a whole period. It is simply a lie to assert that the Stalinist opposition to industrialisation in the period 1923-7 was dictated by their intentions to build up industry and agriculture. On the contrary: their line was one of encouraging those elements in the Soviet economy which were to prove a terrible stumbling block to the development of production in the period of the first five-year plans.

With his customary magnanimity, Monty Johnstone concedes that if the Party had heeded the Opposition's warnings on the Kulak danger "the process of collectivisation in 1929-30 could have been less violent. And just how "violent" was this "process" of collectivisation, Comrade Johnstone? In 1930, the total harvest of grain amounted to 835 million hundredweight. In the next two years it fell to 200 million; this at a time when the level of grain production was only barely sufficient to feed the population. The result spelled famine for millions of workers and peasants. Sugar production in the same period dropped from 109 million poods to 48 million.

Even more terrible were the losses to livestock. The insane tempo of collectivisation, and the vicious methods used, provoked the peasantry to desperate resistance, which plunged the countryside into a new and bloody civil war. The enraged peasants slaughtered their horses and cattle as a protest. The number of horses fell from 34.9 million in 1929 to 15.6 million in 1934; i.e. a loss of 55%. The number of horned cattle fell from 30.7 million to 19.5 million: a loss of 40%. The number of pigs 55%, sheep 66%. Soviet agriculture to the present day has not recovered from the blow dealt by forced collectivisation. But the most gruesome statistic of all is the millions of peasants who perished in this period - from hunger, cold, disease, in running fights with the Red Army or in the slave-labour camps afterwards; the figure of ten million exterminated was not denied by Stalin; four million is the lowest estimate. Such is the little bit of "violence" to which Monty Johnstone coyly refers in his footnote.

Stalin's plan for collectivisation certainly went "much further" than the proposals laid down by the Opposition! Trotsky denounced it as an adventure, given the material backwardness of Russian agriculture. Stalin's "broad perspectives" spelled disaster to Russian agriculture. But how about industry? Did not the success of Stalin's plans which went "much further" than the perspectives of the Left Opposition, prove how "pessimistic" Trotsky was?

When, after the notorious Moscow Frame-up Trials, Trotsky appeared voluntarily before the Dewey Commission, which went through the charges levelled against him and the Opposition, he answered, among other things, a number of questions relating to the differences with the Stalinists on the question of industrialisation in 1923-9. We quote verbatim from the text of his evidence:

"Goldman: Mr. Trotsky, with reference to the industrialisation of the Soviet Union, what was your attitude prior to your expulsion from the Soviet Union?

"Trotsky: During the period from 1922 until 1929 I fought for the necessity of an accelerated industrialisation. I wrote in the beginning of 1925 a book in which I tried to prove that by planning and direction of industry it was possible to have a yearly coefficient of industrialisation up to twenty. I was denounced at the time as a fantastic man, a super-industrialiser. It was the official name for Trotskyites at that time: 'super-industrialisers'.

"Goldman: What was the name of the book that you wrote?

"Trotsky: Whither Russia, Toward Capitalism or Socialism?

"Goldman: In English, it was published, I am quite sure under the title Wither Russia, Toward Capitalism or Socialism?

"Trotsky: The march of events showed that I was too cautious in my appreciation of the possibility of planned economy - not too courageous. It was my fight between 1922 and 1925, and also the fight for the Five Year Plan. It begins with the year 1923, when the Left Opposition began to fight for the necessity of using the Five Year Plan.

"Goldman: And Stalin at that time called you a 'super-industrialist'?

"Trotsky: Yes.

"Goldman: He was opposed to the rapid industrialisation of the country.

"Trotsky: Permit me to say that in 1927, when I was Chairman of the Commission at Dnieprostroy for a hydro-electric station, a power station, I insisted in the session of the Central Committee on the necessity of building up this station. Stalin answered, and it is published: 'For us to build up the Dnieprostroy station is the same as for a peasant to buy a gramophone instead of a cow.'" (The Case of Leon Trotsky, page 245)

Such was the extent of Stalin's "broad perspectives" in 1927! At that time, the accusation levelled at the Opposition by the Stalinists was not that they were "pessimistic" but that were "super-industrialisers"! What about the assertion that the plans later implemented by Stalin went "much further" than those of Trotsky?

The years 1925-27 were occupied by the struggle of the Opposition against the economic cowardice of the Stalin-Bukharin leadership. The Stalinists in 1926 first suggested a "plan" which would begin with a coefficient of nine for the first year, eight for the second, gradually lowering to four - a declining rate of growth! Trotsky, whom the ruling clique branded as "super-industrialist", described this miserable excuse for a plan as the "sabotage of industry" (not, of course, in a literal sense). Later, the plan was revised to give a coefficient of nine for all five years. Trotsky fought for a coefficient of 18-20. He pointed out that the rate of growth, even under capitalism, had been six! The ruling clique paid no attention to the Opposition and went ahead with their pusillanimous plans. Instead of the miserable nine percent projected by the "broad perspectives" of Stalin-Bukharin, the results of the first year of the five year plan completely bore out the perspective of the Opposition and exposed the complete inadequacy of the coefficients advanced by Stalin and Co. As a result, the following year they plunged into the disastrous adventure of a "five year plan in four years". In vain did Trotsky warn against this crazy idea, which, threw everything completely off balance. By bureaucratic ukaze the leadership now decreed a coefficient of 30-35%! The wrecking of industry in this period, which was blamed upon the unfortunate victims of the "sabotage trials", was in reality the result of the adventurism of the Stalinists, whose pursuit of the chimera of "Socialism in One Country" and "Five Year Plan in Four Years" led to the seizing up of the economy and untold hardships for the Soviet working class.

In answer to all the misrepresentations and half-truths of Monty Johnstone concerning Trotsky's attitude to the Five Year Plans, let us see what Trotsky himself had to say to the Dewey Commission:

"Trotsky: My attitude toward the economic development of the Soviet Union can be characterised as follows: I defend the Soviet economy against the capitalist critics and the Social Democratic reformist critics, and I criticize the bureaucratic methods of the leadership. The deductions were very simple. They were based on the Soviet press itself. We have a certain freedom from the bureaucratic hypnosis. It was absolutely possible to see all of the dangers on the basis of the Soviet press itself.

"Goldman: Can you give us an idea, very generally, of the successes of the industrialisation in the Soviet Union?

"Trotsky: The successes are very important, and I affirmed it every time. They are due to the abolition of private property and to the possibilities inherent in planned economy. But, they are - I cannot say exactly - but I will say two or three times less than they could be under a regime of Soviet democracy.

"Goldman: So the advances are due, in spite of the bureaucratic control and methods?

"Trotsky: They are due to the possibilities inherent in the socialisation of the productive forces." (The Case of Leon Trotsky, page 249)

In pursuit of additional proof of Trotsky's "pessimism", Johnstone quotes from The Third International After Lenin:

"To the extent that productivity of labour and the productivity of a social system as a whole are measured in the market by the correlation of prices, it is not so much military intervention as the intervention of cheaper capitalist commodities that constitutes perhaps the greatest immediate menace to the Soviet economy."

These lines were written in 1928, at a time when capitalist market forces were re-asserting themselves in the Soviet economy under the NEP. when the Kulaks (rich peasants) were following the advice of Bukharin: "Get rich!" and when the danger of an actual capitalist restoration, which the Left Opposition warned against, was very real. Commenting on Trotsky's words without explaining the context Johnstone writes:

"The monopoly of foreign trade, which Stalin and the Party majority correctly stressed was the means of the Soviet Union shielding itself from such economic subversion, became for Trotsky 'evidence of the severity and the dangerous character of our dependence.'" (Cogito, page 267)

Monty Johnstone's memory is conveniently short. For this same "Stalin and the Party Majority" (i.e. Bukharin) not five years before had stood for the abolition of the state monopoly of foreign trade, and actually passed a resolution in the Central Committee on October 12, 1922 - abrogating the monopoly. The Collected Edition of Lenin's works in Russian contains a whole series of letters by Lenin in which he appeals to Trotsky to form a bloc with him for the struggle to maintain the monopoly of foreign trade. Thus, on December 13, 1922, Lenin wrote to Trotsky:

"In any event, I would beg you to take upon yourself at the forthcoming Plenum, the defence of our common point of view on the unconditional necessity of the preservation and strengthening of the monopoly of foreign trade." (Lenin, Collected Works, Russian edition vol. 54, page 324)

What did Trotsky mean by his statement that "cheap foreign commodities" posed a threat to the Soviet power? In 1917, the proletarian revolution had taken place, not as Marx and Engels had visualised, in an advanced capitalist country, but in a backward, semi-feudal peasant economy. This happened, not because "all the conditions necessary for building socialism" were present in Russia, but because of the absolute inability of the Russian bourgeoisie to solve a single one of the historic tasks before it, on the basis of the capitalist system. Russia was propelled towards the proletarian revolution, not because it was the most advanced, but precisely because it was the most backward of European powers. As Lenin expressed it, capitalism broke at its weakest link.

The victory of the Russian working class in the October Revolution was the prerequisite for beginning the transformation of Russian society. The historic tasks of the bourgeois revolution in Russia could only be carried out under the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is the essential meaning of Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution, worked out in 1905. The nationalisation of industry, the state plan, the monopoly of foreign trade were the means whereby the Russian working class pulled Russia out of the slough of age-old backwardness. The historic successes of the five year plans in the Soviet Union are, in themselves, a sufficient justification of the October Revolution. As Trotsky wrote in The Revolution Betrayed:

"Socialism has demonstrated its right to victory, not on the pages of Capital, but in an industrial area comprising one-sixth of the earth's surface - not in the language of dialectics, but in the language of steel, cement and electricity."

However, the question of the historical fate of the USSR cannot be exhausted by reeling off an inventory of the success of the five year plans. Lenin, early on, posed the vital question in the striking phrase: "Who shall prevail?" The Soviet Union is not a desert island, but part of a world economic and political system, where the fate of no one country can be isolated from that of the whole. The Soviet Union, despite its enormous industrial successes, still has to measure its strength against that of the imperialist powers of the West.

The capitalist system, while already showing all the symptoms of senile decay on a world scale, started with immeasurable advantages over the Soviet Union. From the outset, the Bolsheviks had to struggle against the prevailing low level of culture of the masses, the lack of a skilled labour force, in a word, of the low productivity of labour. This factor, and not the volume of production in absolute terms, is the real measure of economic success and social advancement. In this decisive field, after 50 years of Soviet power, the Soviet Union still lags far behind the USA.

Official Soviet statistics indicate that the per capita industrial production of the USSR is only 50-60% that of the USA. With a larger working class, with twice the number of technicians and engineers, the actual industrial output of Russia is only 65% that of the USA. The indices of production of heavy industry are the most dramatic. Steel production in the USSR has risen from 4.3 million tons in 1928 to 107 million tons in 1968 - only 18 million tons less than in America (not including 24 million tons imported by the USA). But on the one hand, per capita production of steel in the USA is higher than in the USSR. On the other hand, the harmonious development of human life and culture are not reflected economically by the volume of steel production alone, but more accurately by the development of consumer and high quality technical goods for the mass of the people. In this field, which affects the living standards of the workers, the USSR still lags behind the capitalist countries.

The hordes of speculators, spivs and black-marketeers in Moscow, who make a living by pestering foreign tourists for Western goods and currency, which they sell at a handsome profit to Soviet workers are a clear indication that the threat from "cheap foreign commodities" even today has not disappeared. The draconian sentences (up to and including the death penalty) introduced to combat this speculation has no effect in stamping out a social scourge which has its roots, not in "survivals of capitalism" or the perversity of human nature, but by the objective relations between the Soviet Union and the World Economy. which no haughty bureaucratic "theories" can abolish.

As Marx explained in The German Ideology: "Where want is generalised 'all the old crap will revive.'" The perennial shortages, high price and low quality of consumer goods (not merely cars and technical goods, but also clothes and foodstuffs) are a basic fact of life for the Soviet working class. That is not to say that luxury goods do not exist. The privileged strata of bureaucrats, factory managers, army officers, etc, possess in abundance the things which a Soviet worker would not dream of: expensive suits, sleek cars, luxury apartments, villas in the countryside, etc. While working-class families in Moscow and other Soviet cities live in conditions of chronic overcrowding, many members of the upper strata own more than one country house (dacha) in addition to their city apartments. The luxurious style of living of the bureaucracy is a constant affront to the masses of the Soviet people. Thus, after the Second World War, when the Soviet workers and peasants were suffering under conditions of dreadful hardship, the visiting Field-Marshal Montgomery received from the hands of his Soviet "brother" officers the gift of a Soviet Marshal's fur coat complete with medals, diamonds, etc, costing £5,000!

Under Lenin and Trotsky, the rule of "Partmaximum" meant that a Party member could not receive more than an ordinary worker, even if his skills entitled him to a higher wage. One of the conditions for the inception of a workers' state as laid down by Lenin in The State and Revolution was the rule that no official was to receive a higher wage than a skilled worker. An early decree of the Revolution fixed a wage differential between workers and specialists of not more than four times, and this Lenin frankly described as a "capitalist differential", to be reduced systematically. This law applied until 1931 when it was formally abolished by Stalin.




(Edited by Turnoviseous at 9:33 pm on Aug. 31, 2002)

[Anonymous]

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/hitler_stalin.jpg

What a happy marriage! :biggrin:

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Turnoviseous on 9:17 pm on Aug. 31, 2002
Stalin was opportunist. He was jumping from a right wing to ultra-leftism.

Damn straight. He only got into power by jumping on the populist bangwagon on issues such as the NEP extension, and the Trotskyist permament revolutionism.

[Moskitto]

he he, I saw that it a history textbook once. That's funny.

Ever seen "How Ronald Reagan Sees the World"?
Or there's that one with hemispheres, one of them there's a massive bear holding it looking at Uncle Sam and on the other one there's a massive Uncle Sam looking at a really tiny bear?