The term "Stalinism" and its use

[ComradeOm]

I'm not sure why you added Bukharin to that, no one said that he was a Stalinist, I guess you were just trying to score points by adding the name of some person that popped up in your headNow that I think about it, I can't help but wonder why Bukharin is generally not considered part of the "Stalinist tradition". He is after all responsible for constructing the ideological basis and theoretical justification for Stalin's policies

It can only be his prominence during the early phase of the revolution. Either that or his intellectual brilliance. Either way he's gotten off lightly

[Die Neue Zeit]

Guys, I don't know if we should fold the Khrushchev thread into this one, because I've got a rather unique, non-sectarian take on "Marxism-Leninism" and "Stalinism" in that thread.

"Marxism-Leninism": anti-Leninist, reductionist, and grossly revisionist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-leninism-anti-t73258/index.html)
Lenin, Stalin, and post-Stalin (Khrushchev) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-stalin-and-t66656/index.html)

"Khrushchevism-Brezhnevism-yadda-yadda-yadda" is an odd mix, ideologically speaking. To be objective, it is a practical continuation of Stalin's post-WWII realpolitik, but without the primitive accumulation.

Under Khrushchev, for example, there finally was a minimum-wage law, a major housing program was launched (since there were homeless people in Moscow), etc.

Like the "Pauline" founder of Marxism, Karl Kautsky, who abandoned it and became a renegade, "Comrade" Stalin abandoned his own reductionist and grossly revisionist "Marxism-Leninism" in the post-war period.

It's one thing to have a mixed legacy regarding Spain (logistical problems due to geographic distance), but it's quite another to become a realpolitik-cian extraordinaire during the post-war period from a position of strength (Greece, Yugoslavia, and even China).



For Trots

The Civil War caused the rise of the bureaucracy, right? Why don't you consider similar organizational opportunism during the chaos of WWII? I've read a lot about Soviet history between 1946-1953:

Ordinary Stalinism: The Council of Ministers and the Soviet Neopatrimonial State, 1946-1953 (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/376210)

Stalin and the Soviet Ruling Circle, 1945-1953 (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/he/subject/History/WorldHistory/GeographicalEuropeanHistory/RussianRevolutionSovietRussia/?view=usa&ci=9780195304206)

Stalin's Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953 (http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Wars-World-Cold-1939-1953/dp/0300112041)

Why don't you outline, once more, the material consequences of the war that caused Stalin to transform into a reductionist and grossly revisionist leader? I can tell you from that typical Trotskyist account that something similar occurred with Khrushchev.

20 million people ("social base") died during the "Great Patriotic War." Wanton destruction was prevalent throughout much of the western Soviet Union. Just as in the Civil War, organizational dynamics were more lax, and enough opportunists snuck into the system.

Although this is an "anti-revisionist" account, the names are useful:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bland/1980/restoration-capitalism-soviet-union/appendix-3.htm

This time around, they had a greater diversity of bureaucratic patrons, not just Stalin, Molotov, and Kaganovich: Voznesensky (although he got axed), Rodionov, Popov, Povkov, Malenkov, Kuznetsov, Khrushchev, Bulganin, etc.


Interesting. I must confess that I don't know much specifically about Khrushchev's economic policy. Could it be the end of primitive accumulation that anti-revisionists see as why he was a revisionist? I also wonder if Stalin had made any moves in that direction before his death.

I'm not sure, comrade. Perhaps there was such a trend under the opportunistic post-revisionist Vosnesensky (the guy who headed Gosplan before getting shot during the "Leningrad Affair" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_Affair)).

Per Gorlizki's Ordinary Stalinism: The Council of Ministers and the Soviet Neopatrimonial State, 1945-1953 (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/376210) post-war Stalin, even while chair of Sovmin, was NOT active in "government" (read: economic) affairs at all, never attending meetings of the Sovmin Bureau/Presidium. The former "Marxist-Leninist" tyrant wanted to focus on "national security" concerns (the "kitchen cabinet" meetings of the informal Politburo, so to be sure Khrushchev was right about Stalin's flagrant violation of Party rules).

Also, "party affairs" and "state affairs" were, until 1952, separate. That proto-Dengist Beria, for instance, never wanted Party guys like Popov to interfere in ministerial assignments and promotions.

These two factors (Stalin's absence and party-state separation) enabled the opportunists to further seep in (to join their opportunist buddies who entered during the war)... through the state-administrative apparatus. It's kinda like Stalin when he was the head of Rabkrin during and after the Civil War. ;)



For M-Ls

Methinks that, had Khrushchev come to power in 1938-1939, he would NOT have turned against his boss like he did in the 50s. Again, like what I said above in regards to challenging the reductionist Trotskyist view that there was no fundamental difference between the Stalin and post-Stalin eras, I am challenging the equally reductionist "Marxist-Leninist" view that there were no similarities between the two eras. Organization during the war and the post-war period is the key!!!

Indeed, the organizational dynamics were more lax, and thus holes were exploited by post-revisionist opportunists. These post-revisionist opportunists were similar to the original revisionist "stratum" that was Stalin's neopatrimonial network of clients just after the civil war.

Consider Stalin's abandonment of his own "Marxism-Leninism" when he had no near-death plans to get rid of Khrushchev or Malenkov (and their post-revisionist patron-client networks), instead focusing on Molotov and Mikoyan (latter on part of the "Anti-Party Group"), plus the proto-Dengist Beria (and his notorious NKVD-based patron-client network)!

The only irony in all this post-revisionism is that Stalin's successors were more progressive in some areas than the pre-war, still-revisionist "Comrade" Stalin: sovkhozization, economic integration, and more extensive support for "national-democratic" revolutions abroad.

[3A CCCP]

"Stalinist" and "Stalinism" are derogatory terms invented in the West to label and degrade the followers of comrade Stalin and attack his policies.

Followers of Trotsky literally get violent and start frothing at the mouth if they are referred to as "Trotskyites" and demand that we do not use that term. I would expect the same courtesy from them and ask that the derogatory terms "Stalinist" and "Stalinism" not be used.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[apathy maybe]

"Stalinist" and "Stalinism" are derogatory terms invented in the West to label and degrade the followers of comrade Stalin and attack his policies.

Followers of Trotsky literally get violent and start frothing at the mouth if they are referred to as "Trotskyites" and demand that we do not use that term. I would expect the same courtesy from them and ask that the derogatory terms "Stalinist" and "Stalinism" not be used.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

What term would you prefer instead? Because I'm not saying "Marxist-Leninst" to refer to Stalinists...

[Led Zeppelin]

TC unjustly trashed this thread to stifle discussion on the matter, I have moved it back here.


Now that I think about it, I can't help but wonder why Bukharin is generally not considered part of the "Stalinist tradition". He is after all responsible for constructing the ideological basis and theoretical justification for Stalin's policies

It can only be his prominence during the early phase of the revolution. Either that or his intellectual brilliance. Either way he's gotten off lightly

Well, Bukharin was more on the right side of the spectrum, while Stalin was more centrist.

His stance on industrialization and the peasantry was very different from Stalin's, so there were a lot of differences between them.


Followers of Trotsky literally get violent and start frothing at the mouth if they are referred to as "Trotskyites" and demand that we do not use that term.

I don't mind.

And how exactly is Stalinist the same as Trotskyite?

Wouldn't that be Stalinite instead of Stalinist?

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Marxism-Leninism": anti-Leninist, reductionist, and grossly revisionist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-leninism-anti-t73258/index.html)
Lenin, Stalin, and post-Stalin (Khrushchev) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-stalin-and-t66656/index.html)

"Khrushchevism-Brezhnevism-yadda-yadda-yadda" is an odd mix, ideologically speaking. To be objective, it is a practical continuation of Stalin's post-WWII realpolitik, but without the primitive accumulation.

Under Khrushchev, for example, there finally was a minimum-wage law, a major housing program was launched (since there were homeless people in Moscow), etc.

Like the "Pauline" founder of Marxism, Karl Kautsky, who abandoned it and became a renegade, "Comrade" Stalin abandoned his own reductionist and grossly revisionist "Marxism-Leninism" in the post-war period.

It's one thing to have a mixed legacy regarding Spain (logistical problems due to geographic distance), but it's quite another to become a realpolitik-cian extraordinaire during the post-war period from a position of strength (Greece, Yugoslavia, and even China).



For Trots

The Civil War caused the rise of the bureaucracy, right? Why don't you consider similar organizational opportunism during the chaos of WWII? I've read a lot about Soviet history between 1946-1953:

Ordinary Stalinism: The Council of Ministers and the Soviet Neopatrimonial State, 1946-1953 (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/376210)

Stalin and the Soviet Ruling Circle, 1945-1953 (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/he/subject/History/WorldHistory/GeographicalEuropeanHistory/RussianRevolutionSovietRussia/?view=usa&ci=9780195304206)

Stalin's Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953 (http://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Wars-World-Cold-1939-1953/dp/0300112041)

Why don't you outline, once more, the material consequences of the war that caused Stalin to transform into a reductionist and grossly revisionist leader? I can tell you from that typical Trotskyist account that something similar occurred with Khrushchev.

20 million people ("social base") died during the "Great Patriotic War." Wanton destruction was prevalent throughout much of the western Soviet Union. Just as in the Civil War, organizational dynamics were more lax, and enough opportunists snuck into the system.

Although this is an "anti-revisionist" account, the names are useful:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bland/1980/restoration-capitalism-soviet-union/appendix-3.htm

This time around, they had a greater diversity of bureaucratic patrons, not just Stalin, Molotov, and Kaganovich: Voznesensky (although he got axed), Rodionov, Popov, Povkov, Malenkov, Kuznetsov, Khrushchev, Bulganin, etc.


Interesting. I must confess that I don't know much specifically about Khrushchev's economic policy. Could it be the end of primitive accumulation that anti-revisionists see as why he was a revisionist? I also wonder if Stalin had made any moves in that direction before his death.

I'm not sure, comrade. Perhaps there was such a trend under the opportunistic post-revisionist Vosnesensky (the guy who headed Gosplan before getting shot during the "Leningrad Affair" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_Affair)).

Per Gorlizki's Ordinary Stalinism: The Council of Ministers and the Soviet Neopatrimonial State, 1945-1953 (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/376210) post-war Stalin, even while chair of Sovmin, was NOT active in "government" (read: economic) affairs at all, never attending meetings of the Sovmin Bureau/Presidium. The former "Marxist-Leninist" tyrant wanted to focus on "national security" concerns (the "kitchen cabinet" meetings of the informal Politburo, so to be sure Khrushchev was right about Stalin's flagrant violation of Party rules).

Also, "party affairs" and "state affairs" were, until 1952, separate. That proto-Dengist Beria, for instance, never wanted Party guys like Popov to interfere in ministerial assignments and promotions.

These two factors (Stalin's absence and party-state separation) enabled the opportunists to further seep in (to join their opportunist buddies who entered during the war)... through the state-administrative apparatus. It's kinda like Stalin when he was the head of Rabkrin during and after the Civil War. ;)



For M-Ls

Methinks that, had Khrushchev come to power in 1938-1939, he would NOT have turned against his boss like he did in the 50s. Again, like what I said above in regards to challenging the reductionist Trotskyist view that there was no fundamental difference between the Stalin and post-Stalin eras, I am challenging the equally reductionist "Marxist-Leninist" view that there were no similarities between the two eras. Organization during the war and the post-war period is the key!!!

Indeed, the organizational dynamics were more lax, and thus holes were exploited by post-revisionist opportunists. These post-revisionist opportunists were similar to the original revisionist "stratum" that was Stalin's neopatrimonial network of clients just after the civil war.

Consider Stalin's abandonment of his own "Marxism-Leninism" when he had no near-death plans to get rid of Khrushchev or Malenkov (and their post-revisionist patron-client networks), instead focusing on Molotov and Mikoyan (latter on part of the "Anti-Party Group"), plus the proto-Dengist Beria (and his notorious NKVD-based patron-client network)!

The only irony in all this post-revisionism is that Stalin's successors were more progressive in some areas than the pre-war, still-revisionist "Comrade" Stalin: sovkhozization, economic integration, and more extensive support for "national-democratic" revolutions abroad.

[Led Zeppelin]

For Trots

The Civil War caused the rise of the bureaucracy, right?

No, not just the Civil War.

Also the fact that that nation was underdeveloped and materially backward, and the revolution failed to spread, causing widespread disillusionment and isolationism in the working-class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Somehow, the transfer of posts and what not is malfunctioning. My detailed post above (not the one below ComradeOm's post, which was edited just now to serve as a double-post) should be the first post. :(

Anyhow, back on topic...

[Dros]

Now that I think about it, I can't help but wonder why Bukharin is generally not considered part of the "Stalinist tradition". He is after all responsible for constructing the ideological basis and theoretical justification for Stalin's policies

Because he was the leader of the Right Opposition that Stalin purged from the party after it became apparent that they essentially were advocating capitalism.


It can only be his prominence during the early phase of the revolution. Either that or his intellectual brilliance. Either way he's gotten off lightly

Or it could be the fact that he was fighting for the interests of the kulaks and middle peasants instead of fighting to build socialism through agricultural collectivization.


Stalinist" and "Stalinism" are derogatory terms... I would... ask that the derogatory terms "Stalinist" and "Stalinism" not be used.

You are correct. They are derogatory. That said, I sometimes refer to myself as a Stalinist. There are a few reasons for this. 1.) The phrase "anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist) is a mouthful. 2.) Most people don't know that an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist is a Stalinist. 3.) Most people don't know that Maoists are Stalinists.


What term would you prefer instead? Because I'm not saying "Marxist-Leninst" to refer to Stalinists...

Actually, the correct term is "anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist".;):D


Well, Bukharin was more on the right side of the spectrum, while Stalin was more centrist.

I've always thought Stalin represented the most radical revolutionary position within the CPSU at that time. But that's because I see the "left opposition" as being a rightist group.

[aussiestalinist]

"Stalinist" and "Stalinism" are derogatory terms invented in the West to label and degrade the followers of comrade Stalin and attack his policies.

Followers of Trotsky literally get violent and start frothing at the mouth if they are referred to as "Trotskyites" and demand that we do not use that term. I would expect the same courtesy from them and ask that the derogatory terms "Stalinist" and "Stalinism" not be used.



Why I am a proud Marxist-Leninist Stalinist. I am a member of the SLA and of the ALP. I have been since I was 10. It doesn't insult me when I get called a "stalinist". Long live Stalin.

[Kropotesta]

Why I am a proud Marxist-Leninist Stalinist. I am a member of the SLA and of the ALP. I have been since I was 10
Did you really know anything about Stalin when you were 10?

[apathy maybe]

Note: This is reposted from a trashed post. TragicClown shouldn't have trashed it in the first place. Some of it isn't really useful for this present thread, see http://www.revleft.com/vb/flames-trolling-t80287/index.html for the rest of it.


Meh, I can't be bothered reading completely the discussion between Tragic and Led, but I'm sure it is interesting for people who like to label themselves after individuals. (Yes, that is a sectarian comment. Yes, it was also a deliberate jab at both Led and Tragic. Yes, I don't actually care. Yes, this is boring. Yes, I'll stop doing this now.)

Anyway, for a non-Leninist perspective (that is, anyone who supports Lenin, regardless of if they consider themselves to be "Stalinist", "Trotskiest" or whatever else) on what Stalinism is, here you go.

Stalinist is a term to describe those people who support the rule of Stalin, and variously the rules of other people in other countries depending on how close they were to political situation of the USSR during the time Stalin ruled.

There are two sorts:
Those fucking idiots who support the tyranny, the show trials, the murder, the purges, sometimes the pact with Hitler, the anti-abortion line of Stalin, and a few other anti-women policies.
And the other sort, who delude themselves into thinking that Stalin wasn't really an "evil tyrant" who ate babies for breakfast (the first sort fully support eating babies for breakfast), but support the idea of "socialism in one country", don't think that the purges were real and/or that the purges were as bad as everyone makes out, think that the anti-abortion etc. line was either misguided (sometimes), and talk about the need to have time to build up the army to fight Hitler.

Of course, neither sort are really useful to the left, tyranny is not welcome, and neither is the absence of studying history.


As to the terms "Marxist-Leninist", "Bolshevik-Leninist" or various other convulsions which people go through. None of them are useful. A Leninist is someone who accepts that Lenin had some good ideas to add to the theoretical framework of Marxism, A Stalinist is someone who supports Stalinist ideas, a Trotskist is someone who supports the ideas added to the framework by Trotsky.

[apathy maybe]

Why I am a proud Marxist-Leninist Stalinist. I am a member of the SLA and of the ALP. I have been since I was 10. It doesn't insult me when I get called a "stalinist". Long live Stalin.
Err, the Labor Party and a Stalinist? Call me crazy. Oh wait, still in high school, still learning. Never mind.

[aussiestalinist]

Did you really know anything about Stalin when you were 10?


Yes, I read books about the great leader. I just loved how he won the Great Patrioitc War and gave socialism to the people of the east. He is like a father fgiure and a hero to me. I would die fighting for socialism. He cared about his people and for the people of the east. He never stopped working to to improve the lives of his people. He destroyed and saved mother Russia from the evil revisionists, trotskies and the most evil of all people in Russia the anarchists. There should be a statue of him in every town, city and country. He should be celebrated like a god.



Err, the Labor Party and a Stalinist? Call me crazy. Oh wait, still in high school, still learning. Never mind.


Go read SLA policies on the Labour Party, you anarchist trouble maker.

[Kropotesta]

Yes, I read books about the great leader.
When you were ten? Sorry but I find that very hard to believe.


I just loved how he won the Great Patrioitc War and gave socialism to the people of the east.
State capitalism.


most evil of all people in Russia the anarchists. There should be a statue of him in every town, city and country. He should be celebrated like a god.
Are you having a laugh?


Go read SLA policies on the Labour Party, you anarchist trouble maker.
I shall if you provide a link.

[Redmau5]

Yes, I read books about the great leader. I just loved how he won the Great Patrioitc War and gave socialism to the people of the east. He is like a father fgiure and a hero to me. I would die fighting for socialism. He cared about his people and for the people of the east. He never stopped working to to improve the lives of his people. He destroyed and saved mother Russia from the evil revisionists, trotskies and the most evil of all people in Russia the anarchists. There should be a statue of him in every town, city and country. He should be celebrated like a god.



Go read SLA policies on the Labour Party, you anarchist trouble maker.

I really, really, really hope you're having a laugh. Most of the Stalinists here would be embarrassed by that.

[aussiestalinist]

I really, really, really hope you're having a laugh. Most of the Stalinists here would be embarrassed by that.


No.



When you were ten? Sorry but I find that very hard to believe.


Well believe it then. I did read books by comrade Stalin when I was ten.



State capitalism.


Collective ownership of farms, state investment in industry is not state capitalism. The word state capitalism is revisionist propaganda.



Are you having a laugh?


No.



I shall if you provide a link.


Go and type in "Stalinist League of Australia" into Google.

[apathy maybe]

Go and type in "Stalinist League of Australia" into Google.
I did that, I found some interesting things...

From http://www.crikey.com.au/Election-2007/20071109-How-will-a-Stalinist-a-Satanist-and-a-KKK-member-vote.html

Peter Watson, the 15-year-old founder and president of the Stalinist League of Australia, says that the SLA are advocating a vote for the SLA first, the Socialist Alliance second, and the International Nerd-Gothic conspiracy last. The International Nerd-Goths are controlled by his science teacher and are responsible for, amongst other things, killing Stalin and having Peter banned from the library at his school. The SLA has had limited success in student council elections and doesn't appear to be running any candidates federally.

Yeah, great ;).

[aussiestalinist]

That was published last year. The Stalinist League of Australia won a seat on the Student Council at the Student Council 2008 election.

[Plagueround]

I just visited the SLA website. This is one elaborate troll you've worked on. Anyway, contributing to the discussion...

I don't think there is anything wrong with the "Stalinist" terminology. People who strongly identify with the teachings of Marx call themselves Marxists, Lenin - Leninists. Mao- Maoist. Even outside of communist/leftist definition, people identify themselves this way. Christ - Christians. Buddha - Buddhists. Ayn Rand - Idiots. (Ok that one doesn't work, but it's true.)
Calling someone a Stalinist as an insult would be akin to using any of these terms as an insult in that they're only insulting if your intent is to show disgust or ridicule. If you agree with and support the politics/philosophies of Stalin, there is no harm in identifying as a Stalinist.
As far as my personal views on Stalin, I really need to do more reading because I honestly do not know much about the man other than what I've been taught in school...something I always like to get a second opinion on. ;)

P.S. Actualy I do know a bit about Stalin...A few years ago I took a large amount of psychedelic mushrooms and watched a documentary on Stalin, followed by Starship Troopers and I'm not sure where one ends and the other begins, but I do know this...No matter what you people say, I will always hate that man for launching bug asteroids at Earth in an attempt to kill Doogie Howser and that chick from Wild Things.

[aussiestalinist]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the "Stalinist" terminology. People who strongly identify with the teachings of Marx call themselves Marxists, Lenin - Leninists. Mao- Maoist. Even outside of communist/leftist definition, people identify themselves this way. Christ - Christians. Buddha - Buddhists. Ayn Rand - Idiots. (Ok that one doesn't work, but it's true.)
Calling someone a Stalinist as an insult would be akin to using any of these terms as an insult in that they're only insulting if your intent is to show disgust or ridicule. If you agree with and support the politics/philosophies of Stalin, there is no harm in identifying as a Stalinist.



Of course. This is what I have been saying all the time.

[3A CCCP]

[quote=Plagueround;1162447] I don't think there is anything wrong with the "Stalinist" terminology. People who strongly identify with the teachings of Marx call themselves Marxists, Lenin - Leninists. Mao- Maoist.


MY REPLY:
There is no such thing as "Stalinism." What the West calls "Stalinism" is simply Marxism-Leninism practiced correctly.

That should start a real tirade against comrade Stalin and alot of frothing at the mouth on this list!

Be that as it may, the original term "Stalinism" was created in the West as a put down. Incessant, prolonged Western anti-Stalin propaganda turned it into a synonym for dictatorship and repression.

Get to it boys! There's plenty to attack here!

INCOMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:scared:

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[Random Precision]

Be that as it may, the original term "Stalinism" was created in the West as a put down. Incessant, prolonged Western anti-Stalin propaganda turned it into a synonym for dictatorship and repression.

No, it wasn't. "Stalinist" was first used by Lazar Kaganovich, and entered its first common usage in VKP party documents during the thirties, as in "... the brilliance of our great Leninist-Stalinist leadership against the corrupt capitalist Trotskyist-Zinovievist-Kamenevist dogs, yada yada yada." Of course, that's not a direct quote.

[3A CCCP]

No, it wasn't. "Stalinist" was first used by Lazar Kaganovich, and entered its first common usage in VKP party documents during the thirties, as in "... the brilliance of our great Leninist-Stalinist leadership against the corrupt capitalist Trotskyist-Zinovievist-Kamenevist dogs, yada yada yada." Of course, that's not a direct quote.

Regardless, it was turned into a derogatory term in the West and is redundant since, as I mentioned, "Stalinism" is Marxism-Leninism practiced correctly.

It would also be good to see the original Russian text of this "indirect quote" to determine the context and grammatical structure in which this was said (if you could provide that). Alot seems to get "lost," "misinterpreted," or "grammatically skewed" in translations of statements from or regarding comrade Stalin.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail