Anti-Revisionism

[The Intransigent Faction]

So, fellow forum-goers..
I was thoroughly unprepared, unfortunately, for some questions posed today.
A classmate of mine gave a seminar on "Stalinism".
They actually started off listing what they saw as good points..the status of education, health care, women's rights..
Where they took issue with Stalin was largely in the "Holodomor" and attacks on the churches.
I realize that he was far from perfect, and didn't necessarily rise to defend the man. However, I do feel that, as with any conflicting superpowers, the West has overplayed the death toll of their foe's alleged suppression of Ukraine.
According to my teacher, at least, the "deaths he caused outweighed the good brought by Stalin". Is he right?
Where's the best place to look for more info on the Holodomor and the purges?
I also faced the standard "no motive to work" argument..but my classmates gave up on that one quickly enough.
What was really frustrating was when one classmate piped up with the claim that "All Communist leaders are the same". I challenged him on this and he could not answer.

[Forward Union]

"deaths he caused outweighed the good brought by Stalin". Is he right?

Well it's a fairly loaded question. It makes you start to list good things he did in his defence, and thus force you into the position of appologising.

How many people did Stalin Kill? Probably very few himself. State excecutions in the Soviet Union were an enevitable consiquence of having a state in that condition. Any state would do that to defend itself from invasion and from "counter revolution" After all, the Bolshevik state was a group of people set a side from society with the single mandate of defending "the revolutionary state" aka themselves.

This will inevitably lead to exceutions, mprisonments, attrocities etc, in some cases on a large scale, in order to fulfil the mandate. Anarchists predicted this long before october 1917, and the 20th century has only added weight to the claim.

I fully expect that the death toll placed on the USSR is excessive. For example they attribute all the deaths of the famine to Stalin, ignoring that there were hundreds of factors that caused that famine, and even more that excaserbated it.

And while the deaths caused by industrialisation were attributed to Stalin, The industrialisation of Russia was a lot less brutal than the industrialisation of europe about 100 before, which isn't attributed to leaders of the time.

So there are so many overlapping and complex issues here.



"All Communist leaders are the same"


By what qualifications?

[The Intransigent Faction]

Well it's a fairly loaded question. It makes you start to list good things he did in his defence, and thus force you into the position of appologising.

How many people did Stalin Kill? Probably very few himself. State excecutions in the Soviet Union were an enevitable consiquence of having a state in that condition. Any state would do that to defend itself from invasion and from "counter revolution" After all, the Bolshevik state was a group of people set a side from society with the single mandate of defending "the revolutionary state" aka themselves.

This will inevitably lead to exceutions, mprisonments, attrocities etc, in some cases on a large scale, in order to fulfil the mandate. Anarchists predicted this long before october 1917, and the 20th century has only added weight to the claim.

I fully expect that the death toll placed on the USSR is excessive. For example they attribute all the deaths of the famine to Stalin, ignoring that there were hundreds of factors that caused that famine, and even more that excaserbated it.

And while the deaths caused by industrialisation were attributed to Stalin, The industrialisation of Russia was a lot less brutal than the industrialisation of europe about 100 before, which isn't attributed to leaders of the time.

So there are so many overlapping and complex issues here.



By what qualifications?

Agreed. Thanks. I'll do my best to keep some of that in mind next time I'm faced with that.
As for the other question, I have no idea. As I said, he wouldn't answer fully.
I suppose he was accusing them all of somehow being murderers..as if wage slavery and imperialist wars have not put blood on Capitalist hands.

[Dros]

If you actually look at the history behind the "Holomdor" you'll find that all of the history suggesting it occurred originated in Nazi Germany. From there, it was adopted by fascist sympathizers at Harvard and latter became part of the wrote of anti-Communist propaganda. The fact of the matter is that Easter Europe, in its entirety was plunged into a famine with diverse causes. All evidence suggests that a combination of climactic causes and an infectious fungus caused famine all over Eastern Europe. Secondly, the death tolls in Ukraine are statistically ridiculous. The sloppiness is embarrassing in terms of the actual historical argument. For instance, the people calculating the death toll simply calculated the population of Ukraine from census sources and then calculated the projected population after the "Holomdor" and took the difference. What this fails to recognize is that population growth changes during a famine! And even more ridiculously, that an entire section of Ukraine had been ceded over to RUSSIA!!! So there's three million odd "casualties" of the "Holomdor" right there. They weren't tabulated in the second census because they weren't in the Ukraine anymore!
Source. (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node68.html#SECTION00800000000000000000)
And also here. (http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/lies.html#The%20myth)

[Grunt]

Well it's a fairly loaded question.
Exactly. And thats why I am actually too scared to post my opinion
here - for fear that some comrades might think I am a revisionist
or even counter-revolutionary, which I am not.

However: I have a very hard time believing that all figures
regarding Stalin's death-toll (and there is actually a rough
consensus) come from revisionist and/or counter-revolutionary
sources...

No offense !

[Dros]

However: I have a very hard time believing that all figures
regarding Stalin's death-toll (and there is actually a rough
consensus) come from revisionist and/or counter-revolutionary
sources...

Look at the actual statistics. Not their claimed death toll. That statistic, no matter how wide ranging, is totally baseless especially when it comes to the issue of the "Holomodor".

[Grunt]

Look at the actual statistics. Not their claimed death toll. That statistic, no matter how wide ranging, is totally baseless especially when it comes to the issue of the "Holomodor".
Really ? All statistic baseless ?

All the statistics of the demographers and historians regarding The
Ukrainian famine of 1933 are baseless ?

Surely there must have been demographers/historians who were/are
not biased - am I wrong ?

[Dros]

Really ? All statistic baseless ?

All the statistics of the demographers and historians regarding The
Ukrainian famine of 1933 are baseless ?

Surely there must have been demographers/historians who were/are
not biased - am I wrong ?

I didn't say that all statistics are baseless. I said that the statistics claiming that there was an engineered famine in the Ukraine and that millions of people were murdered are all derived from sources linked to Ukrainian emigrant fascists and German National Socialists. Is it really hard to believe that sources about the USSR from the US and Germany during the Cold War and World War II are unreliable.

I've been presenting you with facts. Look it up. Where did this history start? "Muss Russland Hungern" is where it started. A book written by and for the Nazis. All you have presented is a question. "Really?" Look at facts. Do an investigation. Then come back and if you've found me to be in error, speak up and provide an argument that I can address.

[Grunt]

Is it really hard to believe that sources about the USSR from the US and Germany during the Cold War and World War II are unreliable.
No - it certainly isn't !



I've been presenting you with facts. Look it up.
I will !



All you have presented is a question. "Really?"
I am sorry for that. But you know much, much more than
I do. I didn't mean to offend you !



Look at facts. Do an investigation. Then come back and if you've found me to be in error, speak up and provide an argument that I can address.

Yes - I will do so. Right now (since I am new and a beginner) my
reading list is growing dramatically... :(

Perhaps I should simply shut up.

[Ghaile]

Bill Bland?
Ludo Martens?

There's plenty of good and informative sources defending Stalin, no one should condemn him outright just to capitulate to a perceived bourgeois politico-social norm.

I think he was a fine Marxist-Leninist and a great Class Warrior.

[Grunt]

I think he was a fine Marxist-Leninist and a great Class Warrior.
Trotzky didn't think so. (see "Revolution Betrayed")

I am afraid that you consider all the other sources as
bourgeois, counterrevolutionary or revisionist.

No offense intended !

[dirtycommiebastard]

I'm afraid quoting Trotsky on this forum to the 'anti-revisionists' is useless.

They hold the line that Trotsky was a class traitor, and was not a real Marxist.

These types of arguments are useless, and lead nowhere other than petty bickering, but if you wish to continue, be my guests.

[Grunt]

I'm afraid quoting Trotsky on this forum to the 'anti-revisionists' is useless.

They hold the line that Trotsky was a class traitor, and was not a real Marxist.
Oh boy ! :(




These types of arguments are useless, and lead nowhere other than petty bickering, but if you wish to continue, be my guests.
Yepp - in that case - I will stop 'bickering' (had to look that one up...).