Stalinist Views

[union6]

Hi, first of all can only people who defend Stalin or class them selves as Stalinists respond to this please, as I don’t want a load of anti-Stalin arguments as I have herd them all before and its not why I’m doing this thread.
I am doing this thread because I want to understand and learn why you are Stalinists and how you justify what he did/what was a result of what he did.
Thanks,

[Dros]

Certainly:)

Just to clear up a few things before I start. People who defend Stalin don't usually call themselves Stalinists. This is a term developed by Trotskyists and bourgeois democrats. The correct term is anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist.

Secondly, people who uphold Stalin are not necessarily uncritical of him. Maoists like myself support Stalin but with an acknowledgment of his many errors.

Alright! Let's begin.

Firstly, most Marxist-Leninists would contest the version of history that's been handed down as fact for the past seventy years. Remember, this history is from the US during the Cold War and is therefore completely biased. Some of it is even misinformation that Hitler spread during WWII to discredit the USSR and try and split the alliance (this isn't a conspiracy theory in that it is easily demonstrable with a little research;)).

Secondly, we "Stalinists" look at the history of the USSR during this period and understand it in terms of Marx's historical materialism. The USSR during this period was totally alone. It was the only state to be objectively socialist in the world and it was surrounded on the outside by bourgeois democratic and fascist states that were either openly or secretly hostile. At home, the new government was beset by counter revolutionary forces trying to subvert the new proletarian state. These forces, both within and outside of the government included Bukharin's right opposition, kulak militias and influence, reactionary peasant sabotage, anarchism, the "Left" Opposition (which was in fact very much a right opposition within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union), bourgeois whites, fascists, and others. While it's hard to appreciate this now, the USSR was in grave danger of being overthrown during this period. This is the reason why we support some of the political suppression. It was most definitely necessary to suppress rightist elements, even when those elements took the form of revolutionary elemensts like the Kronstadt sailors. However, Stalin made numerous mistakes during this period. There are two explanations for this. Firstly, Stalin never had a good grasp of dialectics and maintained a rather mechanical outlook, probably derived from his religious education early in life. This caused him to approach problems rather rigidly instead of dialectically. Secondly, there had been no previous experience at building a socialist state! Stalin was doing this for the first time in human history. He was bound to make mistakes in that situation. But these mistakes are almost always over stated. Stalin did not kill seventy million people. Those statistics are at best ridiculously lazy and at worst blatant lies. You can look at the studies. These conclusions are simply not supported. Certainly people were killed and imprisoned in Gulags (which means a large rural prison by the way, not a concentration camp) but the numbers are often inflated. And certainly, political suppression of counterrevolutionaries is necessary but not always to the extent Stalin did it. But you can see why these things happened: because of Stalin's mechanical thinking, and especially towards the end of his life, political opponents and counter revolutionaries were automatically suppressed instead of tackling the problem dialectically and going after the fundamental contradictions in society and suppressing only those who needed to be suppressed and argumentatively engaging those who simply had alternate points of view.

Then there's the issue of the economy. Stalin gained control of a backward country trapped in feudal production relations. Surrounded on all sides by enemies and ridden with backwards ideology and social relations at home, Stalin was confronted with several pressing problems. How do we increase food production and collectivize agriculture? How do we industrialize rapidly enough? How are we going to avoid getting crushed by Germany?
Stalin was able to answer these questions and more. Stalin built the USSR's industry up from pre-industrial conditions to become a world super power in less than twenty years. Often it is claimed that this was done "on the backs of the workers" but as I'll show in a moment nothing could be further from the truth. In the country, Stalin collectivized agriculture. While many peasants were unhappy with this policy, for the first time in a century, the rich class of kulak peasants didn't dominate Russian agricultural or rural life. In the face of militant resistance from the Kulaks, Stalin managed to collectivize Russian agriculture and industrialize industry with shocking speed. These accomplishments were not solely economic, either. These had real benefits for workers. For the first time, people in Russia had access to first class education, including women, who hadn't had much access at all previously. Great advances in healthcare and in social services came out of this period of time. Major and historic advances in terms of social relations, gender relations, and science were made during this time. Stalin built the first socialist society the world had ever seen.

Lastly, Marxist-Leninists support Stalin because of his theoretical contributions to Scientific Socialism. Mainly, his advancement of the theory of Socialism in one country in opposition to Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution, represents a really important synthesis for the Communist movement. Stalin recognized that uneven development in the capitalist world means that the socialist revolution doesn't happen all at once and that this uneven development allows for socialism to be built in one country alone. Secondly, the notion of aggravated class struggle under socialism would latter be elaborated on by Mao Zedong. Also, Stalin's "Marxism on the National Question" is quite relevant. However, he also made many theoretical errors like the theory of non-antagonistic classes that was latter critiqued by Mao.

[Sand Castle]

The USSR during this period was totally alone. It was the only state to be objectively socialist in the world and it was surrounded on the outside by bourgeois democratic and fascist states that were either openly or secretly hostile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_People%27s_Republic

Please tell me the anti-revisionist point of view about what happened with Soviet POW's. It has been said that Stalin sent captured Soviet troops, once freed from the Axis, to the gulag. What do you have to say about that? I was told they were simply sent to holding camps for a few months because, given the circumstances, there was no way a non-traitor could survive a Nazi death camp and most Soviet troops fought to the death. Is this what anti-revisionists agree with?

Thank you. I'll be back on Sunday, so don't write me off as a troll. I apologize if I missed something.

[manic expression]

Here are some honest disagreements I have with Drosera's argument.



Firstly, most Marxist-Leninists would contest the version of history that's been handed down as fact for the past seventy years. Remember, this history is from the US during the Cold War and is therefore completely biased. Some of it is even misinformation that Hitler spread during WWII to discredit the USSR and try and split the alliance (this isn't a conspiracy theory in that it is easily demonstrable with a little research;)).

Secondly, we "Stalinists" look at the history of the USSR during this period and understand it in terms of Marx's historical materialism. The USSR during this period was totally alone. It was the only state to be objectively socialist in the world and it was surrounded on the outside by bourgeois democratic and fascist states that were either openly or secretly hostile. At home, the new government was beset by counter revolutionary forces trying to subvert the new proletarian state. These forces, both within and outside of the government included Bukharin's right opposition, kulak militias and influence, reactionary peasant sabotage, anarchism, the "Left" Opposition (which was in fact very much a right opposition within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union), bourgeois whites, fascists, and others. While it's hard to appreciate this now, the USSR was in grave danger of being overthrown during this period.

This isn't completely true. Sure, there were counterrevolutionary elements in the USSR, but almost all of them were based in the peasantry. The whites had been smashed and scattered to the five winds (thanks to Trotsky). On the other hand, your citation of dissent within the party is indicative of the Stalinist mindset. Democratic centralism, that is the tolerance of democratic discussion of party (and state) policy, must be protected, but the Stalinists restricted all such discussions. The Riukin Platform was suppressed, and anyone who had merely read it was denounced and demoted, the left opposition (which denounced the growing reliance upon the bureaucracy) was destroyed, Bukharin and his supporters were likewise pushed out of power by 1929. The entire party was brought to the heel of Stalin's line.

After collectivization had been reached in 1935, where are the enemies you are talking of? Facts have shown that there was no "Trotskyite" conspiracy or "terrorist centre". After Kirov's assassination, the entire Soviet system went into a meltdown. Enemies were imagined or created. Even worse, the purges were directed not only at communists but later at random individuals in shocking numbers. Bukharin, long since pushed from power, was executed, as were Zinoviev and Kamenev and others. Stalin was able, through the chaos of the purges, to fully eliminate an entire generation of Bolsheviks.


This is the reason why we support some of the political suppression. It was most definitely necessary to suppress rightist elements, even when those elements took the form of revolutionary elemensts like the Kronstadt sailors.

The Kronstadt sailors had mutinied in 1921, and thanks to quick action by Trotsky and Tukhachevsky (under directions by Lenin), the threat was quashed. This had NOTHING to do with what Stalin was doing 1925-1929, which eliminated anyone in the party who didn't agree with him, or what Stalin was doing in 1935-1939, which was presiding over massive murders and executions of political opponents and regular people (the Troikas were set up for this purpose).

Let me ask you: what "rightist elements" are you talking about? The whites were gone, the Kronstadt Sailors were gone, the kulaks were gone. This is what no Stalinist can answer beyond vague ideas of the imagined "Trotskyite conspiracy".


However, Stalin made numerous mistakes during this period. There are two explanations for this. Firstly, Stalin never had a good grasp of dialectics and maintained a rather mechanical outlook, probably derived from his religious education early in life.

Agreed.


Secondly, there had been no previous experience at building a socialist state!

This is also true.


Stalin was doing this for the first time in human history. He was bound to make mistakes in that situation. But these mistakes are almost always over stated. Stalin did not kill seventy million people. Those statistics are at best ridiculously lazy and at worst blatant lies. You can look at the studies. These conclusions are simply not supported. Certainly people were killed and imprisoned in Gulags (which means a large rural prison by the way, not a concentration camp) but the numbers are often inflated.

Yes, the numbers are almost always inflated by capitalist mouthpieces, but the numbers are still quite staggering. The directives from Moscow during the purges called for hundreds of thousands to be executed throughout the country. More than half (much more than half, IIRC) of the 1935 Congress of the Party was dead by 1940.


And certainly, political suppression of counterrevolutionaries is necessary but not always to the extent Stalin did it. But you can see why these things happened: because of Stalin's mechanical thinking, and especially towards the end of his life, political opponents and counter revolutionaries were automatically suppressed instead of tackling the problem dialectically and going after the fundamental contradictions in society and suppressing only those who needed to be suppressed and argumentatively engaging those who simply had alternate points of view.

The point is that Stalin almost never argumentatively engaged anyone. He used slander and suppression against left oppositionists, the Riukin Platform, Bukharin and his supporters, Lenin's Testament and many other valid (not counterrevolutionary) positions and tendencies.


Then there's the issue of the economy. Stalin gained control of a backward country trapped in feudal production relations. Surrounded on all sides by enemies and ridden with backwards ideology and social relations at home, Stalin was confronted with several pressing problems. How do we increase food production and collectivize agriculture? How do we industrialize rapidly enough? How are we going to avoid getting crushed by Germany?
Stalin was able to answer these questions and more. Stalin built the USSR's industry up from pre-industrial conditions to become a world super power in less than twenty years. Often it is claimed that this was done "on the backs of the workers" but as I'll show in a moment nothing could be further from the truth. In the country, Stalin collectivized agriculture. While many peasants were unhappy with this policy, for the first time in a century, the rich class of kulak peasants didn't dominate Russian agricultural or rural life. In the face of militant resistance from the Kulaks, Stalin managed to collectivize Russian agriculture and industrialize industry with shocking speed. These accomplishments were not solely economic, either. These had real benefits for workers. For the first time, people in Russia had access to first class education, including women, who hadn't had much access at all previously. Great advances in healthcare and in social services came out of this period of time. Major and historic advances in terms of social relations, gender relations, and science were made during this time. Stalin built the first socialist society the world had ever seen.

I wouldn't say Stalin answered those questions singlehandedly. Trotsky came up with the concept of the Five Year Plans (in addition to being the hero of the revolution), and Lenin ensured that the Soviet Union had a much-improved economy as a base for improvement. Furthermore, it was the work of millions of Soviet workers. If anything, Stalin's overemphasis on bureaucratic planning and his unrealistic goals slowed the industrialization process.

That being said, Stalin does deserve some credit for some things. The guy did have an iron will, and that helped with collectivization and in defeating the Nazis (he didn't flee Moscow and later allowed Zhukov to oversee most of the war). Stalin didn't lead an extravagant life (something you can't say for others like Kaganovich and Beria IIRC) and was committed to building socialism.


Lastly, Marxist-Leninists support Stalin because of his theoretical contributions to Scientific Socialism. Mainly, his advancement of the theory of Socialism in one country in opposition to Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution, represents a really important synthesis for the Communist movement. Stalin recognized that uneven development in the capitalist world means that the socialist revolution doesn't happen all at once and that this uneven development allows for socialism to be built in one country alone. Secondly, the notion of aggravated class struggle under socialism would latter be elaborated on by Mao Zedong. Also, Stalin's "Marxism on the National Question" is quite relevant. However, he also made many theoretical errors like the theory of non-antagonistic classes that was latter critiqued by Mao.

I don't think Socialism in One Country was a big contribution to Marxism. Stalin's writings on the national question are much more important and meaningful IMO (even though he was responsible for the Georgian Affair). That's another topic, however.

If anyone's interested, here are some interesting readings on Stalinism that I found a month ago:

http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/slovo/1989/socialism-failed.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/sacp/1990/slovo-critique.htm

"The Revolution Betrayed" by Trotsky is also very much worth a look.

[Dros]

Please tell me the anti-revisionist point of view about what happened with Soviet POW's. It has been said that Stalin sent captured Soviet troops, once freed from the Axis, to the gulag. What do you have to say about that? I was told they were simply sent to holding camps for a few months because, given the circumstances, there was no way a non-traitor could survive a Nazi death camp and most Soviet troops fought to the death. Is this what anti-revisionists agree with?

Thank you. I'll be back on Sunday, so don't write me off as a troll. I apologize if I missed something.

Could you give me the source? A lot of these things are rumors and distortions that were propagated during the Cold War with little or no basis in fact.

Of course, we do not condone that. :lol::lol::lol:


This isn't completely true. Sure, there were counterrevolutionary elements in the USSR, but almost all of them were based in the peasantry.

Some of it was, to be sure.


The whites had been smashed and scattered to the five winds (thanks to Trotsky).

Oh come on. The organized manifestation had been smashed. But there were still Whites in Finland and elsewhere and there were certainly still people with white leanings and white agents in the USSR.


On the other hand, your citation of dissent within the party is indicative of the Stalinist mindset. Democratic centralism, that is the tolerance of democratic discussion of party (and state) policy, must be protected, but the Stalinists restricted all such discussions.

For which Mao criticized Stalin.


the left opposition (which denounced the growing reliance upon the bureaucracy) was destroyed,

This was a GOOD thing.


Bukharin and his supporters were likewise pushed out of power by 1929.

Also a good thing.


After collectivization had been reached in 1935, where are the enemies you are talking of?

The reactionaries within the party that took over after Stalin's death, whites, fascists both foreign and domestic, the kulaks still had considerable influence in the country side, bourgeois democratic imperialists, etc.

I was using Kronstadt as an example for why it was acceptable and necessary to suppress reaction that took the form of revolutionary leftism.


Trotsky came up with the concept of the Five Year Plans (in addition to being the hero of the revolution)
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
And they accuse us of personality cultism.....


The point is that Stalin almost never argumentatively engaged anyone.

Something which Mao criticized him for.

Manic:

I'd love to continue this conversation with you further. If you'd like start a new thread or pm me or whatever. This is not the right thread for this conversation:


first of all can only people who defend Stalin or class them selves as Stalinists respond to this please, as I don’t want a load of anti-Stalin arguments as I have herd them all before and its not why I’m doing this thread.

[manic expression]

Manic:

I'd love to continue this conversation with you further. If you'd like start a new thread or pm me or whatever. This is not the right thread for this conversation:

Fair enough, although I was more responding to you than providing an answer for union6. We'll eventually come back to this point sometime in the future.

[union6]

o yea i didnt mind manic expression's reply as it was more questions than just plain argument. The main reason why i put that part: "first of all can only people who defend Stalin or class them selves as Stalinists respond to this please, as I don’t want a load of anti-Stalin arguments as I have herd them all before and its not why I’m doing this thread." was so the thread wouldnt have the old, "Stalin is a mass murderer Trotsky is the best blah blah blah" replys lol

but anyways, thanks drosera99 for your points, plus as you say you are a Maoist could you please give me your views on the great leap forword and the famine, as its hard to find opinions from people other than capitalist and anti-Mao

cheers

[Dros]

but anyways, thanks drosera99 for your points, plus as you say you are a Maoist could you please give me your views on the great leap forword and the famine, as its hard to find opinions from people other than capitalist and anti-Mao

The GLP had a lot of mistakes. A LOT of mistakes. And Mao recognized that and made a thorough self criticism. There were a lot of anti-scientific decisions that were made with regards to agricultural policy that contributed to the famine. In addition to these errors, there were erratic weather conditions that reduced crop yield, and what a lot of people don't recognize is, China actually produced enough grain during those years despite the poor policies and the weather. What caused the famine was that regional party officials exaggerated their total grain production so as to meet certain quotas. This meant that the China actually was exporting grain throughout the whole period of the GLF even when people were starving. This is because, they thought there was more grain then there actually was.

And again, when understanding the GLF, context is key. China had always had a food production problem. For thousands of years there have been famines in China! Ultimately, the Great Leap Forward ended those problems and allowed China to produce sufficient food in subsequent years! The GLF rapidly collectivized agriculture with the creation of literally thousands and thousands of communes in five years, boosting production of food. So, in that sense, the GLF was a great success.

[Sand Castle]

Could you give me the source? A lot of these things are rumors and distortions that were propagated during the Cold War with little or no basis in fact.

I'm just asking you for the Stalinist point of view on it. I can't believe you've never heard that propaganda before. It's on Wiki. It's on PBS. You must have heard it. How do you plan on disproving it, or did I already do that in my last post (go and look at it)?

MIM would answer me....
lol

[Dros]

I'm just asking you for the Stalinist point of view on it.

I question that it ever happened and if it did that would have been a big mistake and we are clearly not for it.


I can't believe you've never heard that propaganda before. It's on Wiki. It's on PBS. You must have heard it.

They say shit like that all the time. Usually, they talk about bigger issues then POWs. I stop listening to it after a while because most of it is baseless.


How do you plan on disproving it,

By looking at the source of the rumor (when you provide it), and seeing the basis for the history. If it's true, then I won't be disproving it!


or did I already do that in my last post (go and look at it)?

I have no idea what you're talking about.


MIM would answer me....

1.) I have answered you. I'm sorry you don't like the answer.
2.) They wouldn't because MIM doesn't exist.
3.) And if they did exist, their answer would be something ridiculous.

[Sand Castle]

By looking at the source of the rumor (when you provide it)

PBS and Wikipedia.


I have no idea what you're talking about.

I said, "I was told they were simply sent to holding camps for a few months because, given the circumstances, there was no way a non-traitor could survive a Nazi death camp and most Soviet troops fought to the death."




1.) I have answered you. I'm sorry you don't like the answer.
2.) They wouldn't because MIM doesn't exist.
3.) And if they did exist, there answer would be something ridiculous.

Haha
Cheers :lol:

[Dros]

PBS and Wikipedia.

Link?


I said, "I was told they were simply sent to holding camps for a few months because, given the circumstances, there was no way a non-traitor could survive a Nazi death camp and most Soviet troops fought to the death."

That could well be true. There was a real risk of sabotage and espionage.

[Sand Castle]

Link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#World_War_II.2C_1939.E2.80.931945

Tell me it's not true. :crying:

[Dros]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#World_War_II.2C_1939.E2.80.931945

Tell me it's not true. :crying:

I couldn't find it in that article. Please quote?

[union6]

The GLP had a lot of mistakes. A LOT of mistakes. And Mao recognized that and made a thorough self criticism. There were a lot of anti-scientific decisions that were made with regards to agricultural policy that contributed to the famine. In addition to these errors, there were erratic weather conditions that reduced crop yield, and what a lot of people don't recognize is, China actually produced enough grain during those years despite the poor policies and the weather. What caused the famine was that regional party officials exaggerated their total grain production so as to meet certain quotas. This meant that the China actually was exporting grain throughout the whole period of the GLF even when people were starving. This is because, they thought there was more grain then there actually was.

And again, when understanding the GLF, context is key. China had always had a food production problem. For thousands of years there have been famines in China! Ultimately, the Great Leap Forward ended those problems and allowed China to produce sufficient food in subsequent years! The GLF rapidly collectivized agriculture with the creation of literally thousands and thousands of communes in five years, boosting production of food. So, in that sense, the GLF was a great success.

ah right cheers. yea i heard that China has had many famines, and thats a good point, all through history you can find information about famines in China but then after the great leap forword there have been no famines.
But what did you mean by "regional party officials exaggerated their total grain production so as to meet certain quotas.This meant that the China actually was exporting grain throughout the whole period of the GLF even when people were starving. This is because, they thought there was more grain then there actually was." were the farms exagerating there production and so no one realised what was happaning??

[Dros]

ah right cheers. yea i heard that China has had many famines, and thats a good point, all through history you can find information about famines in China but then after the great leap forword there have been no famines.
But what did you mean by "regional party officials exaggerated their total grain production so as to meet certain quotas.This meant that the China actually was exporting grain throughout the whole period of the GLF even when people were starving. This is because, they thought there was more grain then there actually was." were the farms exagerating there production and so no one realised what was happaning??

Yes. Basically, the party set ambitious goals in terms of production quotas. Regional party officials who were rising through the ranks did not want to miss their quota so exaggerated the grain they had produced. This meant that the government thought there was more grain then there was and sent some of it away to trade with foreign nations. Because there was less than they thought, what happened was they weren't left with enough food even though they had been exporting food the whole time.

[Sand Castle]

I couldn't find it in that article. Please quote?
:glare:


The huge number of Russian troops taken prisoner in the first eighteen months of the war convinced Stalin that many of them must have been traitors who had deserted at the first opportunity. Any soldier who had been a prisoner was henceforth suspect … All such, whether generals, officers, or ordinary soldiers, were sent to special concentration camps where the NKVD investigated them … Twenty percent were sentenced to death or twenty-five years in camps; only 15 to 20 percent were allowed to return to their homes. The remainder were condemned to shorter sentences (five to ten years), to exile in Siberia, and forced labor — or were killed or died on the way home.

[Dros]

This claim is from a book by a man named Alan Buck:


Alan Louis Charles Bullock, Baron Bullock (13 December 1914 - 2 February 2004), was a British historian, who wrote an influential biography of Adolf Hitler and many other works.

The book is called "Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives".

That should tell you a bit about what kind of bullshit history this guy peddles. The book however appears to be out of print so a thorough investigation would be time consuming.

[union6]

Yes. Basically, the party set ambitious goals in terms of production quotas. Regional party officials who were rising through the ranks did not want to miss their quota so exaggerated the grain they had produced. This meant that the government thought there was more grain then there was and sent some of it away to trade with foreign nations. Because there was less than they thought, what happened was they weren't left with enough food even though they had been exporting food the whole time.

ah right cheers, lol so it doesn’t relay have anything to do with Mao more the people around him in official positions, i remember hearing somewhere that whenever Mao was visiting a cretin farm they used to put fake wheat plants along the track so if he looked out it would look as though the fields were full of new wheat

[Dros]

ah right cheers, lol so it doesn’t relay have anything to do with Mao more the people around him in official positions, i remember hearing somewhere that whenever Mao was visiting a cretin farm they used to put fake wheat plants along the track so if he looked out it would look as though the fields were full of new wheat

Mao also made many serious errors that he latter criticized himself for, including setting quotas in a way that scared lower level leadership. Mao did take responsibility for these errors because they were also his.

[union6]

yea, i noticed that while reading the little red book and i saw he had a lot of sections on 'Correcting Mistaken Ideas' and 'Critism and Self-Critism'