Stalins Reign [Archive]

30th June 2008, 06:59

30th June 2008, 07:01

personaly, he was kind of ok. i give him props for essentially starting the first Socialist state.
He didn't. In fact, he played only a very minor role in the revolution and the civil war. Only a year or two before Lenins death he was able to make great personal gains in his political career.

turquino

30th June 2008, 07:07

Very few communists who knew Stalin are still alive. :lol:

Unfortunately most of the history written on Stalin focuses on his individual psychology as if the history of the entire USSR in that period could be condensed into a single larger than life figure. Having said that, i think there were some aspects that all communists could agree were negative about 'Stalin'.

Mala Tha Testa

30th June 2008, 07:16

In fact, he played only a very minor role in the revolution and the civil war.
yeah i knew that.

Only a year or two before Lenins death he was able to make great personal gains in his political career
well yeah.

Yehuda Stern

30th June 2008, 09:44

Stalin is partially responsible for the destruction of the October revolution. It's wrong to analyze him on a personal level. He should be seen as the personification of the crystallizing bureaucratic ruling class which took power in the late 1930s. If you want more information I could recommend some works by Trotsky for you to read on this subject.

Dros

30th June 2008, 16:49

While Stalin made many mistakes during his time as General Secretary, he also managed to make some of the most significant and historic leaps for humanity broadly that have ever occurred.

Industrialization and collectivization in the USSR established for the first time a real socialist state under Stalin. He was able to massively increase things like education for the Proletariat and the peasantry who had received hardly any prior to this period, including education for women who had received none. He was able to improve healthcare, services, etc. He also miraculously it would seem was able to generate enough heavy industry to allow Stalin to defeat the Nazis in WWII.

Overwhelmingly, he was a positive influence.

Rawthentic

30th June 2008, 17:03

Also, as a side note, Stalin increased by a lot the proletarian membership in the CPSU.

Demogorgon

30th June 2008, 17:13

His Government was a brutal dictatorship that killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, it had people work long hours in poor conditions as wage slaves, it was too incompetent to stop the Ukrainian famine and of course there was that pact with Hitler.

Of course, let's be clear here, this wasn't all down to Stalin, he may have been a power hungry lunatic but he didn't personally kill people or whatever, it took a lot of people willing to go along with him, to help him into power and then kep him there for that to happen.

Dros

30th June 2008, 17:20

Demogorgon

30th June 2008, 17:33

I'd like to thank Demogorgon for representing the interests and views of the Bourgeoisie on RevLeft.

Okay, let's here which bits are bourgeoisie lies. I suppose you think that Stalin ran a democratic state with good working conditions and worker managed firms? Let's see some evidence.

OI OI OI

30th June 2008, 17:54

Stalin was the personification of the bureaucratic degeneration of the USSR .
Under Stalin the power of the workers councils diminished informally before the 30's and formally in 1936. So there was no Soviet democracy. Power went from above to below. May communists including Trotsky were purged from the party , exiled, killed, imprisoned.
The height of this Stalinist authoritarian rule were the Moscow trials which was the biggest comedy in history. Also the Stalinist policies regarding the peasants were criminal. Although Trotsky advocated the voluntary collectivization of the farms from 1923-1928 Stalin had a right wing position in favour of the kulaks. Seeing though the effects of his policies in 1929 with social unrests, questioning of the bureaucracy etc from the rank and file still opressed peasants he decided to take a sudden ultra-left turn which was extra-authoritarian. He sent the Red Army, kiled thousants of peasants and forced collectivization. The peasants before the Red Army arrived killed half of their cattle and sold it to the black market. So that resulted to the Holodomor where millions of people died from hunger. Also that resulted in a hatred of the peasants towards the workers and the bureaucracy and productivity thus remained low in all the following years until the collapse of the USSR.
Read the Revolution betrayed by Trotsky for a great Marxist analysis on the subject.
Also I would like to point out that we Trotskyists do not criticaly support Stalin as it was said before. We critically support the Soviet Union not the bureaucracy.

30th June 2008, 18:01

Stalin was the personification of the bureaucratic degeneration of the USSR .
Under Stalin the power of the workers councils diminished informally before the 30's and formally in 1936. So there was no Soviet democracy. Power went from above to below. May communists including Trotsky were purged from the party , exiled, killed, imprisoned.
The height of this Stalinist authoritarian rule were the Moscow trials which was the biggest comedy in history. Also the Stalinist policies regarding the peasants were criminal. Although Trotsky advocated the voluntary collectivization of the farms from 1923-1928 Stalin had a right wing position in favour of the kulaks. Seeing though the effects of his policies in 1929 with social unrests, questioning of the bureaucracy etc from the rank and file still opressed peasants he decided to take a sudden ultra-left turn which was extra-authoritarian. He sent the Red Army, kiled thousants of peasants and forced collectivization. The peasants before the Red Army arrived killed half of their cattle and sold it to the black market. So that resulted to the Holodomor where millions of people died from hunger. Also that resulted in a hatred of the peasants towards the workers and the bureaucracy and productivity thus remained low in all the following years until the collapse of the USSR.
Read the Revolution betrayed by Trotsky for a great Marxist analysis on the subject.

Seriously, I'm really impressed by your postings :)

Also I would like to point out that we Trotskyists do not criticaly support Stalin as it was said before. We critically support the Soviet Union not the bureaucracy.
Maybe I formulated it a bit vague, thanks for putting it more clearly.

Dros

1st July 2008, 02:42

Okay, let's here which bits are bourgeoisie lies. I suppose you think that Stalin ran a democratic state with good working conditions and worker managed firms? Let's see some evidence.

Read The Best Sons of the Fatherland and Stalin's Industrial Revolution.

Edit:

To OI/Q (and of course the OP):

No one has ever shown how Stalin represented a bureaucracy which, for the entire history of the USSR, was a subordinate structure that carried out the will of the CPSU and at no point exorcized any real political power. This argument was grounded in nothing when Trotsky made it and it's grounded in nothing now. Stalin wasn't at any point a bureaucrat. Stalin in no way represented the "interests" of the bureaucracy if we can speak of an administrative division having interests outside of its delegated task.

Periodic

1st July 2008, 03:23

Yes, i would LOVE to have some books/information about Trotsky!

trivas7

1st July 2008, 03:34

No one has ever shown how Stalin represented a bureaucracy which, for the entire history of the USSR, was a subordinate structure that carried out the will of the CPSU and at no point exorcized any real political power.

I have no idea what you're saying here. Oi oi oi said Stalin was the personification of bureaucracy and your response is that the CPSU exercised no political power?

OI OI OI

1st July 2008, 05:02

Yes, i would LOVE to have some books/information about Trotsky!

I recomended some at your other post. If you have difficulty finding Trotsky books order them online at amazon or any other reliable site.

Seriously, I'm really impressed by your postings

Thank you comrade. Your postings are as good .

Dros

1st July 2008, 06:08

I have no idea what you're saying here. Oi oi oi said Stalin was the personification of bureaucracy and your response is that the CPSU exercised no political power?

Quite the opposite. I'm saying that the bureaucracy had no power and that it was a tool of the CPSU which did exorcise power.

bezdomni

1st July 2008, 06:15

Stalin was the personification of bureaucracy Sorry, but historical materialism rests upon the notion that society is divided into classes, and that the state exists as a tool for one class to suppress the other through the control of violence and ownership over the means of production. I anticipate a response by somebody who holds this "stalinism is bureaucracy owning the state and means of production" dogmatism explaining how this idealist notion of the state is in fact consistent with historical materialism.

Bureaucracies are a segment of the government, and as such they will either fundamentally represent the interests of the proletariat or the bourgeoisie. A bureaucracy simply cannot have state power by itself, that entire concept is absurd.

OI OI OI

1st July 2008, 06:15

I'm saying that the bureaucracy had no power and that it was a tool of the CPSU which did exorcise power

If that was true then the USSR would not have collapsed due to the bureaucracy "sellling out" the nationalized planned economy in order to serve their interests , since the overwhelming majority of the members of the CPSU (rank and file members) did not want to return to capitalism(80% according to some polls ) . So clearly this example demonstrates that the bureaucracy was not a tool of the CPSU. It was probably the opposite

OI OI OI

1st July 2008, 06:22

Sorry, but historical materialism rests upon the notion that society is divided into classes, and that the state exists as a tool for one class to suppress the other through the control of violence and ownership over the means of production. I anticipate a response by somebody who holds this "stalinism is bureaucracy owning the state and means of production" dogmatism explaining how this idealist notion of the state is in fact consistent with historical materialism.

The bureaucracy did not hold the means of production. That is why the Soviet Union was a degenerated workers state . The means of production were nationalized and that is something progressive.
The bureaucracy was not a class . It was a strata or caste of bureaucrats who exercised political control over the masses ( your class is determined by your relationship to the means of production and since the bureaucrats did not own the means of production they were not as special class).
The use of historical materialism cannot negate the fact that the bureaucracy had political control over the masses through the use of violence oftenly (see Purges etc).
If I have not understood your post correctly then please correct me .

bezdomni

1st July 2008, 06:31

If that was true then the USSR would not have collapsed due to the bureaucracy
How did the USSR collapse "due to bureaucracy"?

If countries could collapse due to bureaucracy, I would actually be a much happier "stalinist" because it would mean the U.S. would have collapsed ages ago.

since the overwhelming majority of the members of the CPSU (rank and file members) did not want to return to capitalism(80% according to some polls ) .
This isn't even consistent with the Trotskyist line. A bureaucracy "having state and economic power" is not the same thing as a regression to capitalism. Trotsky's criticism of the USSR was not that Stalin and the bureaucracy that he "represented" restored capitalism but that it was a type of deformed socialism.

Although I would be interested if you could explain how a bureaucrat in a socialist society is also a capitalist. Socialism has to have *some* bureaucracy, otherwise how would taxes be filed or state resources allocated?

I'd also like to know where you got your "80% of members of the CPSU were against returning to capitalism" statistic....not because of the number you cited, but because the concept itself is hilarious.

. So clearly this example demonstrates that the bureaucracy was not a tool of the CPSU. It was probably the opposite
If the party (lead by Stalin) and the bureaucracy had antithetical interests, then why do you blame Stalin for bureacratization and the restoration of capitalism?

I will admit that the deep flaws in Stalin's epistemology (and Marxist epistemology in general at the time, much of which lingers even today) led partially to the restoration of capitalism by Khruschev and the revisionists in teh 1960s, but to say that Stalin represented "deformed socialism" is idealist and to say that Stalin was a capitalist roader is outright anti-communist.

OI OI OI

1st July 2008, 07:00

How did the USSR collapse "due to bureaucracy"?

Well the ruling caste of bureaucrats sold out socialism in order to serve their own interests. It was ex-KGB members and ex-leading members of the CP who came in the forefront of Russia after the USSR's collapse , either as politicians or rich capitalists(or both!).

If countries could collapse due to bureaucracy, I would actually be a much happier "stalinist" because it would mean the U.S. would have collapsed ages ago.

The bureaucracy of a capitalist nation has the same interests as the ruling class(sometimes they are congruent) . The bureaucratic caste of a degenerated workers state is more likely to want capitalist restoration as they can use their advantageous position compared to the rest of the people in order to assume the ownership of the means of production and other high posts. The bureaucracy of a capitalist country knows that it will be one of the first to lose its privileges in a socialist revolution.

This isn't even consistent with the Trotskyist line. A bureaucracy "having state and economic power" is not the same thing as a regression to capitalism
I never said that . You ll se below what I meant

Trotsky's criticism of the USSR was not that Stalin and the bureaucracy that he "represented" restored capitalism but that it was a type of deformed socialism.

I know that and I expressed it in my previous posts. Although this bureaucracy according to Trotsky would restore capitalism in order to serve its own interests if there was no political revolution in the meantime in order for the workers to democraticaly control the USSR. So I think I am 100% consistent with Trotsky.

Although I would be interested if you could explain how a bureaucrat in a socialist society is also a capitalist

I never said that. Please read my posts more carefuly.

Socialism has to have *some* bureaucracy, otherwise how would taxes be filed or state resources allocated?

Yes but the bureaucracy needs to be democraticaly elected by the people and to be instantly recallable. Also a thing even more important is that the bureaucratic tasks must be rotational. If everyone becomes a bureaucrat then no one is a bureaucrat as Engels said. And all that was in the Program of the Bolsheviks initialy.

I'd also like to know where you got your "80% of members of the CPSU were against returning to capitalism" statistic....not because of the number you cited, but because the concept itself is hilarious

Yes I was mistaken . It was a poll on the population of the USSR not the CPSU. Thank you for pointing that out. My apologies. This statistic was given to me when I was a member of the CPC (Yes I was a Stalinist back then!). So maybe it is just propaganda. I think that it is probably true though as it is very realistic.

If the party (lead by Stalin) and the bureaucracy had antithetical interests

I never said that Stalin had the same interests as the rank and file of the party and the true Bolsheviks and I never said that Stalin had antithetical interests with the bureaucracy. Stalin and the bureaucracy controled the party in a bureaucratic manner not a democratic.

then why do you blame Stalin for bureacratization and the restoration of capitalism?

Because Stalin helped the rise of the bureaucracy and the bureaucracy restored capitalism!

I will admit that the deep flaws in Stalin's epistemology (and Marxist epistemology in general at the time, much of which lingers even today) led partially to the restoration of capitalism
Not just partialy?

by Khruschev and the revisionists in teh 1960s, but to say that Stalin represented "deformed socialism" is idealist and to say that Stalin was a capitalist roader is outright anti-communist.
How did Krutchev restore capitalism? The means of production under Krutchev were still nationalized and the economy was nationalized and planned so it was still a degenerated workers state. The USSR was a degenerated socialist state bvecause although the economy was nationalized and planned the planning was not democratic , there was no democratic workers control and the bureaucracy exercised power over the masses and not the other way around. So how is that concept idealist? And how is it anti communist to think that the bureaucracy established by Stalin led to the restoration of capitalism? Anti-Communist is to not aknowledge historical facts and be an apologists of failed theories and states.

I am aware that this debate can go on for ever but I am willing to respond to anything new.
Anyways it is good for me to polish my arguing skills with a Stalinist(Haven't done that for a while) . Since I am going to bed now I will respond tomorrow if I have time . Good night

Demogorgon

1st July 2008, 08:21

Read The Best Sons of the Fatherland and Stalin's Industrial Revolution.

Not good enough. I want you to demonstrate how Stalin was not a Dictator. That means you must give examples of opposition figures who were able to speak out freely and of elections in the Soviet Union that did not go Stalin's way.

Pogue

1st July 2008, 09:05

I'd like to thank Demogorgon for representing the interests and views of the Bourgeoisie on RevLeft.

What makes you think its relevant or important to anyone when you label someone 'bourgeoisie' or 'reactionary'? Those words have just become meaningless overused insults to denounce anyone who doesn't share you excact ideology, and it never accomplishes anything.

Dros

1st July 2008, 17:50

What makes you think its relevant or important to anyone when you label someone 'bourgeoisie' or 'reactionary'? Those words have just become meaningless overused insults to denounce anyone who doesn't share you excact ideology, and it never accomplishes anything.

You are completely wrong. Reaction and bourgeois outlooks are things that continue to plague the left. And when liberals like Demogorgon put those foreword as "revolutionary leftist" ideas, they should be opposed staunchly.

To Demogorgon:

1.) Read the book.

2.) You are once again confusing me for a Hoxhaist, which I'm not. During Stalin's latter life, he made many grevious mistakes such as mitigating party democracy and executing opposition figures. Those were serious and sometimes truly horrible errors. But you have taken a totally liberal and anti-materialist perspective on why this happened. You have completely failed to evaluate what contradictions Stalin was trying to deal with and what philosophical and methodological errors played a role in these mistakes. You have also failed to look at and evaluate what Stalin did for the revolutionary movement in Russia and also world wide (he made mistakes but he also made great leaps).

Pogue

1st July 2008, 18:06

I was more asking why you throw the terms around so much, like how you described me as reactionary. I don't understand why I'm 'reactionary'. I doubt even you do.

Demogorgon

1st July 2008, 18:17

Y
2.) You are once again confusing me for a Hoxhaist, which I'm not. During Stalin's latter life, he made many grevious mistakes such as mitigating party democracy and executing opposition figures. Those were serious and sometimes truly horrible errors. But you have taken a totally liberal and anti-materialist perspective on why this happened. You have completely failed to evaluate what contradictions Stalin was trying to deal with and what philosophical and methodological errors played a role in these mistakes. You have also failed to look at and evaluate what Stalin did for the revolutionary movement in Russia and also world wide (he made mistakes but he also made great leaps).

I'm the one not being a materialist!?:laugh:

Philosophical errors? The executions were largely about power struggles, not about philosophical errors.

Now come on, you have denied that Stalin was an out and out Dictator, for at least part of his reign, so let's get some solid examples of elections in the Soviet Union not going his way.

Psy

1st July 2008, 20:19

2.) You are once again confusing me for a Hoxhaist, which I'm not. During Stalin's latter life, he made many grevious mistakes such as mitigating party democracy and executing opposition figures. Those were serious and sometimes truly horrible errors. But you have taken a totally liberal and anti-materialist perspective on why this happened. You have completely failed to evaluate what contradictions Stalin was trying to deal with and what philosophical and methodological errors played a role in these mistakes. You have also failed to look at and evaluate what Stalin did for the revolutionary movement in Russia and also world wide (he made mistakes but he also made great leaps).

Lets see: Stalin created pseudo history to create a personality cult around himself and reduced the measurement of the success into Russia simply catching up with the capitalist nations. Yet this was nothing new, Peter the Great focus was on Russia catching up with the other imperialist powers in other words Stalin did great things for Russia but very little for the revolutionary movement.

Demogorgon

1st July 2008, 21:39

Lets see: Stalin created pseudo history to create a personality cult around himself and reduced the measurement of the success into Russia simply catching up with the capitalist nations. Yet this was nothing new, Peter the Great focus was on Russia catching up with the other imperialist powers in other words Stalin did great things for Russia but very little for the revolutionary movement.
Bourgeoisie lies!

Yeah, I agree. What Stalin did was essentially co-ordinate vast industrial improvement, but this had little to do with socialism and came at the price of extraordinary human cost, not least in the conditions people had to work in, and the number of hours they had to work.

The creation of a fairly impressive welfare state notwithstanding, Stalin was really nothing more than another Russian strongman leader who strengthened his country, but often at he expense of those living in it.

Dros

1st July 2008, 21:40

Philosophical errors? The executions were largely about power struggles, not about philosophical errors.

Stalin's poor understanding of dialectics led him to approach problems with a rather mechanical, pragmatic, and anti-dialectical methodology. This is what is ultimately behind many of the errors. Which power struggles are you referring to? Certainly there were power struggles between the Bourgeoisie (and people taking a bourgeois line within the party) and the Proletariat and people taking a revolutionary line. Was Stalin wrong to fight those struggles? No. The errors that were made were a result of a methodology that was wrong.

Now come on, you have denied that Stalin was an out and out Dictator, for at least part of his reign, so let's get some solid examples of elections in the Soviet Union not going his way.

Now you have embraced a liberal definition of dictatorship. Why don't you just stop pretending to be a Marxist altogether?

I've already explained to you that I'm not a Hoxhaist. Your argument is premised upon assumptions that are not part of how the Soviet Government worked. That government was highly flawed and this led to a bourgeois take over in 1953. The problem with your argument is that it is grounded in liberalism and not materialism. I've already explained why it is irrelevant.

I was more asking why you throw the terms around so much, like how you described me as reactionary. I don't understand why I'm 'reactionary'. I doubt even you do.

Because there are a large number of reactionaries. If I remember correctly, I said you were being reactionary for regurgitating bourgeois propagandistic versions of history (even more so than Demogorgon here). That is reactionary because it promotes an image and a conception of history that is not grounded in fact but in propaganda.

Stalin created pseudo history to create a personality cult around himself

Stalin criticized people for developing the cult of personality around him on several occasions. You would know that if you payed attention.

and reduced the measurement of the success into Russia simply catching up with the capitalist nations.

Yeah. Your right. Developing the means of production and industrializing backwards countries is totally nonessential for the success of socialism, especially a lone socialist state that is surrounded by advanced bourgeois-democratic and fascist enemy states with vastly superior industry and military ability. Instead of industrializing, Stalin should simply have sat on his hands and allowed Hitler to win WWII.:rolleyes:

You're an idiot. But then again, we already knew that.

Demogorgon

1st July 2008, 22:20

Stalin's poor understanding of dialectics led him to approach problems with a rather mechanical, pragmatic, and anti-dialectical methodology. This is what is ultimately behind many of the errors. Which power struggles are you referring to? Certainly there were power struggles between the Bourgeoisie (and people taking a bourgeois line within the party) and the Proletariat and people taking a revolutionary line. Was Stalin wrong to fight those struggles? No. The errors that were made were a result of a methodology that was wrong.

Oh here we go, Dialectical crap. Stalin failed because he had the wrong ideas in his head, not because of material conditions

Which one of us is not a materialist again?

Now you have embraced a liberal definition of dictatorship. Why don't you just stop pretending to be a Marxist altogether?So claiming that a regime that does not tolerate dissent is a dictatorship is now a liberal argument, is it? Look if Stalin was not a Dictator there would have been instances of people voting him down and choosing a course of action different from the one he directed. Give us an example.

I've already explained to you that I'm not a Hoxhaist. Your argument is premised upon assumptions that are not part of how the Soviet Government worked. That government was highly flawed and this led to a bourgeois take over in 1953. The problem with your argument is that it is grounded in liberalism and not materialism. I've already explained why it is irrelevant.

I am not saying you are a Hoxhaist, just a totalitarian idealist. Which is a pretty minor difference to be sure, but nonetheless I did not say you were a Hoxhaist.

Now why don't you try to show us where the liberalism in my argument is. Allow me to give you a few pointers first though

1. Materialism is not about refusing to accept history

2. Materialism is not about claiming that the ideas of leaders trump material conditions

3. Materialism is not about claiming that states that tolerate no dissent are democratic.

Bearing those in mind, kindly explain your wisdom to us.

Kurt Crover

1st July 2008, 22:26

I think Stalin of course had his bad points like any leader but his repulsion of the German Army took some balls. And he took Berlin from Hitler.

Demogorgon

1st July 2008, 22:30

I think Stalin of course had his bad points like any leader but his repulsion of the German Army took some balls. And he took Berlin from Hitler.

He was down their fighting with his soldiers?

No-one can deny the heroic efforts of the Red Army, that is for sure, but Stalin should not be credited. This is the man who made a pact with Hitler only a few years earlier, if he had had his way Hitler would have been able to do as he pleased in the West.

Psy

1st July 2008, 22:43

Stalin criticized people for developing the cult of personality around him on several occasions. You would know that if you payed attention.

I meant Stalin doctored history (thus creating a pseudo history) to create a personality cult around him. Stalin didn't criticize himself for ordering Trotsky be removed Russia's historical archives and ordering the creation false historical documents that created a false image of Stalin's role during the Russian Revolution.

Yeah. Your right. Developing the means of production and industrializing backwards countries is totally nonessential for the success of socialism, especially a lone socialist state that is surrounded by advanced bourgeois-democratic and fascist enemy states with vastly superior industry and military ability. Instead of industrializing, Stalin should simply have sat on his hands and allowed Hitler to win WWII.:rolleyes:

You're an idiot. But then again, we already knew that.
Look were that strategy ended, with the USSR isolated from even its own own work as the USSR was still exploiting the workers in order to compete with capitalist nations. Instead of trying to sabotage capitalism by rallying the international proletariat Stalin was trying to win by playing by the capitalists' rules.

Kurt Crover

1st July 2008, 22:45

He was down their fighting with his soldiers?

No-one can deny the heroic efforts of the Red Army, that is for sure, but Stalin should not be credited. This is the man who made a pact with Hitler only a few years earlier, if he had had his way Hitler would have been able to do as he pleased in the West.

Because the West refused to deal with him. And Hitler was always going to invade Russia anyway, he even said so in Mein Kampf, about living space for Germans in the East. The only thing the Nazi-Soviet Pact did was that it bought time. And at least Stalin didn't flee and hide in a bunker like Hitler did.

Psy

1st July 2008, 22:46

He was down their fighting with his soldiers?

No-one can deny the heroic efforts of the Red Army, that is for sure, but Stalin should not be credited. This is the man who made a pact with Hitler only a few years earlier, if he had had his way Hitler would have been able to do as he pleased in the West.

The pact was simply a non-aggression pact with a agreement on spear of influences. But yhea Stalin was no Trotsky or Ernesto Guevara leading troops on the battlefield.

Yehuda Stern

1st July 2008, 22:48

Nor was 'Che' a Trotsky, or a Lenin, or a Marxist. But that's just details and I'm obviously being petty.

Led Zeppelin

1st July 2008, 22:51

Nor was 'Che' a Trotsky, or a Lenin, or a Marxist. But that's just details and I'm obviously being petty.

Holy shit dude the intense, blinding glare of your sectarianism is hurting my eyes!

I need to put on sunglasses: :thumbup1:

Herman

1st July 2008, 22:56

Holy shit dude the intense, blinding glare of your sectarianism is hurting my eyes!

They won't work. It's so bright that it burns your eyes, even through sunglasses.

Dros

2nd July 2008, 01:11

I meant Stalin doctored history (thus creating a pseudo history) to create a personality cult around him. Stalin didn't criticize himself for ordering Trotsky be removed Russia's historical archives and ordering the creation false historical documents that created a false image of Stalin's role during the Russian Revolution.

I've made it very clear in this thread and in several others about Stalin's doctoring history that those were major errors that were reflective of several methodological issues and problems with Stalin's outlook.

Look were that strategy ended, with the USSR isolated from even its own own work as the USSR was still exploiting the workers in order to compete with capitalist nations. Instead of trying to sabotage capitalism by rallying the international proletariat Stalin was trying to win by playing by the capitalists' rules.

I'm glad you live in fairy land. You can't just subjectively disrupt foreign capitalism. There are these obnoxious thing called "material conditions" that keep interfering with your idealist/subjectivist schemes. I know they're frustrating, but you're going to have to learn to deal with them. Fortunately for millions of Europe's Jews, Slavs, and others, Stalin didn't share your dillusion. He had the foresight to realize that if the USSR was to survive, it would be necessary to industrialize, and rapidly. He did that. Again, I suggest you read Stalin's Industrial Revolution and Best Sons of the Fatherland as they specifically refute a lot of the bs about industrialization.

Oh here we go, Dialectical crap.

And you still call yourself a Marxist....:rolleyes::lol:

Stalin failed because he had the wrong ideas in his head, not because of material conditions

So now you've jumped from liberalism to vulgar materialism. How... opportunist of you. There's a dialectical relationship here. Stalin, being an individual with some power, had the ability to influence objective reality. Stalin also had a way of thinking about the world which shaped his actions. These ways of thinking were not adopted spontaneously but were in fact taken up by Stalin because of the objective realities in which he existed. Then, they in turn affected the objective reality because they conditioned Stalin's behavior. So, yes. I'm still the materialist.

So claiming that a regime that does not tolerate dissent is a dictatorship is now a liberal argument, is it? Look if Stalin was not a Dictator there would have been instances of people voting him down and choosing a course of action different from the one he directed. Give us an example.

You have embraced a liberal (opposed to a Marxist) understanding of "Dictatorship" and "Democracy".

I've already explained why Stalin silenced dissent and I've contextualized it. And then, I explained that I'm very critical of Stalin for these errors. That last bit is the part you seem to have trouble wrapping your head around.

I did not say you were a Hoxhaist.

You are still operating under the incredibly flawed assumption that I'm not critical of Stalin.

Now why don't you try to show us where the liberalism in my argument is.

Why don't you read the Communist Manifesto and write a 500 word essay on the Marxist notion of "Dicatorship".

1. Materialism is not about refusing to accept history

May I suggest that you stop then?

2. Materialism is not about claiming that the ideas of leaders trump material conditions

You're a vulgar materialist. Your claim is entirely anti-Marxist and negates the role of outlook or of individuals acting within the constraints of material reality.

3. Materialism is not about claiming that states that tolerate no dissent are democratic.

I wish this board had a policy of restricting liberals.

Psy

2nd July 2008, 02:14

I'm glad you live in fairy land. You can't just subjectively disrupt foreign capitalism. There are these obnoxious thing called "material conditions" that keep interfering with your idealist/subjectivist schemes. I know they're frustrating, but you're going to have to learn to deal with them. Fortunately for millions of Europe's Jews, Slavs, and others, Stalin didn't share your dillusion. He had the foresight to realize that if the USSR was to survive, it would be necessary to industrialize, and rapidly. He did that. Again, I suggest you read Stalin's Industrial Revolution and Best Sons of the Fatherland as they specifically refute a lot of the bs about industrialization.

Stalin only won because Hitler was a idiot, against a superior tactician leading Nazi Germany Stalin would have lost World War II. Most of Hitler forces was lost not by Stalin but by the terrain of Russia. Hell if Hitler didn't push West he could have gotten military aid from Britain, France and USA for his invasion of the USSR.

Meanwhile the insurgencies in Italy and Greece during World War proved very effective, imagine the insurgencies that would have existed during WWII if Stalin didn't abandon the goal of world revolution.

Comrade Rage

2nd July 2008, 02:25

Im sure this has been discussed before, but threw my searching of the site, i have failed to find one. :blushing:Odd, but oh well.

This (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html) will answer a lot of your questions. Even if you don't agree with it, at least you'll know where us anti-revisionists are coming from.

A bureaucracy simply cannot have state power by itself, that entire concept is absurd.THIS!

Stalin only won because Hitler was a idiotWell, you would know.:cool:

Meanwhile the insurgencies in Italy and Greece during World War proved very effective, imagine the insurgencies that would have existed during WWII if Stalin didn't abandon the goal of world revolution.
Comrade Stalin never abandoned the goal of world revolution. He merely recognized that you have to build socialism where you can.

It's that simple.

Dros

2nd July 2008, 02:31

Stalin only won because Hitler was a idiot, against a superior tactician leading Nazi Germany Stalin would have lost World War II.

Hitler made a few crucial errors in the way he prosecuted his campaign. But the biggest error, and indeed the one that proved to be his down fall, was that he underestimated the efficacy of the Red Army. Had industrialization not succeed and had the Red Army thus not been properly equipped, then the Wehrmacht would have torn through Russia with minimal casualties, the bulk of the German forces could have been redeployed, and Hitler would have won the war. Instead, Hitler underestimated the Red Army, leading him to under equip his troops, causing huge casualties for the German army.

Most of Hitler forces was lost not by Stalin but by the terrain of Russia. Hell if Hitler didn't push West he could have gotten military aid from Britain, France and USA for his invasion of the USSR.

Again, the only reason that the German forces were in a position to be so heavily effected by the weather was because the Red Army failed to quit like Hitler had expected it to.

Stalin didn't abandon the goal of world revolution.

Stalin didn't abandon this. This is the stupidest argument I've ever heard.

his is the man who made a pact with Hitler only a few years earlier

Right. So instead, Stalin should have declared war on Hitler, even though this would have resulted in millions of dead and huge damage to Soviet infrastructure.:rolleyes:

Stalin did what he could to protect the socialist state in the face of an enemy of vastly superior military power.

Psy

2nd July 2008, 02:42

Comrade Stalin never abandoned the goal of world revolution. He merely recognized that you have to build socialism where you can.

It's that simple.

What do you call disbanding the Communist International? Abandoning the revolutionary armies in Italy and Greece? Disarming revolutionary armies in Eastern Europe?

Psy

2nd July 2008, 02:56

Hitler made a few crucial errors in the way he prosecuted his campaign. But the biggest error, and indeed the one that proved to be his down fall, was that he underestimated the efficacy of the Red Army. Had industrialization not succeed and had the Red Army thus not been properly equipped, then the Luftwaffe would have torn through Russia with minimal casualties, the bulk of the German forces could have been redeployed, and Hitler would have won the war. Instead, Hitler underestimated the Red Army, leading him to under equip his troops, causing huge casualties for the German army.

Again, the only reason that the German forces were in a position to be so heavily effected by the weather was because the Red Army failed to quit like Hitler had expected it to.

Wrong, Hitler invasion of the USSR was one SNAFU after another. In the initial invasion the Nazi forces lost most of their equipment to mud, insurgence not under the command Stalin also caused huge problems as supplies held up by mud was also raided by insurgence. Farther south on more solid ground there was another SNAFU, the Germans didn't pack enough filters for their vehicles causing whole convoys having to wait on the side of roads for new filters from Germany that led to another SNAFU as they still didn't have enough filters causing causing supply lines to fall far behind of the advancing armies. As Winter came the biggest SNAFU in that the German troops didn't have proper winter gear and their equipment failed in the cold weather.

This proves Stalin was wrong, against a sane tactician all his built up would have been for nothing as Germany would have been able to decapitate the USSR, leaving insurgence that would be fighting with low tech weapons anyway.

spartan

2nd July 2008, 03:13

Right. So instead, Stalin should have declared war on Hitler, even though this would have resulted in millions of dead and huge damage to Soviet infrastructure.

Isnt this what happened anyway? (Minus Stalin declaring war of course)

Dros

2nd July 2008, 03:40

Wrong, Hitler invasion of the USSR was one SNAFU after another. In the initial invasion the Nazi forces lost most of their equipment to mud, insurgence not under the command Stalin also caused huge problems as supplies held up by mud was also raided by insurgence. Farther south on more solid ground there was another SNAFU, the Germans didn't pack enough filters for their vehicles causing whole convoys having to wait on the side of roads for new filters from Germany that led to another SNAFU as they still didn't have enough filters causing causing supply lines to fall far behind of the advancing armies. As Winter came the biggest SNAFU in that the German troops didn't have proper winter gear and their equipment failed in the cold weather.

Source please?

As the Germans advanced as much as twenty miles a day, the Red Army slowly began to reorganize in the face of the enemy. On June 30, Stalin appointed himself the head of the State Defense Committee, and assumed all political, military and economic power in the country. On July 10, the Russians also split their forces into a three-group command structure, designated Northwest, West and Southwest Forces. These were nothing like the Germans’ Army Groups, since their officers lacked the expertise or authority to direct large-scale operations. Each border military district was converted into a “front” which was the largest effective command the Russians could coordinate.

For the first time, the Russian people heard the voice of their leader. Stalin addressed the entire country on July 3. He welcomed aid from the West and proclaimed a scorched-earth policy, denying the Germans everything and calling for the Russians already under occupation to fight hard against the invaders. He also appealed not only to communist ideals but to Russian nationalism.

Throughout July and August, the Germans continued to advance. Army group North planned to launch their final drive for Leningrad on August 10. Army Group Center took its two panzer groups out of action for a refit on August 8 after capturing 138,000 prisoners in one week. Army Group South destroyed twenty Soviet divisions that were trying to escape across the Dnieper. On August 25, units from two Army Groups surrounded 665,000 Red Army soldiers who were 150 miles east of Kiev.

WWII Database (and bastion of anti-Communism).

This proves Stalin was wrong, against a sane tactician all his built up would have been for nothing as Germany would have been able to decapitate the USSR, leaving insurgence that would be fighting with low tech weapons anyway.

It proves nothing of the kind. For you to show that, you would have to show that 1.) these mistakes were made, 2.) that they were significant, 3.) that the absence of these mistakes would have led to the downfall of the Red Army, and 4.) that there was a tactically more feasible solution that Stalin could have employed.

Isnt this what happened anyway? (Minus Stalin declaring war of course)

Yes. The point I was making was that WWII was terrible for Russia and that it was something best prevented from the view point of the Russian people.

OI OI OI

2nd July 2008, 03:44

I like how nobody cares to read and reply on my post above!
Did Soviet Pants run away?

Psy

2nd July 2008, 04:22

Source please?

The BBC WWII documentary "Stalin and the betrayal of Leningrad"

WWII Database (and bastion of anti-Communism).

BBC uncovered Nazi army documents showing while the armies were rapidly advancing their support lines were falling farther and farther behind.

It proves nothing of the kind. For you to show that, you would have to show that 1.) these mistakes were made, 2.) that they were significant, 3.) that the absence of these mistakes would have led to the downfall of the Red Army, and 4.) that there was a tactically more feasible solution that Stalin could have employed.

1. The BBC WWII documentary "Stalin and the betrayal of Leningrad"
2. A army not properly supplied doesn't fight very effectively.
3. Even with these SNAFUs the Nazi came very close to decapitating the USSR.
4. The insurgence in Italy and Greece proved that low tech weapons with guerrilla tactics can crush imperialist armies. Nazi Germany in both Italy and Greece sent their best of divisions to crush the insurgencies and in both Italy and Greece in the end the Nazi troops unconditionally surrendered to the revolutionary armies (and the Italy army was totally broken and Mussolini executed by the Italian revolutionary army). Remember the Russian civil-war was turned around not by a large industrial base or fancy technology but by determination and tactics.

Dros

2nd July 2008, 07:15

The BBC WWII documentary "Stalin and the betrayal of Leningrad"

That's not a source. That's a movie.

BBC uncovered Nazi army documents showing while the armies were rapidly advancing their support lines were falling farther and farther behind.

Movie=/=source.

2. A army not properly supplied doesn't fight very effectively.

Which is why Stalin started industrializing in the first place!

3. Even with these SNAFUs the Nazi came very close to decapitating the USSR.

The Nazis also lost the most troops in Russia.

4. The insurgence in Italy and Greece proved that low tech weapons with guerrilla tactics can crush imperialist armies. Nazi Germany in both Italy and Greece sent their best of divisions to crush the insurgencies and in both Italy and Greece in the end the Nazi troops unconditionally surrendered to the revolutionary armies (and the Italy army was totally broken and Mussolini executed by the Italian revolutionary army). Remember the Russian civil-war was turned around not by a large industrial base or fancy technology but by determination and tactics.

Okay. So Stalin should have surrendered to the Germans and allowed them to take over Russia, kill thousands of Jews and Slavs, exterminate millions, reverse the historic advances of socialism, so that he could fight a guerilla war?:lol::lol::lol::lol:

I'm speechless.

You are the worst tactician I've ever seen! Guerilla warfare is not an end in and of itself. It is a tactic used when you don't have nearly enough military ability to defeat your enemy. The Red Army proved that it was able to hold its own against the Wehrmacht. Surrender based on a latter guerilla war is absurd, even laughable.:lol::lol::lol:

Demogorgon

2nd July 2008, 09:33

I wish this board had a policy of restricting liberals.
And I wish this board had a policy of restricting totalitarians. Particularly when they are idealists, but we can't win them all.

Now once again give us an example of workers deciding to do something contrary to what Stalin wanted and getting away with it. I don't know what version of the manifesto you have read, but it was evidently a special version that said that complete rule from the centre was compatible with worker's control. Nonetheless if there was worker control, give us a direct example.

RHIZOMES

2nd July 2008, 10:41

Holy shit dude the intense, blinding glare of your sectarianism is hurting my eyes!

I need to put on sunglasses: :thumbup1:

For once I agree with you. Everything I've read by this guy has reached heights of sectarianism I previously thought impossible. :lol:

Psy

2nd July 2008, 15:25

That's not a source. That's a movie.

Movie=/=source.

Most WWII documentaries talking about the battle of Leningrad talk about the Germans losing equipment to the mud.

Which is why Stalin started industrializing in the first place!

That would been for nothing if the Nazis were properly organized.

The Nazis also lost the most troops in Russia.

Again no proper winter equipment and supply lines bunching up in muck.

Okay. So Stalin should have surrendered to the Germans and allowed them to take over Russia, kill thousands of Jews and Slavs, exterminate millions, reverse the historic advances of socialism, so that he could fight a guerilla war?:lol::lol::lol::lol:

I'm speechless.

You are the worst tactician I've ever seen! Guerilla warfare is not an end in and of itself. It is a tactic used when you don't have nearly enough military ability to defeat your enemy. The Red Army proved that it was able to hold its own against the Wehrmacht. Surrender based on a latter guerilla war is absurd, even laughable.:lol::lol::lol:
No, arm insurgence in Nazi Germany, train and arm all citizens in the western part of the USSR, and focus on fighting support units by letting the Nazi army push the Red Army to their flanks (the German's were still using Blitzkrieg tactics, meaning large thrusts with huge flanks) then attacking their supply lines to starve the attacking armies of supplies.

manic expression

2nd July 2008, 18:28

Comrade Stalin never abandoned the goal of world revolution. He merely recognized that you have to build socialism where you can.

It's that simple.

If it is that simple, simply give us examples of Stalin pursuing world revolution. Was it when he pushed alliances with liberal capitalists in the Popular Front policy? Was it when he dissolved the Comintern? Was it when he used the American communists (among many others) as bargaining chips with the imperialists? Stalin did many things which were in direct opposition to world revolution.

drosera

You are the worst tactician I've ever seen! Guerilla warfare is not an end in and of itself. It is a tactic used when you don't have nearly enough military ability to defeat your enemy. The Red Army proved that it was able to hold its own against the Wehrmacht.Out of curiosity, how many tacticians have you seen? Few of us are actually trained in military strategy, so let's deal with history instead of alternative tactics. What made the Nazi invasion fail wasn't Stalin, it included a.) the Red Army's stand and counterattack at the gates of Moscow, b.) the Russian winter in 1941 and c.) the delay of the initial invasion by German involvement in the Balkans. Stalin's decisions were a mixed bag: he cost the Red Army dearly by refusing to let them retreat and by hamstringing Red Army generals (he did this less and less as Zhukov proved himself more than capable, whereas Hitler did this more and more as the war went on), on the other hand, the mass evacuation of industry to safer regions beyond the Urals was key in the Soviet Union's defeat of Germany.

Basically, Stalin did some things which brought the Soviet Union to the very brink of defeat, but he also a few things which eventually contributed to its victory. To be honest, the negatives of his decisions outweigh the positives, but that's debatable. The REAL problem is what happened after the war: Stalin re-wrote history on his terms, claiming a heroic role in not only WWII (which was an outright lie by any real historical analysis) but the October Revolution and the Russian Civil War (which is just laughable). The cult of Stalin really got going after WWII, which is contrary to anything remotely related to Marxism or Leninism or socialism. Unfortunately, I don't think this aspect has changed within the camp which defends Stalin.

I've made it very clear in this thread and in several others about Stalin's doctoring history that those were major errors that were reflective of several methodological issues and problems with Stalin's outlook.The issue is that these weren't merely mistakes, they were part of a larger policy of destruction of the democratic organs of the Soviet Union. In order to take power from the working classes and consolidate them in the bureaucracy, Stalin had to change history, he had to use ham-fisted methods to accomplish his goals. Open discussion of history (or anything else, for that matter) was no longer acceptable, the line of Stalin and his allies were the only truth. How quickly Stalinists forget the principles of democratic centralism when they rush to defend a man.

You have embraced a liberal (opposed to a Marxist) understanding of "Dictatorship" and "Democracy".You mean the Marxist understanding of state power to the workers? Stalin was part of a move away from this very establishment. The Congress of the Soviets was abolished, all state power was brought onto Stalin and his clique. The party ceased to be a party of the workers and was now a party of bureaucrats. If you want evidence of this, by 1940, the majority of those who had constituted the 1935 Congress of Victors (Congress of the Party) were dead. In the process of destroying any opposition to himself and his allies (the Riukin Platform, the purges, etc.), in the process of strangling the power of the workers, Stalin ended a functioning dictatorship of the proletariat and put power in the Soviet bureaucracy.

And to all the Stalinists who believe that a state bureaucracy cannot wield power by itself, read the 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, because Karl Marx disagrees with you.

el_chavista

3rd July 2008, 04:57

Compas, have you noticed that the "21st century socialism" resembles some how the first of the Stalin's "2 stages" theory of revolution?:blink:

Wanted Man

3rd July 2008, 13:54

Im sure this has been discussed before, but threw my searching of the site, i have failed to find one. :blushing:

I am still very young as a Communist, and still barely able to call myself a true Communist, and this has been a question that has bothered me since i started learning, i've seen both sides of the fence with Stalin, some Commies like him, some don't.

So that gets me to the main point, what are most Communists views on it? Please, provide proof for which side you are supporting, not just "Stalin was good" or "Stalin killed more than Hitler" Thank you :)
One book that will certainly incur the wrath of a lot of posters in this thread is "Another View of Stalin" by Ludo Martens. There's a review here: http://comradezero.blogspot.com/2006/03/socialism-or-barbarism-review-of.html A full English-language online version of the book can be found here: http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

The reason that it will anger so many people (who have probably never read it) is that it dismantles so many prejudices, idealism and simplistic and anti-marxist views on history. We see the great hero Trotsky making paranoid accusations that Stalin killed Lenin, and later returning to call for a military putsch on the eve of WWII. We see the building of socialism, the struggle of the farmers against the kulaks and surpassing them. We see that the 'tens of millions of deaths' come straight from Ukrainian nazi collaborators. The fact that the pact with the Germans was the direct consequence of imperialism's refusal to fight fascism head-on, and the fact that the USSR played the primary role in defeating fascism. We see witnesses destroy the notion of Stalin as the hysterical dictator of mediocre military merit. And at the end, we see Tito's revisionism pop up, while revisionist groups in the CPSU end up taking over the party after Stalin's death.

So of course, Martens is deadly to people who prefer to propagate anti-communist mythology.

Psy

3rd July 2008, 15:49

One book that will certainly incur the wrath of a lot of posters in this thread is "Another View of Stalin" by Ludo Martens. There's a review here: http://comradezero.blogspot.com/2006/03/socialism-or-barbarism-review-of.html A full English-language online version of the book can be found here: http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

The reason that it will anger so many people (who have probably never read it) is that it dismantles so many prejudices, idealism and simplistic and anti-marxist views on history. We see the great hero Trotsky making paranoid accusations that Stalin killed Lenin, and later returning to call for a military putsch on the eve of WWII. We see the building of socialism, the struggle of the farmers against the kulaks and surpassing them. We see that the 'tens of millions of deaths' come straight from Ukrainian nazi collaborators. The fact that the pact with the Germans was the direct consequence of imperialism's refusal to fight fascism head-on, and the fact that the USSR played the primary role in defeating fascism. We see witnesses destroy the notion of Stalin as the hysterical dictator of mediocre military merit. And at the end, we see Tito's revisionism pop up, while revisionist groups in the CPSU end up taking over the party after Stalin's death.

So of course, Martens is deadly to people who prefer to propagate anti-communist mythology.
It is Stalin that created a mythology, he doctored historical documents thus Stalin was totally untrustworthy, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union should have purged Stalin just for changing Russian history alone.