Which is the most Socialistic nation to live in?

[Faction2008]

I was just wondering because I might move to one when I can.

[Post-Something]

Cuba

[RadioRaheem84]

Cuba? That's plain Stalinism. I would say Sweden has a more democratic socialist bent where capitalism isn't really allowed to run free and ruin a nation.

[Socialismo_Libertario]

Scandinavian democracies with the exception of Denmark. According to several libertarian socialist theorists the type of democracy in Scandinavian countries such as Sweden, Norway etc. is the most promixal to the ideology of anarchy.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I was just wondering because I might move to one when I can.

1. There's no such thing as "most socialist". Socialism is not a measure of degree.

2. Why the hell would you want to move to a "socialist country"? Lifestylism FTW :rolleyes:

[comrade stalin guevara]

Belarus,
still marxist-lenninist and ran by the C.P.S.U.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

That depends on what you can define as socialist. Few places in the world do workers control the means of production. I noted your signature; you come off as a left-libertarian. If so, I don't think Belarus or Cuba would be good choices. They're not nearly as oppressive as the media would like to show, but there's certainly kinks that need working out.

The Scandinavian countries have strong social welfare states. Germany is also renown for their labor laws. Switzerland has a quasi-direct democracy system.

I don't think you should move to a different country, though. Fight it out in your own.

[LiberaCHE]

I was just wondering because I might move to one when I can.

Cuba,

But you may not want to pack your bags yet. The Miami oligarchs and mafia Gusanos are just itching for Raul to die, before they launch an invasion.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Il be there to defend the cuban people,
i know america is just waiting,
well im just waiting to.

[LiberaCHE]

Il be there to defend the cuban people,

I'll join you. :che:

[comrade stalin guevara]

i know the cuban revolution is about to be destroyed,
we need to set up something like the spanish civil war
brigades of international communist in support of
the cuban people.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Cuba? That's plain Stalinism. I would say Sweden has a more democratic socialist bent where capitalism isn't really allowed to run free and ruin a nation.

Scandanavian nations are capitolist not socialist!
cuba/ stalinist and whats your point?

[Socialismo_Libertario]

Although I disagree with Cuba being labelled as "Stalinist", I think his point is that Stalinism is no better than Nazism

[comrade stalin guevara]

Nothings wrong with stalinisim,
it won ww2,
it held yugoslavia together for 50-60 years,
it built the soviet union,
and half the communist bloc.

But its main acomplishment bringing over 200,000,000
serfs out of serfdom and into a super powerdom.

[Chapter 24]

it held yugoslavia together for 50-60 years,


But that was Titoism, was it not?

[comrade stalin guevara]

Well tito was a stalinist.

[Chapter 24]

Well tito was a stalinist.

He... was? Well, this is news to me.

I thought that he resisted Stalin and Soviet influence and therefore that made him his country an "oddball" in the Eastern Bloc.

[Bilan]

2. Why the hell would you want to move to a "socialist country"? Lifestylism FTW :rolleyes:

That's not lifestylism. Lifestylism is epitomized by bohemian and hippy communal living, not by wanting to live in the "most socialist country possible" - the latter is more a desire to experience, rather than to give up struggle in favour of escapism (Which is what Lifestylism really is), and negates the point of being a socialist, i.e. to change the existing economic, political and social relations.

[comrade stalin guevara]

He resisted soviet [kruschev] not stalin.
he turned away from the soviet union when they denounced stalin.

[Bilan]

Scandanavian nations are capitolist not socialist!
cuba/ stalinist and whats your point?

Stalinism =/= socialism.
Infact, historically, and indeed, in a contemporary sense, it's state capitalism - as shown in Russia, Cuba, etc.

The relationship to production has not changed; the existing class relations remain, but with a replaced elite - from bourgeois to bureaucracy.


Nothings wrong with stalinisim,
it won ww2,
it held yugoslavia together for 50-60 years,
it built the soviet union,
and half the communist bloc.

But its main acomplishment bringing over 200,000,000
serfs out of serfdom and into a super powerdom.

Stalinism didn't win WWII. That is a gross misunderstanding of history, and the nature of Stalinism.
The USSR helped to stop the spread of fascism, and its fight against fascism was paramount to its defeat.
However, in the absence of support from America, the UK, France, etc. the USSR could not have won alone - it was up against Germany - one of the fastest growing economies of that time - Italy, Spain, etc. and a number of other nations, such as England, America, etc would've gladly ousted the Russian government in favour of a capitalist one (noting that it was state capitalist).

What happened Yugoslavia, though related to Stalinism, doesn't prove anything. You've also ignored how it, like every other Leninist and Stalinist state, degenerated, and the existing productive relations did not rapidly change in favour of a socialist self managed system - and the fact that it was eventually crushed, both from the outside, and more importantly, from within.

The Soviet Union, apart from its initial uprising in October, is not something to admire. The nature of the USSR was extremely bureaucratic and lacked any real socialist relations within it. It is plainly opportunistic and ignorant to profess such an admiration for a state which didn't emancipate the working class.

And the communist Bloc was just as bad, and the admiration is just as absurd as for the USSR; its purely because it was labelled socialist, rather than it actually being socialist.
Such a politic negates what socialism really is and what we're trying to achieve.

[Socialismo_Libertario]

But its main acomplishment bringing over 200,000,000
serfs out of serfdom and into a super powerdom


That was not done by Stalinism but by what preceded it.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Lenninisim?

It wasent until stalins 5 year plans that shit started to change.

[Bilan]

Lenninisim?

It wasent until stalins 5 year plans that shit started to change.

You give Stalin way to much credit. You also ignore the nature of the economy and the state.
It's worthy of applaud that the USSR was industrialized under him (As in, heavily), but that doesn't negate the nature of it what so ever. That's just petty apologist nonsense.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Well tito was a stalinist.

Wha- what? Tito loathed Stalin, thus why Yugoslavia never entered the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia's cooperative market economy was very productive.

[Niccolò Rossi]

That's not lifestylism. Lifestylism is epitomized by bohemian and hippy communal living, not by wanting to live in the "most socialist country possible" - the latter is more a desire to experience, rather than to give up struggle in favour of escapism (Which is what Lifestylism really is), and negates the point of being a socialist, i.e. to change the existing economic, political and social relations.

I referred to the desire to move to a "socialist country" as lifestylism as it seemed to me that the OP (like all those who wish to go live in a "socialist country") was doing exactly that - giving up the struggle in favour of escapism. Sure lifestylism isn't a word usually applied to such escapism but what else is it?

[Bilan]

I referred to the desire to move to a "socialist country" as lifestylism as it seemed to me that the OP (like all those who wish to go live in a "socialist country") was doing exactly that - giving up the struggle in favour of escapism. Sure lifestylism isn't a word usually applied to such escapism but what else is it?

It's not giving it up though, and excepting the constraints of capitalism, but working inside them - it's moving to somewhere where capitalism has been ousted because its such a world where we desire to live in. It's like moving to a different city because the struggle there is much more prominent. IT's important to stay and organize, but experience in those who are more so is important.

[LiberaCHE]

It’s amazing how the Western Capitalist's (and sellout Russian Oligarchs) have somehow rendered "Stalin" or "Stalinism" a dirty word.

Ironically it is 'historical revisionism' far beyond anything Stalin himself could have ever dreamed of being able to do.

[gla22]

Stalin's actions made Stalinist and Stalinism dirty words.

[LiberaCHE]

Stalin's actions made Stalinist and Stalinism dirty words.
I sense someone in need of a "character building" trip to a ИТК corrective labor colony. :)


(and no you can't bring your iPod)

[Bilan]

I sense someone in need of a "character building" trip to a ИТК corrective labor colony. :)


(and no you can't bring your iPod)






I think you should think twice about being enough of a fucking dolt to support those disgusting things.
And threatening people with them is really not appropriate, lest you're as ignorant as you're posing to be, and really don't know what went on within those camps, and why they should be opposed.

[Bilan]

It’s amazing how the Western Capitalist's (and sellout Russian Oligarchs) have somehow rendered "Stalin" or "Stalinism" a dirty word.

Ironically it is 'historical revisionism' far beyond anything Stalin himself could have ever dreamed of being able to do.

I think its amazing how you're such a pathetic apologist for him, and how one can consistently maintain a straight face whilst supporting the extremely fucked up things Stalin did and furthered.
If you think what Stalin maintained in the USSR was socialism, or even helped the emancipation of the working class in anyway shape or form, you're just patently ignorant.

[professorchaos]

This could be somewhat helpful
http://www.politicalcompass.org/euchart

[Niccolò Rossi]

You know that scores of communists, anarchists, and other "leftists" rushed to Russia after the October Revolution, right?

And your point being?


it's moving to somewhere where capitalism has been ousted because its such a world where we desire to live in.

And here in lies the problem. *Gee I hate living in capitalist Australia, if only their was some escape from the chains of wage-slavery... Oh, I know, I'll move to Cuba, after all it is a socialist workers paradise!* :laugh:

Plus, why the hell are you defending Cuba (or any where else for that matter) as "socialist"!?


It's like moving to a different city because the struggle there is much more prominent. IT's important to stay and organize, but experience in those who are more so is important.

I'll concede that point.

[LiberaCHE]

And threatening people with them is really not appropriate
Yeah I am practically calling in the KGB as we speak to take him away. :rolleyes:





If you think what Stalin maintained in the USSR was socialism,
Who said I support "socialism" ? I sure didn't. Stalin produced the most practical result of a Marxist state utilizing the ideas of Lenin, Marx, Engels etc.

If you don't like the result ... take it up with them. And no I won't lose sleep over the Western revisionist claptrap of all the "evil" things Stalin did, because they are about as reliable Faux News. He did what had to be done, and took a tattered country of serfs stuck in the 18th century - and led them to victory against the world's most powerful war machine. Despite 25,000,000 casualties during WWII, Stalin guided the USSR to controlling 1/4 of the world, and to an equal superpower with the U.S.

To make that omelette he had to break the whole egg carton ... but that was the only way.

[Socialismo_Libertario]

LiberaCHE, Stalin did sign several pacts with the west including nazi germany. And being a Che Guevara fan I have to tell you that Che made several criticisms of the Soviet Union and Stalin

[LiberaCHE]

LiberaCHE, Stalin did sign several pacts with the west including nazi germany. And being a Che Guevara fan I have to tell you that Che made several criticisms of the Soviet Union and Stalin

Che did criticize the Soviet Union (especially in his 1965 speech in Algiers), but Stalin had long died since then and the Soviet Union stopped following Marx, Lenin etc with Stalin’s death in 1953.

And I am not aware of any criticisms of Stalin by Guevara personally (if you have some, do share.) What I do know for sure is that Che swore on a "photo of Comrade Stalin" in 1953 after visiting a United Fruit Latifundio, to not rest until the "capitalist octopuses are annihilated", Che also signed his name in a letter to his aunt as Stalin2, and laid a wreath at Stalin’s tomb upon visiting the Soviet Union in 1960. (All things I agree with.)

I understand it is fashionable for every group in the world to expropriate Che (a fact I understand, as he was one of the most noble men in the 20th century) but the reality is that he was not solely an poetic intellectual idealist ----- he also understood when the pedagogy of the firing squads were needed, and had no qualm about using them (he learned the hard way in the aftermath of the CIA's coup of Arbenz, what happens when you don't execute traitors immediately). Moreover, he also backed the Soviet Union during the Hungarian Uprising of 1956.

So please, spare me your lecture. My ideas are not in contradiction to Che Guevara's, and in fact I could argue (if anything) that they are more in line than most here.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Please che may of critized stalin,
but che knew stalins way was right thats why he
used to sign his letters off,

sincerly stalin2

[LiberaCHE]

Please che may of critized stalin
Actually I have read pretty much every word ever written by Che, and I have yet to find a single instance of this ... although yes he was critical of the Soviet Union post-Stalin in the 1960's, as they became accomplices in Western Imperialism.





but che knew stalins way was right thats why he
used to sign his letters off,
sincerly stalin2
To be accurate it wasn't all of his letters, but 2 letters in the early and mid 1950's - pre Cuban revolution. Nevertheless, yes he was a fan.

[comrade stalin guevara]

yes iv read heaps from che and dont remember
him critizeing stalin?

Whats with these stalin haters like you said befor comrade.....
off to the gulag

[comrade stalin guevara]

That was not done by Stalinism but by what preceded it.


lennin?,
the same lennin who brought the capitolist in with n.e.p?

[Patridiot]

Stalin guided the USSR to controlling 1/4 of the world
What's so admirable about imperialism? The purpose of the Soviet Union was not to control the world.

[LiberaCHE]

What's so admirable about imperialism? The purpose of the Soviet Union was not to control the world.
The purpose of the Soviet Union (under Stalin at least) was to gradually make the entire world communist.

And their method was the only way to do it.

This "phantom" all at once "World Revolution" is never going to occur. The dominoes have to be knocked over 1/a few at a time and yes practical real world "compromises" with principle have to be made - to hold it all together.

Stalin dealt in the "actual". His opponents on the left deal with the "theoretical".

[Socialismo_Libertario]

Unlike Stalin Lenin did not sign pacts with the Nazis!(August 24, 1939 - Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact)

Educate yourself about the events in the Spanish civil war and see how Stalin betrayed the cause

I suggest you read "Compañero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara. By Jorge G. Castañeda."



... it was Che who most bitingly criticized Stalinist deformations of Marxism

[LiberaCHE]

Unlike Stalin Lenin did not sign pacts with the Nazis!(August 24, 1939 - Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact)
1. Both leaders knew these pacts were meaningless.

2. They were basically mutual agreements to allow both sides to continue to build up their armies before the "big dance". Sort of like when 2 boxers agree to delay the fight a month.

3. That delay was crucial to allowing Stalin to continue to build his armor regiments and fortify Russian cities for the inevitable German invasion (which oh by the way Stalin helped repell on the way to taking Berlin.)







Educate yourself about the events in the Spanish civil war and see how Stalin betrayed the cause
1. Stalin did supply arms to the Loyalist side.

2. Diplomatic personnel and military advisors were dispatched by Stalin to Spain.

3. Significant quantities of high quality hardware were sent to Spain, and talented advisors, tankers, pilots, and a large support staff were marshaled in support of the Republican war effort.

4.Soviet military training centers in the USSR were made available to young Republican pilots, and experienced Russian instructors were soon occupied with turning out Loyalist flyers.

5. The newest generation Soviet planes and tanks were dispatched to Spain, with updated versions—most notably the I-16 fighter and BT-5 fast tank—being sent as soon as possible.

6. "The Soviet regime spared little effort in attempting to turn the tide of the war and help the Republic win."

http://www.gutenberg-e.org/kod01/frames/fkod23.html






I suggest you read "Compañero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara. By Jorge G. Castañeda."
1. I have read this book. Have a pg # for this quote?

2. Interesting you mention Castañeda ... Ironically guess who his mother worked as a diplomat for ???

here let's play Hangman ... S_alin

[Bilan]

The purpose of the Soviet Union (under Stalin at least) was to gradually make the entire world communist.

And their method was the only way to do it.

This "phantom" all at once "World Revolution" is never going to occur. The dominoes have to be knocked over 1/a few at a time and yes practical real world "compromises" with principle have to be made - to hold it all together.

Stalin dealt in the "actual". His opponents on the left deal with the "theoretical".

IF his way is the only way to do it, then there is no hope.

You clearly don't understand what the World Revolution is, lest you wouldn't make such a silly statement.

[Davie zepeda]

Funny we lost are selfs in theory where's the practice in your daily life comrades!

[LiberaCHE]

You clearly don't understand

...


Educate yourself


:mad:


I’m getting tired of sniveling pretentious bourgeoisie “internet scholars”, who assume that a difference in opinion … is the result of a lack of "revisionist" knowledge, rather than perception.


If the self congratulatory group-think clique of idealistic Trots & emo/skater Anarchists - wish to goose-step together in a miasma of “anti-Stalinist” hyperbole that is fine … but don’t expect all of us to participate in this (perfectionist-fallacy self loathing verbal orgy) --- and insistently bash the one Marxist leader who accomplished far more than all the others.


(rant over)

[comrade stalin guevara]

I fully agree with comrade liberache,

Stalinist voices are here and numerous,
revleft shudder with fear.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Unlike Stalin Lenin did not sign pacts with the Nazis!(August 24, 1939 - Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact)

Educate yourself about the events in the Spanish civil war and see how Stalin betrayed the cause

I suggest you read "Compañero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara. By Jorge G. Castañeda."

So what lennin signed them with capitolist!,
just as bad.

Stalin signed the pact because western nations were neglecting the soviet union the pacts were also of benefit to the soviet union.

[Patridiot]

The purpose of the Soviet Union (under Stalin at least) was to gradually make the entire world communist.
Was it not under Stalin that the Soviet Union became more of a national project than an international one? Socialism in one country rather than the world.


don’t expect all of us to participate in this (perfectionist-fallacy self loathing verbal orgy) --- and insistently bash the one Marxist leader who accomplished far more than all the others.
That says more about the others than about Stalin. It's really a matter of what one define as an accomplishment, and I really don't see how the Soviet Union can, in the long run, be considered to be something good for the ideas of communism and socialism. If anything, the opposite.

And are not all conversations "verbal orgies", whatever you mean by that..

[Bilan]

Yeah I am practically calling in the KGB as we speak to take him away. :rolleyes:

Grow up, asshole.




Who said I support "socialism" ? I sure didn't. Stalin produced the most practical result of a Marxist state utilizing the ideas of Lenin, Marx, Engels etc.

Then fuck off the board?



If you don't like the result ... take it up with them.

They're dead.



And no I won't lose sleep over the Western revisionist claptrap of all the "evil" things Stalin did, because they are about as reliable Faux News. He did what had to be done, and took a tattered country of serfs stuck in the 18th century - and led them to victory against the world's most powerful war machine. Despite 25,000,000 casualties during WWII, Stalin guided the USSR to controlling 1/4 of the world, and to an equal superpower with the U.S.

To make that omelette he had to break the whole egg carton ... but that was the only way.

Pissy apologist crap.

[Bilan]

...

I’m getting tired of sniveling pretentious bourgeoisie “internet scholars”, who assume that a difference in opinion … is the result of a lack of "revisionist" knowledge, rather than perception.


If the self congratulatory group-think clique of idealistic Trots & emo/skater Anarchists - wish to goose-step together in a miasma of “anti-Stalinist” hyperbole that is fine … but don’t expect all of us to participate in this (perfectionist-fallacy self loathing verbal orgy) --- and insistently bash the one Marxist leader who accomplished far more than all the others.

Did he accomplish the emancipation of the working class?
No. Why? Because the working class can only emancipate itself, it can't be emancipated by an outside force (As history as so elequently shown).

The fact that you're an apologist for his atrocities as some mediocre reactionary against bourgeois pretensions is of no interest to anyone, and nothing but amusement (And irritation for the horrors you apologise for).

And, had you eyes attached to your face, you'd see that the criticisms from anarchists and Trotskyists varies quite significantly; you'd also note that Stalin didn't fall from the sky, and that the institutions which he seized were ones created by Lenin and Trotsky, under the principle of one man management (A fundamentally anti-socialist idea).

The crux of your post is that you have a completely exaggerated and aggressive approach to something which you don't understand the fundamentals of.
The quote of Stalin, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" more or less represents the absurdity of your statements, and the crude approach you have to communism and socialism. That quote is nothing beyond the bourgeois and nationalist tendencies within the Soviet Union - what matters is the state, at all costs.

So forgive me if I don't pay lip service to someone who banned abortion, reinforced patriarchal organizational structures within the family, banned homosexuality, furthered the commodification of the USSR, killed 10s of 1000's of people, sent thousands of genuine revolutionaries to death camps, supported the crushing of the Spanish Revolution, killed hundreds of dedicated revolutionaries within that revolution, signed a pact with Hitler and...oh yeah, betrayed the most basic principles of socialism.

[Socialismo_Libertario]

...




:mad:


I’m getting tired of sniveling pretentious bourgeoisie “internet scholars”, who assume that a difference in opinion … is the result of a lack of "revisionist" knowledge, rather than perception.


If the self congratulatory group-think clique of idealistic Trots & emo/skater Anarchists - wish to goose-step together in a miasma of “anti-Stalinist” hyperbole that is fine … but don’t expect all of us to participate in this (perfectionist-fallacy self loathing verbal orgy) --- and insistently bash the one Marxist leader who accomplished far more than all the others.


(rant over)








I bet you are one of those kids that wear a Che Guevara t-shirt and consider themselves revolutionaries. You seem to glorify personalities and megalomaniac cult figures instead of ideas! If you are in such need of a role model why don't you try spiderman!

You have no idea of what I have fought about in my life, not in internet forums but out there in real life so spare the lecture.

You are right. Stalin "did accomplish far more than all the others". He accomplished to give communism a bad name while eliminating all his "enemies". I am not even going to go into the atrocities carried out during his period



Stalin guided the USSR to controlling 1/4 of the world, and to an equal superpower with the U.S.

Soviet imperialism is just as bad as western imperialism

[LiberaCHE]

Then fuck off the board?

So you are saying that Anti-Revisionism or defense of Stalin is not allowed on RevLeft ?

Maybe you should change the name of the site to AnarchoTrot town then ?

I love how idealists like to preach some quasi-objectivist libertarian claptrap while relying on the ideas of Lenin ... which one could argue were at least as "militant" and violent as Stalins.

[LiberaCHE]

Soviet imperialism is just as bad as western imperialism

I agree. And would argue that the Soviets ONLY turned to Imperialism AFTER Stalin's death in 1953.

Glad to know we agree. :)

[LiberaCHE]

Grow up, asshole.
I would argue that Stalin was the grown up ...

(If anything) --- It's the Anarcho kids with their "cool wallet chains" pissed off that Daddy gave them a curfew (and thus hate all authority), that need to get a fucking clue.

[Winter]

Did he accomplish the emancipation of the working class?
No. Why? Because the working class can only emancipate itself, it can't be emancipated by an outside force (As history as so elequently shown).


The essential rôle of the most oppressed masses


Numerous anti-Communist books tell us that the collectivization was `imposed' by the leadership of the Party and by Stalin and implemented with terror. This is a lie. The essential impulse during the violent episodes of collectivization came from the most oppressed of the peasant masses.

A peasant from the Black-Earth region declared:
`I have lived my whole life among the batraks (agricultural workers). The October revolution gave me land, I got credit from year to year, I got a poor horse, I can't work the land, my children are ragged and hungry, I simply can't manage to improve my farm in spite of the help of the Soviet authorities. I think there's only one way out: join a tractor column, back it up and get it going.'



Lynne Viola wrote:
`Although centrally initiated and endorsed, collectivization became, to a great extent, a series of ad hoc policy responses to the unbridled initiatives of regional and district rural party and government organs. Collectivization and collective farming were shaped less by Stalin and the central authorities than by the undisciplined and irresponsible activity of rural officials, the experimentation of collective farm leaders left to fend for themselves, and the realities of a backward countryside.'



Viola correctly emphasizes the base's internal dynamic. But her interpretation of the facts is one-sided. She misses the mass line consistently followed by Stalin and the Bolshevik Party. The Party set the general direction, and, on this basis, the base and the intermediate cadres were allowed to experiment. The results from the base would then serve for the elaboration of new directives, corrections and rectifications.

Viola continued:
`The state ruled by circular, it ruled by decree, but it had neither the organizational infrastructure nor the manpower to enforce its voice or to ensure correct implementation of its policy in the administration of the countryside .... The roots of the Stalin system in the countryside do not lie in the expansion of state controls but in the very absence of such controls and of an orderly system of administration, which, in turn, resulted as the primary instrument of rule in the countryside.'


This conclusion, drawn from a careful observation of the real progress of collectivization, requires two comments.
The thesis of `Communist totalitarianism' exercised by an `omnipresent Party bureaucracy' has no real bearing with the actual Soviet power under Stalin. It is a slogan showing the bourgeoisie's hatred of real socialism. In 1929--1933, the Soviet State did not have the technical means, the required qualified personnel, nor the sufficient Communist leadership to direct collectivization in a planned and orderly manner: to describe it as an all-powerful and totalitarian State is absurd.

In the countryside, the essential urge for collectivization came from the most oppressed peasants. The Party prepared and initiated the collectivization, and Communists from the cities gave it leadership, but this gigantic upheaval of peasant habits and traditions could not have succeeded if the poorest peasants had not been convinced of its necessity. Viola's judgment according to which `repression became the principal instrument of power' does not correspond to reality. The primary instrument was mobilization, consciousness raising, education and organization of the masses of peasants. This constructive work, of course, required `repression', i.e. it took place and could not have taken place except through bitter class struggle against the men and the habits of the old régime.

Be they fascists or Trotskyists, all anti-Communists affirm that Stalin was the representative of an all-powerful bureaucracy that suffocated the base. This is the opposite of the truth. To apply its revolutionary line, the Bolshevik leadership often called on the revolutionary forces at the base to short-circuit parts of the bureaucratic apparatus.
`The revolution was not implemented through regular administrative channels; instead the state appealed directly to the party rank and file and key sectors of the working class in order to circumvent rural officialdom. The mass recruitments of workers and other urban cadres and the circumvention of the bureaucracy served as a breakthrough policy in order to lay the foundations of a new system.'

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node34.html#SECTION00720500000000000000

[Bilan]

So you are saying that Anti-Revisionism or defense of Stalin is not allowed on RevLeft ?

Maybe you should change the name of the site to AnarchoTrot town then ?

I love how idealists like to preach some quasi-objectivist libertarian claptrap while relying on the ideas of Lenin ... which one could argue were at least as "militant" and violent as Stalins.

Revleft is a town? :confused:

Lenin's ideas weren't as fucked as Stalin's, but he was not one to be admired either, lest you just admire people who usurp revolutions and betray their principles. Unless, of course, you're enough of a dip shit to think that the factory committees were set up by the workers as a stepping stone for one man management.

And I love how you label anyone who disagrees with you as "idealist".
You're pathetic.

[LiberaCHE]

Lenin's ideas weren't as fucked as Stalin's, but he was not one to be admired either
Maybe you would be happier at a RonPaul.com message board then ?

[Bilan]

Numerous anti-Communist books tell us that the collectivization was `imposed' by the leadership of the Party and by Stalin and implemented with terror. This is a lie. The essential impulse during the violent episodes of collectivization came from the most oppressed of the peasant masses.


You've not distinguished been different eras within the Soviet regime, and your opening is essentially worthless.
The initial attempts at collectivisation and organization of the Russian economy from below were thwarted by the Bolsheviks in favour of the militarisation of labour and one man management (And believe me, its well documented).
The latter part, under which Stalin did force collectivisation (again, well documented) was indeed by force, and many peasants who refused were murdered.

There are two ways at looking at why this occurred.
The first is to take the pseudo-analytical position of most Stalinists and Stalin apologists, and to argue that they were just petit bourgeois, and against the proletariat.
This analysis, though certainly true for some, does not do the event any justice whatsoever, and ignores the growing reaction against the Bolsheviks usurpation of the instruments of the new state.

The second analysis encompasses this. That the Bolsheviks had, infact, betrayed the revolutions principles (Not Stalin alone, but Lenin and Trotsky, as well as all Bolshevik members of the CC who'd crushed the factory committees and trade unions). It realizes that the tide had begun to change against the Bolsheviks because of the actions of the Bolsheviks. Organization was no longer from below, as it were in 1917, but instead, from above, by leaders who were appointed by the CC if they did not approve of elected Trade Union reps (See for example, the Railway unions).

To ignore the nature of the new economic model, and just argue for collectivisation without taking into consideration what had occurred is absurd at best.



A peasant from the Black-Earth region declared:
`I have lived my whole life among the batraks (agricultural workers). The October revolution gave me land, I got credit from year to year, I got a poor horse, I can't work the land, my children are ragged and hungry, I simply can't manage to improve my farm in spite of the help of the Soviet authorities. I think there's only one way out: join a tractor column, back it up and get it going.'

Okay...




Lynne Viola wrote:
`Although centrally initiated and endorsed, collectivization became, to a great extent, a series of ad hoc policy responses to the unbridled initiatives of regional and district rural party and government organs. Collectivization and collective farming were shaped less by Stalin and the central authorities than by the undisciplined and irresponsible activity of rural officials, the experimentation of collective farm leaders left to fend for themselves, and the realities of a backward countryside.'

Authorities were appointed from above, this is simply trying to shift the blame while negating the reality of the situation.




Viola correctly emphasizes the base's internal dynamic. But her interpretation of the facts is one-sided. She misses the mass line consistently followed by Stalin and the Bolshevik Party. The Party set the general direction, and, on this basis, the base and the intermediate cadres were allowed to experiment. The results from the base would then serve for the elaboration of new directives, corrections and rectifications.


Set general direction? Is this a joke? They didn't set it, they enforced it. You've completely ignored, again, the nature of the state.

[Bilan]

I would argue that Stalin was the grown up ...

(If anything) --- It's the Anarcho kids with their "cool wallet chains" pissed off that Daddy gave them a curfew (and thus hate all authority), that need to get a fucking clue.

Woops, must have missed the gem.

I think this puts the final nail in the coffin that you don't know anything about the Russian Revolution - especially the Factory committees - or anarchism or history.

[LiberaCHE]

:lol:

Half of my recent responses to black and Red are being deleted (censored by him most likely) ... while he still responds to me.

How "Very Stalin" of you.

[Bilan]

I removed yours and my posts to the trashcan, accessible by anyone.
Why? Because they're off topic.
Dipshit. Now stop trolling.

[LiberaCHE]

I removed yours and my posts to the trashcan, accessible by anyone.
Why? Because they're off topic.
Dipshit. Now stop trolling.
It takes a real "brave" man to hurl insults on a message board, especially when they have moderator powers and the other person doesn't. (I do love the irony of an Anarchist on a power-trip though ... imagine how Stalin felt). :)

I also love the unabashed Chutzpah with which you continually SPAM with messages telling me not to spam. Now I have tried to send you an olive tree pm to go separate ways ... but apparently you choose not to.

Now go do something productive, so I don't have to waste more time responding to you.