Authoritarians.. - A few questions.

[Xvall]

The answers to these questions probably vary between you. I am aware that not all of you consider yourself 'authoritarians'; but I would like those of you that have been 'restricted' to this section of the fourm to answer a few questions for me. Just a few things I want to know.

1) What would your view on 'homosexuality' be? Would it be restricted, or would you just not care?

2) Would their be 'freedom of speech' in your ideal society? Would their be limits on these freedoms? What would these limits be?

That's all that I can think of right now. Please answer.

[Cassius Clay]

1= No.

2= Yes.

[RedCeltic]

"But as to free speech," he remarked, "that is, of course, a bourgeois notion."

-----Lenin to Emma Goldman on the imprisonment of Russian Anarchists 1918.

[Saint-Just]

1) What would your view on 'homosexuality' be? Would it be restricted, or would you just not care?

-I do not know anything about homosexuality.

2) Would their be 'freedom of speech' in your ideal society? Would their be limits on these freedoms? What would these limits be?

Their would be the freedom for one class to speak. The enitirity of new society would control the dissemination of information. This is opposed to the system in which the means to distribute information is owned by one class in a class system. The destruction of the class system demands that the revolutionary class disseminates only policy and information concerned with the progression of the working class. A working class revolution needs working class state and media. With a working class administration the working class will be assured they dictate policy.

This means free speech to all once the class system has been destroyed. Whilst the class system exists in revolutionary society it is free speech for the working class and dictatorship to the bourgeois class.

This view is the Marxist view and the correct view for any Marxist.

Marx:

Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
[Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Selected Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, pp. 32-33.]

Lenin:

The abolition of classes requires a long, difficult and stubborn class struggle, which after the overthrow of the power of capital, after the destruction of the bourgeois state, after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, does not disappear (as the vulgar representatives of the old Socialism and the old Social-Democracy imagine), but merely changes its forms and in many respects becomes more fierce.
[Lenin, "Greetings to the Hungarian Workers", Selected Works, FPLH, Moscow, Vol. 2, Part 2, pp. 210-11.]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the end of class struggle but its continuation in new forms. The dictatorship of the proletariat is class struggle waged by a proletariat which has been victorious and has taken political power in its hands against a bourgeoisie that has been defeated but not destroyed, a bourgeoisie that has not vanished, not ceased to offer resistance, but that has intensified its resistance.
[Lenin, "Foreword to the Speech 'On Deception of the People with Slogans of Freedom and Equality'", Alliance of the Working Class and the Peasantry, FLPH, Moscow, 1959, p. 302.]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a persistent struggle - bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative -- against the forces and traditions of the old society.
[Lenin: "'Left-Wing' Communism, an Infantile Disorder", Selected Works, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, Part 2, p. 367.]

[Ymir]

All sexuality should be suppressed. This would result in a more productive workforce. Pornography is illegal and all materials that had been produced prior to the revolution would be destroyed or recycled.

The control of speech and discussion among the average man would be hard to control, but I would implement a strict control over the press and media. There would be two media groups-
1. Directly connected to the state
2. Is a 'free' media,unofficially under state influence, is meant to spread disinformation among the counter-revolutionaries.

[Cassius Clay]

Hmm, perhaps I was to vague when answering question two. Freedom of speech for whom? I believe Yuri Andropov summed it up best when he said.

''This is why Western propaganda makes so much fuss about `human rights' and about the so-called `dissidents'...Soviet citizens have the right to criticize and to make proposals. This right is guaranteed by Article 49 of the Constitution, which forbids repression for criticism...But it is an entirely different matter when a few individuals tranform criticism into anti-Soviet activity, violate the law, supply Western propaganda centers with false information, disseminate false rumors, try to organize anti-social actions...These renegades have no support from the Soviet people. This is why they never try to make open speeches in factories or on collective farms or in other state organizations. They know very well that they would be thrown out of such meetings...The existence of dissidents in the Soviet Union is only possible because of publicity campaigns in the foreign press, and support for them through dipolmatic, secret and other special services who pay `dissidents' generously in foreign currency and by other means. There is no difference between the payment which secret services makes to their own agents and to dissidents."
(9 Sep 1977)''


Ofcourse if your really that bothered about finding out about my opinion on 'Freedom of speech' you should go to page 3 and 4 of the 'An American on Josef Stalin' thread.

[Xvall]

Let me branch off from this, then. What would be done about 'dissent'. Would people be punished for showing dissent againt the regime? Or would this 'dissent' vary? What would be done with people who support capitalism?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

You authoritarians seem to support the Soviet Union, do you also support its oppression of its satelite staes in eastern europe?

[thursday night]

"1) What would your view on 'homosexuality' be? Would it be restricted, or would you just not care?"

I believe that citizens of the socialist state would be free to choose whatever sexuality they desire. I disagree with Ymir on his opinion that all sexuality should be repressed, I believe that what people do in their bedrooms is entirely up to them and really has no effect on the betterment of the people’s state.

"2) Would their be 'freedom of speech' in your ideal society? Would their be limits on these freedoms? What would these limits be?"

Contrary to right-winger and Trotskyite media lies, freedom of speech is not ‘repressed’ in socialist states. During my trip to Cuba, for instance, those who could speak English gladly walked down the street with me right past police and military officials and talked about life under socialism. They were openly proud about it, but they also went on to say that life is often hard and they wish some things would change. Where is the repression of free speech, I ask?

Furthermore, it is impossible to have a “secret police” official in every pub, every social gathering, and every kitchen to constantly monitor discussion. Socialism is not an Orwellian experience. People can and so speak freely. The line is drawn, however, when they actively work to destroy the state through violations of the people’s law. Of course socialism is always under threat from counterrevolutionary forces, imperialist powers and so forth, so action must be taken against these minorities to protect the worker’s state.

"Communism is ... one-hundred times more democratic than capitalism." -Lenin

"You authoritarians seem to support the Soviet Union, do you also support its oppression of its satelite staes in eastern europe?"

This is from William Blum's essay "The United States, Cuba and this things called democracy:"

"It is not by chance that the United States has defined
democracy in this narrow manner. Throughout the cold war, the
absence of "free and fair" multiparty elections and adequate
civil liberties were what marked the Soviet foe and its
satellites. These nations, however, provided their citizens
with a relatively decent standard of living insofar as
employment, food, health care, education, etc., without
omnipresent Brazilian torture or Guatemalan death squads. At
the same time, many of America's Third World allies in the cold
war -- members of what Washington still likes to refer to as
"The Free World" -- were human-rights disaster areas, who could
boast of little other than the 30-second democracy of the polling
booth and a tolerance for dissenting opinion so long as it didn't
cut too close to the bone or threaten to turn into a movement."

As to the Soviet Union’s interventions in the Socialist Bloc. there were, if I remember correctly, only three. In the fifties in the German Democratic Republic, in Hungary and in Czechoslovakia. You cannot compare these three interventions (which I know little about, I am desperately trying to learn more but unbiased sources are hard to find in these scary times) with the hundreds of brutal American interventions through the years, which I will assume (and pray) you know full well about.

[thursday night]

By the way, that essay by Mr. Blum can be found here (http://members.aol.com/bblum6/democ.htm).

[Cassius Clay]

''You authoritarians seem to support the Soviet Union, do you also support its oppression of its satelite staes in eastern europe?''

'Authoritarians' I for one am nothing of the sought. Going back to the originall question I'll quote the American Communist John Reed 'If you purge dissent you purge the revolution'. Criticism and self-criticism is all part of socialist democracy, freedom to criticise officials should not only be allowed but encouranged. As for the limits, well I'm no fan of the USSR of the 1970's but I think that Yuri Andropov quote shows you how we should treat Capitalists and other folks of the extreme right wing.

To your point Victorcommie no I most certainly do NOT support the Soviet Union's attidude to Eastern Europe during the cold war. As Hoxha, Mao and other's explained at that time the Soviet Union was 'Social Imperialist' in that it exploited Eastern Europe and the people's there in through typhical capitalist methods (I just read a article which showed the Soviet's Union's trade with the GDR in the 80's, basically it was the worst kind of exploitation) and local revisionist leaders.

This didn't happen under Stalin, one need only look to the example of Tito and Yugoslavia in 1948 to see that.

As for East Germany in 1953, there is a very interesting quote from Bertolt Brecht on that which I'll find and post in a while. Hungary in 1956 was a openly Fascist uprising and got what it deserved. Czechslovakia in 1968 was unjustified and a Imperialist act from the then Imperialist Soviet Union.

[thursday night]

The Hungarian uprising was openly fascist? Do explain further Clay. :)

[Xvall]

You have answered my questions, and I am (mostly) pleased with the results. Thank you everyone for not making people think that you are the stereotypical evil communist that wants to rule the world.

(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 10:33 pm on Feb. 16, 2003)

[Mazdak]

1- of course not. Homosexuality would be tolerated, but never encouraged.

2. As little as necessary.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Quote: from thursday night on 3:16 am on Feb. 17, 2003
"1) What would your view on 'homosexuality' be? Would it be restricted, or would you just not care?"

I believe that citizens of the socialist state would be free to choose whatever sexuality they desire. I disagree with Ymir on his opinion that all sexuality should be repressed, I believe that what people do in their bedrooms is entirely up to them and really has no effect on the betterment of the people’s state.

"2) Would their be 'freedom of speech' in your ideal society? Would their be limits on these freedoms? What would these limits be?"

Contrary to right-winger and Trotskyite media lies, freedom of speech is not ‘repressed’ in socialist states. During my trip to Cuba, for instance, those who could speak English gladly walked down the street with me right past police and military officials and talked about life under socialism. They were openly proud about it, but they also went on to say that life is often hard and they wish some things would change. Where is the repression of free speech, I ask?

Furthermore, it is impossible to have a “secret police” official in every pub, every social gathering, and every kitchen to constantly monitor discussion. Socialism is not an Orwellian experience. People can and so speak freely. The line is drawn, however, when they actively work to destroy the state through violations of the people’s law. Of course socialism is always under threat from counterrevolutionary forces, imperialist powers and so forth, so action must be taken against these minorities to protect the worker’s state.

"Communism is ... one-hundred times more democratic than capitalism." -Lenin

"You authoritarians seem to support the Soviet Union, do you also support its oppression of its satelite staes in eastern europe?"

This is from William Blum's essay "The United States, Cuba and this things called democracy:"

"It is not by chance that the United States has defined
democracy in this narrow manner. Throughout the cold war, the
absence of "free and fair" multiparty elections and adequate
civil liberties were what marked the Soviet foe and its
satellites. These nations, however, provided their citizens
with a relatively decent standard of living insofar as
employment, food, health care, education, etc., without
omnipresent Brazilian torture or Guatemalan death squads. At
the same time, many of America's Third World allies in the cold
war -- members of what Washington still likes to refer to as
"The Free World" -- were human-rights disaster areas, who could
boast of little other than the 30-second democracy of the polling
booth and a tolerance for dissenting opinion so long as it didn't
cut too close to the bone or threaten to turn into a movement."

As to the Soviet Union’s interventions in the Socialist Bloc. there were, if I remember correctly, only three. In the fifties in the German Democratic Republic, in Hungary and in Czechoslovakia. You cannot compare these three interventions (which I know little about, I am desperately trying to learn more but unbiased sources are hard to find in these scary times) with the hundreds of brutal American interventions through the years, which I will assume (and pray) you know full well about.


Are you suggesting that as long as the US is doing something worse than it, the USSR could continue doing it. I agree copmletely that the US did some very rotten things to supress leftist movements all over the world, but that is no justification for what the Soviets did.

[Just Joe]

3 interventions in the Socialist bloc? u sure? not only did the Soviets erect puppet regimes in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, which is by definition, intervening. but they also invaded when the people of Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia decided they did not want to live in a Stalinist police state. the Soviets were also days away from invading Poland to put down a working class movement and also invaded Afghanistan to prop up a hugely un-popular regime. who knows how many invasions would have taken place if uncle Joe hadn't kicked the bucket.

[Cassius Clay]

''3 interventions in the Socialist bloc? u sure? not only did the Soviets erect puppet regimes in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, which is by definition, intervening. but they also invaded when the people of Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia decided they did not want to live in a Stalinist police state. the Soviets were also days away from invading Poland to put down a working class movement and also invaded Afghanistan to prop up a hugely un-popular regime. who knows how many invasions would have taken place if uncle Joe hadn't kicked the bucket.''

'If uncle Joe hadn't kicked the bucket' ? What are you talking about? Please pray tell which country was invaded in Stalin's time? As I said before you only have to look at Tito and Yugoslavia, Tito murdered thousands of Marxist-Leninists in camps and became a tool of western capital. Did the Red Army come crashing through? No because Stalin was NOT a Imperialist. The Soviets merely pointed out Tito's mistakes and where those mistakes would eventually lead to.

As for supposedly installing Socialist regimes in Eastern Europe, the only places where democratic elections weren't allowed was Italy and France (ofcourse if you call the CIA and Vatican declaring a 'Holy war' on anybody who did vote for any sought of leftist democratic then that's your choice). Socialist regimes came into being because the people voted in socialist and Communist parties.

East Germany in 1953, the protest was sparked by the announcement that there would be a 10% increase in food prices while being told to work more. I think Brecht was right with the below summary of those events.

''The demonstrations of 17th June showed the discontent of a considerable section of Berlin's workforce with a series of failed economic measures.

Organised fascist elements tried to misuse this discontent for their own bloody means.

For many hours Berlin stood on the verge of a third world war.

Only the quick and definite intervention of the Soviet troops is to be thanked for thwarting the attempts.

It was obvious that the intervention of Soviet troops was in no way against the demonstrations of the workers. It was most apparently exclusively aimed against the attempts to spark off a new global fire.

It is now up to each one to help the government to weed out the mistakes which caused the discontent and without doubt, endangered our great social achievements.

On the morning of 17th June, as it became clear that the demonstrations of the workers will be misused for war-like aims, I expressed my solidarity with the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. I hope now that the provocateurs have been isolated and their network destroyed, I hope that the workers who demonstrated their genuine discontent are not placed on the same level as the provocateurs and the much required expression of mistakes committed in every direction is not disturbed.''


Thursday, perhaps I was being to simplistic. That their was genuine discontent among the Hungarian proleriat is not in doubt and I'm not denying that. The Soviet government at the time admited as such. However niether is it in doubt that the CIA, Fascists (known as Arrow Cross) and Monarchists and other extreme right-wing folks played a key role in launching the uprising. The lynching of Jews who served in the security services simply because they were Jews is clearly the act of a Fascist mob. Numerous western accounts admit that 'The protestors ranged from extreme right-wing Monarchists and Fascists to Anarchists'. To quote Khruschev 'Another Finland we could of dealt with, but Hungary was becoming Fascist'.

[Xvall]

Quote: from Just Joe on 2:04 pm on Feb. 17, 2003
3 interventions in the Socialist bloc? u sure? not only did the Soviets erect puppet regimes in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, which is by definition, intervening. but they also invaded when the people of Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia decided they did not want to live in a Stalinist police state. the Soviets were also days away from invading Poland to put down a working class movement and also invaded Afghanistan to prop up a hugely un-popular regime. who knows how many invasions would have taken place if uncle Joe hadn't kicked the bucket.


Actually, I recall that the Soviets had outposts in Afghanistan that were completely within their jurisdiction; and only invaded when these outposts were attacked.

[thursday night]

"not only did the Soviets erect puppet regimes in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, which is by definition, intervening. but they also invaded when the people of Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia decided they did not want to live in a Stalinist police state."

How is creating a socialist state intervening? If anything I believe that the Soviet Union is to be thanked for liberating the countries mentioned from capitalism, not discredited. The one exception, however, is Romania. The psuedo-socialist government of Romania was a terror regime I cannot defend, and perhaps the sheer ugliness of that experiment gone wrong was because the people there were not ready and did not accept socialism whatsoever, unlike Hungary where socialism was accepted and Bulgaria where it was asked for and hugely supported. But nevertheless I believe that the USSR did the right thing in liberating these countries from their monarchist, capitalist and fascist governments.

"and also invaded Afghanistan to prop up a hugely un-popular regime."

Unpopular regime? I think not. Propping up a socialist state? Once again I believe you are mistaken. Allow me to illuminate you a little, Just Joe.

In April of 1978 the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) took power of Afghanistan in a coup, which was supported by the people. Now let’s look at Afghanistan of the time (and I doubt much as changed since the US-supported Taliban until a year ago and now the puppet President have ruled over this poor country). Life expectancy at forty years, illiteracy at about ninety percent, very few highways, almost no railroads, most people still living in tribes with the same technology since Khengis Khan. Now the PDP had reform in mind by the way of land reform, separation of church and state and better rights for women.

The PDP was trying to painfully drag the country into the twentieth century, let alone the twenty-first. In fact English political scientist Fred Halliday once remarked frankly that “probably more has changed in the countryside over the last year than in the two centuries since the state was established.” Land reform had been implemented; schools and health clinics were finally being built all over the country, and many other long needed reforms and modernizations were finally taking place.

Now when the extremist Muslim fundamentalists, who were backed by (surprise, surprise) United States of America, revolted because the People’s Democratic Party was ‘un-Muslim’ and they driven by blind fanactism can you blame the Soviet Union for sending in troops to aid the embattled socialist government?

I hope this spills some light on the very complex Afghan issue for you, Just Joe. I can, of course, go into further detail...

"Are you suggesting that as long as the US is doing something worse than it, the USSR could continue doing it. I agree copmletely that the US did some very rotten things to supress leftist movements all over the world, but that is no justification for what the Soviets did."

No, but I am saying that action taken by the Soviet Union was often justified.

Can we look at the East German concern a bit more? Let’s look at the infamous Berlin Wall. Was it a tool by the ‘evil Stalinist masters’ of the German Democratic Republic to oppress the citizens of their country or perhaps was it more? How about we look at some of the unbiased, non-Western/Trotskyite reasons.

1) Goods in the GDR were sold at lower prices so all citizens could readily afford them, as was the case in all other socialist states. The USA and other western European countries supported western Europeans entering the GDR and buying goods. This, of course, led to severe shortages and the government of East Germany simply had to have a grasp over the flow of traffic.

2) The capitalist nations of the West bribed, propagated, threatened, lied and cheated educated doctors, professionals, teachers, engineers and so forth from leaving the GDR and coming to the Federal Republic of Germany, thus creating a possibly crippling ‘brain-drain’ in the GDR. Many of these educated men and women, however, did return to the GDR after the saw the capitalism for what it was.

3) The threat of American and English troops just across a small border was, indeed, a very serious threat to the Socialist Bloc. A wall, or some defense, needed to be erected to protect the eastern nations from the imperialist countries in the west.

[Goldfinger]

I am not an authoritarian, but here are my answers:

1-I don't care. I would want people to be as tolerant as possible.

2-Yes, absolutely

[Just Joe]

Cassius, Stalin did not bring his troops back from eastern Europe. he also added Soviet republics to the USSR against there will. he was an imperialist. the Soviets liberated people from Fascism, then gave them Stalinism. every time democratic voices were heard in eastern europe, the Soviets either threatened invasion, or outright invaded.

its actually patheitc how you justify an invasion of a country on the grounds that it prevented war. the Soviets in the GDR used the oldest imperialist tactic in the book- divide and conquer. sickening how a supposed Socialist could support it.

Actually, I recall that the Soviets had outposts in Afghanistan that were completely within their jurisdiction; and only invaded when these outposts were attacked.

that isn't quite true now is it. the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to install a puppet regime. the regime was dying on its arse to the Kremlin kept sending in more and more troops until eventually, they were actually at war with the Islamic fighters. if you think its in a countrys 'juristiction' to invade and prop up hated regimes, then i guess thats your own opinion.

How is creating a socialist state intervening?

it is if they don't want it, you clown.

If anything I believe that the Soviet Union is to be thanked for liberating the countries mentioned from capitalism, not discredited.

they should be credited with liberating countries from Nazism. but they lost all credibility when they stayed in those countries for the next 40 years!

Unpopular regime?

jesus christ. the Afghan Communist government was supported by noone. only a handful of Communists. the majority of the people resented this atheistic government being forced on them from a foreign power. The Russians in Afghanistan was the worst act of imperialism in the second part of the twentieth century. i don't give a fuck what they did for the country, the Communists were not popular there.



(Edited by Just Joe at 8:41 pm on Feb. 17, 2003)

[thursday night]

That is the most blind, ignorant and totally uneducated post I've ever seen.

But what else should I expect from a religious person?

Basically there is no evidence behind your rhetoric. Could you please give some proof? Anything?

[Just Joe]

proof of what? do you want video footage of tanks rolling into prague? or Afghans dancing in the streets when there 'Socialist' government finally collapsed only 3 years after Moscow withdrew troops?

you know its funny. when i read what Stalinists post, i can actually hear the circus music playing in my head.

[thursday night]

"or Afghans dancing in the streets when there 'Socialist' government finally collapsed only 3 years after Moscow withdrew troops?"

Yes, because the lives of Afghans became so much better after the PDP lost power, right? I'm not surprised your all buddy-buddy with the Taliban, you religious freaks are all in the same league.

You know it's funny, when I read Just Joe's posts I'm reminded of why there are firing squads.

[Saint-Just]

'the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to install a puppet regime. the regime was dying on its arse to the Kremlin kept sending in more and more troops until eventually,'

The socialist government in Afghanistan requested the aid of the soviets. The islamic fighter were aided by the CIA. In league with these supposed civilian freedom fighters Just Joe? then you are in league with imperialism, U.S. imperialism.

[Just Joe]

Yes, because the lives of Afghans became so much better after the PDP lost power, right?

i've said this twice hear today already. economic material living standards are not the be all and end all of life. there are more important things. to the Afghan people, Islam was more important than money.

I'm not surprised your all buddy-buddy with the Taliban, you religious freaks are all in the same league.

pffft, i'm far from a religious freak. anyway, i thought the thought stealing, oppressive Taliban would have been more up your street.

The socialist government in Afghanistan requested the aid of the soviets. The islamic fighter were aided by the CIA.

did the people of Afghanistan want the Russians there, Mao?

In league with these supposed civilian freedom fighters Just Joe? then you are in league with imperialism, U.S. imperialism.

youre damn right i support them. i support any war against foreign agression and imperialism. from the Marxists fighting capitalism in Colombia and the Phillipines, to openly anti-Communist fighters in Afghanistan. each country has the right to its own land free from foreign intervention. isn't this what your namesake fell out with the Soviet Union over? actually come to think of it, didn't China help supply the Afghan freedom fighters also? that'd be after Mao though i guess. down to revisionism i take it.

oh just a bit of food for thought to take the debate in another direction, what do you totalitarian tits think of the Solidarity movement in Poland?

(Edited by Just Joe at 10:31 pm on Feb. 17, 2003)

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Just Joe on 10:30 pm on Feb. 17, 2003
The socialist government in Afghanistan requested the aid of the soviets. The islamic fighter were aided by the CIA.

did the people of Afghanistan want the Russians there, Mao?

In league with these supposed civilian freedom fighters Just Joe? then you are in league with imperialism, U.S. imperialism.

youre damn right i support them. i support any war against foreign agression and imperialism. from the Marxists fighting capitalism in Colombia and the Phillipines, to openly anti-Communist fighters in Afghanistan. each country has the right to its own land free from foreign intervention. isn't this what your namesake fell out with the Soviet Union over? actually come to think of it, didn't China help supply the Afghan freedom fighters also? that'd be after Mao though i guess. down to revisionism i take it.

(Edited by Just Joe at 10:31 pm on Feb. 17, 2003)
#

Firstly, there were a number of things that my name sake fell out with the soviet union over.

The Afghan people had many differing opinions on the situation. The USSR was deeply divided over the military assistance in Afghanistan is must be noted. However, they decided ultimately it was the best course to take. They were never going to erect a puppet regime in Afghanistan however, nor was the PDP any of that kind.

Just Joe, since you know I subscribe to Juche, you know I believe that a country has a right to sovereignity. However, U.S. imperialism does not bring sovereignity. These Afghan rebels were inviting U.S. imperialism, they were being funded and trained by the CIA specifically to damage the Soviet Union. If you are in league with these imperialist 'freedom fighters' you are in league with imperialism.

[Just Joe]

Firstly, there were a number of things that my name sake fell out with the soviet union over.

i think the main reason was imperialism. the Soviet Union was an imperialist nation possibly more so after Stalin died. the fact that the Soviet Union was preaching peaceful co-existance, but at the same time crushing minor rebellions in places like Hungary, made Mao lose support for the Soviet bloc.

Just Joe, since you know I subscribe to Juche, you know I believe that a country has a right to sovereignity.

you may agree with sovereignty, but that doesnt stop you supporting agressive foreign powers like the Soviet Union and China. it'd be interesting to hear what stance you take on red Chinas actions towards Tibet.

However, U.S. imperialism does not bring sovereignity.

US imperialism is bad. buts not as bad as the Russians. the US use money and power to get allys, the Russians used (still use in Chechnya) tanks. if a country like France falls out with America, they have a lovers tift and France pulls out of NATO, when East Germany fell out with the Soviet Union, you get T-34's at your door.

still no word on Solidarity i see.

not that i was calling you a totalitarian tit. that was reserved more for Thursday Night :)

[thursday night]

"US imperialism is bad. buts not as bad as the Russians."

Here we see the truth; you are a supporter of American imperialism. What truly scares me is that I am not allowed to post anywhere save for this forum (Opposing Ideologies) and you are, but that’s really beside the point.

Three times, that is all, do we see the Soviet Union ‘crushing’ a rebellion. The first time in the GDR it was more of an act against the United States than an act against a few downtrodden rightists. These rebels were instigated and given comfort by the Americans in West Germany, and they were in many cases hardly better than mercenaries. So please, don’t try to portray them as heroes of the anti-Soviet struggle.

In Hungary in the late fifties there was a rebellion that was pulled of by monarchists and former fascists. Good for the USSR for crushing these Nazi sympathizers.

As for Czechoslovakia I know very little about the situation, so I’ll refrain from making any uneducated comments.

"if a country like France falls out with America, they have a lovers tift and France pulls out of NATO"

I think you should talk to the sons and daughters who watched their fathers and mothers shot, hanged and tortured in stadiums, their bodies left to rot in the streets by Pinnochet, who was put into power completely by the United States of America. How about the millions of men, women and children who were poisoned, exploded, or burnt to death by American bombs in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos? What about the death squads in Brazil, torture brigades in Uruguay? And the corporate goon squads in Central America who ruled those poor nations, under the pay of the United Fruit Company?

No, my friend, I’m afraid American imperialism is far, far more brutal than Soviet liberation.

"it'd be interesting to hear what stance you take on red Chinas actions towards Tibet."

I'll let Chairman Mao comment as I'm far he can explain it far better than I can.

[thursday night]

Here is a good one for you, Just Joe.

"Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski about how the US provoked the Soviet Union into invadingAfghanistan and starting the whole mess

Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his
memoirs [From the Shadows], that American intelligence services
began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan six months before the
Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national
security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a
role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history,
CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say,
after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the
reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise:
Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the
first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet
regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the
president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid
was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action.
But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and
looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to
intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they
would.

Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting
that they intended to fight against secret involvement of the
United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them.
However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything
today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and
you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially
crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, in substance: We
now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.
Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war
unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about
the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic
fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future
terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The
Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up
Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the
cold war?**

Question: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated:
Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in
regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam.
Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or
emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5
billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi
Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism,
Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more
than what unites the Christian countries.


* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the
perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version
sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and
the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.** It should be noted that there is no demonstrable connection between the Afghanistan war and the breakup of the Soviet Union
and its satellites.

This interview was translated from the French by William Blum,
Author of "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions
Since World War II" and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only
Superpower". Portions of the books can be read at:
http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm (with a link to
Killing Hope)"

[Saint-Just]

'it'd be interesting to hear what stance you take on red Chinas actions towards Tibet.'

The Tibetans signed the ‘Agreement of the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet’
It allowed entry into Tibet of Chinese forces. It guaranteed that China would not alter the existing political system in Tibet and not interfere with the power of the Dalai Lama or the Panchen Lama. The Tibetan people were given regional autonomy, and their religious beliefs and customs were to be respected.

'i think the main reason was imperialism. the Soviet Union was an imperialist nation possibly more so after Stalin died. the fact that the Soviet Union was preaching peaceful co-existance, but at the same time crushing minor rebellions in places like Hungary, made Mao lose support for the Soviet bloc.'

You say this however you still call the Chinese imperialistic. They split because the Soviet were being imperialistic yet the Chinese themselves were imperialists? The reason for the split was partly that the Soviets 'preached peaceful co-existance' with the U.S.

[Cassius Clay]

''Cassius, Stalin did not bring his troops back from eastern Europe. he also added Soviet republics to the USSR against there will.''

'Against there will' the only states that joined the Soviet Union in Stalin's time were the Baltic states, and that was after the people had overwhelmingly voted to join the Union. Read the Soviet Constitution, any republic could leave if it so wanted. That right was taken away by the revisionist Brezheve in 1977.

''he was an imperialist. the Soviets liberated people from Fascism, then gave them Stalinism. every time democratic voices were heard in eastern europe, the Soviets either threatened invasion, or outright invaded.''

Look at the example of Yugoslavia under Tito, what about Finland in 1940 the Red Army could of easily walked onto Helsinki after smashing the Mannheriem line? Why did Stalin offer to withdraw completely from Germany in the 50's? On condition that Germany remain neutral and not be allowed a army. Even when the Soviet Union became 'Social-Imperialist' China and Albania left the Soviet bloc.

''its actually patheitc how you justify an invasion of a country on the grounds that it prevented war. the Soviets in the GDR used the oldest imperialist tactic in the book- divide and conquer. sickening how a supposed Socialist could support it.''

Bertolt Brecht said that not me. Once again the protests were sparked by the announcement of a 10% rise in the price of food, the first step of revisionism taken by Khruschev. Brecht also points out that protests were entirely justified, and neither did the Soviets invade the GDR, ever.


''The Soviets invaded Afghanistan to install a puppet regime. the regime was dying on its arse to the Kremlin kept sending in more and more troops until eventually, they were actually at war with the Islamic fighters. if you think its in a countrys 'juristiction' to invade and prop up hated regimes, then i guess thats your own opinion.''

I'm against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 it was a act of Imperialism. However you describe the government as 'hated', this is why after Soviet troops left the Afghan Socialist forces enjoyed a period of success. They outlived the Soviet Union itself.


''they should be credited with liberating countries from Nazism. but they lost all credibility when they stayed in those countries for the next 40 years!''

'Nazism' and 'Capitalism' what is the difference? Your right the Soviet Union did become a Imperialist nation and it exploited Eastern Europe. However were not NATO troops stationed in Germany, Belgium and throughout western Europe? In Italy the CIA and Vatican were willing to declare a 'Holy War' on anybody who voted for a Communist. Hardly democratic. And why do 40% (or it could be 60% but your find the precise stats at BBC webiste) of the GDR's citizens say life was better before the annexation by West Germany. You speak about 'Democracy' what happened to Democracy when the vast majority of people in the Soviet Union voted to keep the Union and Yelstin and Gorby betrayed everything to western capital? What happened to 'Democracy' when Yelstin bombarded the House of Soviets and killed hundreds of democraticly elected Communists and there working class supporters?

''jesus christ. the Afghan Communist government was supported by noone. only a handful of Communists. the majority of the people resented this atheistic government being forced on them from a foreign power. The Russians in Afghanistan was the worst act of imperialism in the second part of the twentieth century. i don't give a fuck what they did for the country, the Communists were not popular there.''

The Afghan Communists came to power because of sympathectic supporters from the Army, intelligenstia and working class. The April Revolution of 1978 had practically no contact with the Soviet Union, the PDA had never had a congress in Moscow, NEVER. Your right about the invasion being Imperialist, but neither should you be supporting CIA backed Islamic Fascists.

'Still no word on solidarity', it may of escaped your attention but Enver Hoxha spoke out in favour of the Polish working classes in 1980. However he did not speak out in favour of the leadership of 'Solidarity', a group of people backed by the Vatican, CIA and Extreme right-wing republicans is hardly a 'working class movement'. But just look what has happened to Poland since 'Solidarity' took over. Hardly a paradise.

[thursday night]

"Still no word on solidarity"

Solidarity only gained support because the Vatican, CIA and extreme rightist fringes in Poland backed it. It would be curious to see what would have happened in Poland if the Pope wouldn't have been so politically minded.

"the PDA"

The PDP (People's Democratic Party) not the PDA, comrade. ;)

[Larissa]

1) What would your view on 'homosexuality' be? Would it be restricted, or would you just not care?

No, it shouldn't be restricted.

2) Would their be 'freedom of speech' in your ideal society? Would their be limits on these freedoms? What would these limits be?

IMO, freedom of speech doesn't exist. And it can be somehow harmful to a certain extent.

People who work for a given media, are they free to say something against that particular media? No, they are not.

Can people freely say whatever they want, in any place, at any time? No, they actually can't.

Is it good to let people freely support capitalist propaganda or distort the socialist message/info? No, it's harmful.

Limits are necessary.

[Just Joe]

Cassius, the Baltic States never wanted to join the Soviet Union. Stalin gave them no other choice. he invaded when he partitioned Poland with the only other man who was more evil than himself.

same with Tibet, Mao. they do not want to be part of China because there culture and way of life has been destroyed by the Chinese imperialists. the Soviets may have been imperialists number one, but the Chinese were close behind them.

Clay, do you support the USSR after Stalin? i suppose if you don't, you can sort of distance yourself from the major imperialism of the Soviet Union.

i realise Communism was a better standard of living for the people of Russia and eastern Europe. my beef with those states is based on a lot more than economics. you can't buy people off with lifetime employment and security. there is more to life.

Solidarity only gained support because the Vatican, CIA and extreme rightist fringes in Poland backed it. It would be curious to see what would have happened in Poland if the Pope wouldn't have been so politically minded.

it couldn't possibly be because the Polish working class were oppressed by a quasi-fascist state that refused them even basic demands like the right to strike?

should workers be allowed to strike?

People who work for a given media, are they free to say something against that particular media? No, they are not.

Can people freely say whatever they want, in any place, at any time? No, they actually can't.

Is it good to let people freely support capitalist propaganda or distort the socialist message/info? No, it's harmful.

Limits are necessary.

this suprises me. i would have thought, based on your other posts and your age, that you wouldn't go for this Stalinist tripe. the day you can't say what you want, is the day the government stops being a peoples government.


(Edited by Just Joe at 8:03 pm on Feb. 18, 2003)

[thursday night]

Wow Joe you don't even reply to most of what we say to you. And you take it to a personal level. You don't even know about me personally. You don't even know if I'm a guy or girl, really. (I am a man)

[thursday night]

"i realise Communism was a better standard of living for the people of Russia and eastern Europe. my beef with those states is based on a lot more than economics. you can't buy people off with lifetime employment and security. there is more to life."

What more would you like from socialism? So, you are basically saying: 'Well people had better lives but there is more to life so it sucks!' This is quite oxymoronic.

[Just Joe]

what d'you want me to respond too? your drivel about US imperialism and Soviet 'Liberation'? your post about American activities in Afghanistan which i knew anyway?

please show me where i've taken it to a personal level? you yourself have made a few one line insults in responce to some of my posts.

What more would you like from socialism?

lets start with what i don't want. suprisingly, they are all features of Stalinism:

banning of strikes
state control of trade unions
shite living standards
appointed leaders not elected ones
imperialism
no free speech
no free press
totalitarianism
repression of religion
ethnic cleansing
anti-semitism
mass murder
a wall keeping me inside a country
having to ask permission to go on holiday
waiting in line for goods
sharing an apartment with my parents at age 40
having to watch what i say everywhere
the oppression of minorities
an economy in the hands of 10 men
a new ruling class
a personality cult
a quasi-hereditary monarchy
leaders living in palaces while workers starve to death
30% of the countrys budget going to the armed forces

[Cassius Clay]

''Cassius, the Baltic States never wanted to join the Soviet Union. Stalin gave them no other choice. he invaded when he partitioned Poland with the only other man who was more evil than himself.''

So why did they join the Soviet Union? Why did the people throughout the Soviet Union in the early 1990's vote to stay in the Union? 'Partitioned Poland' ?? More like a act of liberation. A member of this board's grandmother grew up in Poland at that time and settled in the Soviet Union, if it weren't for the Soviet Union moving troops in she would of most likely ended up in a death camp.

Not to mention that the few hundred miles of buffer zone west helped to defeat the Nazis.

''Clay, do you support the USSR after Stalin? i suppose if you don't, you can sort of distance yourself from the major imperialism of the Soviet Union.''

I would not only distance myself from it but fight against it, just like every 'Stalinist' did. Hoxha, Mao, Che they all opposed the 'Social Imperialism' of the USSR.

However much I criticise the USSR of the 1970's and 80's however faced with a choice between Brezheve and Yelstin I would chose Leonid every time. Between U$ and Soviet Union, I would chose the Soviet Union every time.


''i realise Communism was a better standard of living for the people of Russia and eastern Europe. my beef with those states is based on a lot more than economics. you can't buy people off with lifetime employment and security. there is more to life.''

Why don't you tell that to the 1 Billion people living in extreme poverty as a direct result of Capitalist Imperialism, otherwise known as Globilisation? Tell that to the 11 million Russians who have died as a DIRECT result of Capitalism since 1990.

''it couldn't possibly be because the Polish working class were oppressed by a quasi-fascist state that refused them even basic demands like the right to strike?''

Poland at this time had abanoned the correct path of Socialism years before. However you only need to look at Poland now after 'Solidarity' took over to see that Lech Walsea and his Vatican/CIA friends are and that's Capitalists.

''should workers be allowed to strike?''

Yes, this right was allowed in the Soviet Union under Stalin and only taken away by the traitor Deng in China in 1983.

[Cassius Clay]

''state control of trade unions''

This is why under 'Stalinism' the opposition member and rightist Rykov was made head of the Trade Union's in the Soviet Union throughout the 30's?

''shite living standards''

American economists generally feared in the 1950's that the average standard of living for the average Soviet would overtake that of the American. Considering the massive damage inflicted on the Soviet Union by German Capitalism I would call that some acheivment. In Stalin's time the avearage life expectancy doubled, since 1990 it has for males decreased by 8 years.

''appointed leaders not elected ones''

USSR electoral process was very democratic, you only have to look at the Smolensk archive which has been available in the west since 1945 to see that. Something like 50% of the local officials were replaced in some areas in elections held in the 30's.

''imperialism''

Only fighting against it.

''no free speech''

During the cold war you saw 'dissidents' on CNN every night. It really is stupid when people complain about some evil oppressive government that also allows it's 'Dissidents' total freedom of speech to voice their opinions to a audience of hundreds of millions.

''no free press''

Who owns the press in a Capitalist society? That's right the Capitalists. That Pravda didn't feel the need to publish trashy tabloid rubbish is to it's credit. Also bare in mind that Bakhurin was editor of Ivesta in the 30's from where he launched scathing attacks on everything Stalin and the Soviet government were doing.


''totalitarianism''

If you would like to name me a state where workers would walk into their factory manager's office demand his or her resignation and actually get it then please do?

''repression of religion''

All that happened was the state stoped supporting the Church and as such the Church ran out of it's funds. Given that the Soviet Union was a country that had accounts of women being burnt for whitchcraft as late as 1919 and that in Central Asia women could NOT walk the street without a vail for fear of being stoned I would say it would of been right to be very repressive towards religion.

But the FACT is both Gorby and Yelstin were christianed in the 1930's. Hardly oppressing religion.

''ethnic cleansing''

Back up this outrageous claim.

''anti-semitism''

Stalin fought against the anti-semitism throughout his entire life. Need I remind you that it was the Red Army that liberated Auschwitz.

''mass murder''

In a country where capital punishment was actually abolished for five years?

''a wall keeping me inside a country''

In the early 90's some gravita was sprayed on what was left of the wall. It said 'This wall kept us from going to war', it was quickly grarifited over with the usual anti-Communist stuff. That the wall was a terrible thing is not in question, niether is the fact that Western Capital were the one's to divide Germany in the first place.


''having to ask permission to go on holiday''

What are you talking about? Soviet citizens enjoyed a holiday like everyone else and if a boss would deny a worker the right to go on holiday then that particular boss would be quickly punished.

''waiting in line for goods''

As opposed to now starving or dying of malnutrition. I know which one I would prefer.

''sharing an apartment with my parents at age 40''

No that's called having possesive parents. Where did you get this peice of information? Even you admited that the one guy you met who grew up in USSR (Lithuanian so he supposedly would of been victim of this 'Oppression of minority's) digged the Soviet system. And he was in his 20's was he not?

''having to watch what i say everywhere''

A Western Correspondent in the GDR in the mid 1960's remarked 'If East Germany is a police State, it is a remarkably liberal one by Himmler standards'.

''the oppression of minorities''

See your Lithuanian friend again.

''an economy in the hands of 10 men''

Workers controlled the mean's of production in the Soviet Union, especially during Stalin's time. This was graudually taken over by a beurcratic ruling class under Khrushchev and Brezhneve and by the 80's your description is not that far from the truth.

''a new ruling class''

See above. It's also worth pointing out that when Stalin died there were no millionaires in the USSR, after a former Trotskyite took over there were over 13,000.

''a personality cult
a quasi-hereditary monarchy
leaders living in palaces while workers starve to death
30% of the countrys budget going to the armed forces''

Sounds like a combination of U$A in 2003, Tsarist Russia and Nazi Germany to me.

[Revolution Hero]

To those who think that Soviet Union was imperialist state.

To say that SOCIALISTIC state is imperialistic is the same as to say that CAPITALISTIC state builds its relationships with so called third world states on the basis of mutual benefits. Socialistic state can’t be imperialistic and to say that Soviet Union of 60s and 70s was not socialistic state is the same as to say:” I am trotskyist bastard…”
What is the main feature of imperialism? Imperialism is characterized by the oppression of one state (dependent, colony or neo- colony) by another (imperialistic state). Imperialistic state exploits the natural resources and labor force of dependent state; the relations between imperialistic and dependent state can be described as the relations between slave owner and slave, feudal and dependent peasant, capitalist and worker.
Is it right to say that Soviet Union was imperialistic state? Definitely, it is not. Did Soviet Union “deserve” to be called “imperialistic state” because of its help to the international revolutionary movement? Did Soviet Union “deserve” to be called “imperialistic state” because of its financial unconditional help to the young socialistic states? Did Soviet Union “deserve” to be called “imperialistic state” because of proletarian internationalism- the principle, which Soviet Union never refused of?
All of the Stalinists say that bourgeois propaganda spreads lies and rumors about Joseph Stalin. I agree. So, why do you, Cassius Clay, simply swallow bourgeois propaganda about Soviet Union being imperialistic state? Reagan was the one who called USSR “evil empire”. Reagan was anticommunist. Saying that Soviet Union was “imperialistic state” is the same as to publicly support anticommunism.
The following passages from the materials of 24th Congress of CPSU (1971) shows indisputable facts:

“Soviet Union is a peace-loving state, this is determined by the character of our socialistic system. The aims of soviet external policy, as were formulated by the 23rd Congress of CPSU, consist in the insurance of favorable international conditions of building socialism and communism together with other socialistic countries; strengthening the unity, solidarity, friendship and brotherhood of socialistic countries; supporting national- liberation movements and realizing collaboration with young developing states; consistent defense of the principle of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, decisive repulse to the powers of aggressive imperialism, prevention of the mankind from new world war.”

“CPSU attaches special importance to the development of collaboration with communist parties of brotherly countries. This kind of collaboration gave us an opportunity to use the experience of one another, to collectively develop the principles of building of socialism and communism, to find the most rational forms of economical relations, to collectively determine the common line in the questions of external policy, to exchange the opinions about the work in the spheres of ideology and culture.”

“Soviet Union and other socialistic countries actively and consistently support the struggle of people of Vietnam and other countries of Indochina against the imperialistic interventionists. The steps taken by the socialistic countries in the Near East became one of the decisive factors, which led to the failure of imperialistic plans of overthrowing progressive regimes in Arabian countries.”

“Soviet Union and brotherly countries in every possible way help each other in the development of national economies. More than 300 industrial and agricultural objects were built or reconstructed with our technical assistance in the socialistic countries during the last five years. We supply our friends with the industrial production of different kinds on the mutually beneficial conditions. Soviet Union satisfies the needs of the Council for Mutual Economic Aid (CMEA), Cuba, Democratic Republic of Vietnam and Democratic Republic of Korea on 70% and more.
In its turn our national economy received equipment for 54 chemical factories from the countries of CMEA. More than 38% of marine- waterway tonnage, which supplemented our fleet during the period of last 5 years, is made on the shipyards of our friends. Countries of CMEA participate with their investments in the development of raw material and fuel branches of soviet economy, in the increasing of production of metal, fertilizers and cellulose. We also import consumer goods from brotherly countries.”

“The relations of socialistic solidarity and strong friendship connect our party and soviet people with the Party of working people of Vietnam and Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Following the precepts of great patriot and revolutionist Ho Chi Minh, Vietnamese people hold high the banner of socialism in their hands and fearlessly oppose imperialistic aggressors. Democratic Republic of Vietnam may rely on the brotherly support of Soviet Union in its military struggle and peaceful labor.
Soviet Union strengthened the collaboration with Republic of Cuba and Communist Party of Cuba. As the result of the mutual efforts the significant successes in the development of soviet- Cuban relations were achieved. People of Soviet Union and Cuba are comrades in their common struggle; their friendship is firm.
For the last years, the relations with Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have been widened; we are convinced that these relations answer the interests of both countries. Soviet Union supported and supports the suggestions of DPRK government about peaceful democratic unification of the country and the demands of Korean people about the withdrawal of American army out from South of Korea.”


So called “invasions” to Hungary and Czechoslovakia were basically the acts of oppression of counter- revolutionary movement. Red Army saved socialism from the restoration of capitalism. Do you call protection of socialism the crime of “imperialism”? Isn’t socialism something that we all stand for?

[Cassius Clay]

Hello there Revolution Hero. Before I attempt to argue with your points below let me say that I know you are one of the most genuine Marxists on this board. Your fight against the Trotskyites on this board is indeed admiriable and you are right to defend the Soviet Union against Capitalist, Trotskyite and Liberal lies.

''To say that SOCIALISTIC state is imperialistic is the same as to say that CAPITALISTIC state builds its relationships with so called third world states on the basis of mutual benefits. Socialistic state can’t be imperialistic and to say that Soviet Union of 60s and 70s was not socialistic state is the same as to say:” I am trotskyist bastard…”

Oh that the Soviet Union had socialism in the 60's and 70's is not in doubt and I have allready said that I would chose Leonid Brezheve and the Soviet Union every time over the U$A and Globilisation. But as Marxists it is are job to criticise and the Soviet regime was at fault both internally and internationally. The Invasion of Czechslovakia was Imperialism, Enver Hoxha explained at the time that if Czechslovakia was going Capitalist then it was up to the people themselves to overthrow the revisionists. What Brezheve should of done was isolate the Czech's and point out their mistakes and where it would lead to and give support to the Czech workers to overthrow Dubeck. Instead he ordered the tanks in.

Neither do I believe it to be correct to simply say that the fall of the USSR was all Gorby fault. That he played a great role in selling out the Soviet Union is not in doubt, but Gorby was merely the final inevitability of revisionism which had plauged the country for decades before.

Stalin has been proved right when he said the class struggle intensifies under Socialism, Brezheve should never allowed people like Gorby and Yelstin to get power in the first place.

''What is the main feature of imperialism? Imperialism is characterized by the oppression of one state (dependent, colony or neo- colony) by another (imperialistic state). Imperialistic state exploits the natural resources and labor force of dependent state; the relations between imperialistic and dependent state can be described as the relations between slave owner and slave, feudal and dependent peasant, capitalist and worker.''

Exactly, and this was how the Soviet Union was treating states in Eastern Europe by the eighties. Just look at the below article.

''The Plundering of the GDR by the Soviet Union

The focal point of economic development of the GDR lies unequivocally in heavy industry, which as in all capitalist countries is developed at the expense of agriculture and the consumer goods industry. In this, the fact that the Soviet social-imperialists have forced upon the GDR a one-sided economic structure that is tailored to its own needs, plays an outstanding role. The Soviet Union has hindered the development of the heavy industry of the GDR, has directed its industrial production to Soviet need and has made a series of branches of production dependent on Soviet raw materials and fuel.


Raw Material Basis

In December of 1958 the Soviet revisionists imposed the construction of a 5,200 kilometer oil pipeline on the GDR, Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, which began operation in 1963. In 1968, the construction of a natural gas line from the Soviet Union to the GDR and others was agreed on. Thus the chemical industry, which in terms of the value of production is the most significant branch of industry in the GDR, became completely dependent on deliveries from the USSR. The GDR lost its own national basis in coal chemistry.

This weighs even more heavily, since the cradle of modern chemistry lies on the territory of the GDR. Here were invented the synthetic materials, synthetic rubber and synthetic benzene. Just as the FRG's chemical industry was made dependent on the U.S. oil monopolies, so the chemical industry of the GDR was made dependent on the Soviet superpower.

The adaptation to Soviet oil exposed the GDR to a brutal exploitation. For the USSR supplies oil to the GDR at a price higher than the world market price. So more commodities must always be delivered to the USSR, in order to pay for the same quantity of oil, or to settle the balance of trade deficit.

The GDR is likewise dependent on the Soviet Union for the supply of hard coal, iron ore, nickel-iron metals such as copper and nickel, wool and cotton, etc. "The Soviet Union provides the GDR's economy with all necessary raw materials." (The GDR - Development, Construction and Future; Frankfurt, 1969, p. 46) For all these raw materials similar mechanisms functioned as with oil.

The Soviet Union also breaks up a closed economic circulation, in order to make the GDR dependent. Although the GDR has a developed steel industry, which in 1987 still produced 8.2 million tons of raw steel, it imported hundreds of thousands of tons of steel, steel tubes, sheet-metal and steel pig-iron from the USSR.

Although the GDR is the largest producer of brown coal in the world, and can provide its whole power supply with its own forces, the Soviet Union also built nuclear power plants in the GDR, which today produce 11% of its power. The USSR has a monopoly on the development of atomic power plants in the CMEA [Council of Mutual Economic Assistance]. The export of atomic power plants, the intensification of nuclear power production, is a goal of Soviet imperialism, in order to make its allies dependent on it. The GDR, which presently still provides for about 80% of its power through its brown coal, is supposed, in 2 to 3 decades, to cover 50% of its power needs from nuclear power plants.


Structure of Industry

A specialization in the industrial sphere was forced upon the GDR, by which it, as well as industrially developed Czechoslovakia, became a subcontractor for various industries of the USSR and an appendage to its market. This division of labor was enforced upon it by making it dependent on the supply of raw materials [from the Soviet Union], which again had to be paid for with exports developed primarily for the Soviet market.

"So four-fifths of the ships and related equipment, two-thirds of the railroad cars, half of the transportation equipment, three-fourths of the equipment for the chemical industry and many other products and consumer goods, that were manufactured in the various CMEA countries, were destined for the Soviet market." (Albania Today, 3/1974, p. 37)

In 1987 the GDR produced 1,386 railroad passenger cars, of which 1,082 were exported, overwhelmingly to the USSR. The ship-building industry of the GDR has been overwhelmingly built up first as an export industry for the USSR. Over 70% of the trucks were exported in 1987, as well as 65% of the motorcycles. The furniture industry exported, since the 1960s, in considerable quantity to the USSR.

But above all the machine building industry in the GDR is oriented to the needs of the USSR. "In the 1950s nearly 90% of the machine-tool machines in the world were included in the GDR's production program. Economically, such an extensive range of production is unhealthy. The VIth Party Congress resolved to shrink the assortment of machine tool production in the interest of greater mass production. The very extensive division of labor among the CMEA countries that was achieved in the 1960s made the streamlining of this range of products in the GDR easier." (The GDR - Development, Construction and Future; Frankfurt, 1969, p. 29)

The GDR became the largest machine exporter of the CMEA. Over 80% of the metal cutting machines, over 70% of the agricultural machines, almost 90% of the machines for the textile, clothing and leather industries were exported in 1987 (Statistical Yearbook, p. 614, 620), mainly to the USSR. This country paid for the machines from the GDR up to 30% less than the world market price.

The electronics industry has also been developed primarily according to the desires of the USSR. With 14 billion marks it has been provided with vast investments. The electronics companies, especially Robotron, are among the most modern firms of the GDR. The electronics industry has been disproportionately supported:

1) to intensify the productivity of labor, that is the exploitation of the working class,

2) to satisfy the demands of the Soviet Union for the provision of modern machines, and

3) to provide the Soviet Union with first-rate components in the framework of specialization. There are numerous agreements about "joint efforts" and specialization with the USSR. The primary promotion of the electronics industry certainly also serves to strengthen the potential of the armaments industry of the USSR.

In view of this specialization, the automobile production has fallen into the gutter. The stinking, rattling, two-cylinder motor, that consumes too much fuel and pollutes the environment, is left over for the working people of the GDR. "Due to more urgent tasks of the people's economy." (The GDR, etc., p. 41) In the 1970s about half of the automobile production of the GDR was exported. In the 1980s the exports fell to one third. Waiting times of 10-15 years [for a car] was no rare occurrence.


Investments of Billions in the USSR

The GDR was forced by the Soviet imperialists to invest a significant share of its surplus value in the USSR. Every five-year plan provides for participation in important investment projects in the Soviet Union. From 1978 to 1982 the GDR paid 8 billion marks to the USSR for investments. It paid a portion of the investments for the development of the oil and natural gas in Siberia, as well as for the pipe line. Also considerable means for the building of new factories in the USSR. In the 20 years from 1957 to 1977 the GDR, Poland and Czechoslovakia combined built completely, for example, 55 sugar factories.

A specific form of exploitation is the International Investment Bank, which was founded in 1971. For its initial capital the CMEA countries took part according to their export share of mutual trade, the USSR taking 38%, the GDR 17.7%, Czechoslovakia 12.3%, etc. The credits of this CMEA bank were to serve the "international socialist division of labor" and the "specialization," and flow overwhelmingly into the USSR.

On the other hand, Soviet social-imperialism invested extensive capital in the GDR. Both in joint enterprises and in the form of multinational Soviet companies such as Interelectro, Interchemistry, etc., which could move according to their convenience and exploited the working people of the GDR.


Trade with the USSR

The dependency on the Soviet Union becomes clear in the volume of foreign trade. In 1980 the GDR carried on 35.4% of its total foreign trade with the USSR. In 1987 this was 38.8% The GDR carried on about 70% of its foreign trade with the USSR-controlled CMEA countries. The consequences of the plundering of the GDR and of the other CMEA countries is that the GDR has also lost its economic independence as a highly developed industrial country and has become an appendage of the Soviet economy. In this way the Soviet Union increased its share of the total industrial production of the CMEA between 1960 and 1980 from 69.5% to 75%, while the share of the GDR was almost cut in half.

The double capitalist exploitation of the working people of the GDR by the monopoly bourgeoisie of the GDR and of the USSR has in recent years been even more supplemented by the exploitation by the Western imperialist countries. In this way the monopolists of the GDR, but also of the USSR, hope to gain a new modernizing impulse.

But Soviet imperialism does not have any intention of giving up the GDR as booty for the other imperialist countries. The formulation of a "Common European House" serves it also by promoting the integration of the CMEA countries even more. The living room of the GDR is supposed to also be the living room of the bosses of the USSR.

The perspective of the working class of the GDR does not lie in replacing one system of monopoly capitalism by another, dominated by West German imperialism. The root of the problem is exploitation itself. West German imperialism seeks to use the indignation against the robber system of the CMEA and the clique of Bonzes of the SED leadership to bring grist to its own mill. The basic interests of the working class of the GDR demand the reestablishment of socialism, not the changing of the form of capitalism. Socialism in the GDR can only be the result of the proletarian revolution under the leadership of a genuine Marxist-Leninist party. It must be directed against the monopoly bourgeoisie of the GDR, against Soviet social-imperialism and against West German imperialism.''


''All of the Stalinists say that bourgeois propaganda spreads lies and rumors about Joseph Stalin. I agree. So, why do you, Cassius Clay, simply swallow bourgeois propaganda about Soviet Union being imperialistic state? Reagan was the one who called USSR “evil empire”. Reagan was anticommunist. Saying that Soviet Union was “imperialistic state” is the same as to publicly support anticommunism.''

I don't criticise the Soviet Union of the 60's, 70's and 80's simply because of Ronald Reagen's stupid propaganda. I criticise it based on writings and facts presented by Marxists such as Enver Hoxha and others such as Maoists.


''The following passages from the materials of 24th Congress of CPSU (1971) shows indisputable facts:

“Soviet Union is a peace-loving state, this is determined by the character of our socialistic system. The aims of soviet external policy, as were formulated by the 23rd Congress of CPSU, consist in the insurance of favorable international conditions of building socialism and communism together with other socialistic countries; strengthening the unity, solidarity, friendship and brotherhood of socialistic countries; supporting national- liberation movements and realizing collaboration with young developing states; consistent defense of the principle of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, decisive repulse to the powers of aggressive imperialism, prevention of the mankind from new world war.”

“CPSU attaches special importance to the development of collaboration with communist parties of brotherly countries. This kind of collaboration gave us an opportunity to use the experience of one another, to collectively develop the principles of building of socialism and communism, to find the most rational forms of economical relations, to collectively determine the common line in the questions of external policy, to exchange the opinions about the work in the spheres of ideology and culture.”

“Soviet Union and other socialistic countries actively and consistently support the struggle of people of Vietnam and other countries of Indochina against the imperialistic interventionists. The steps taken by the socialistic countries in the Near East became one of the decisive factors, which led to the failure of imperialistic plans of overthrowing progressive regimes in Arabian countries.”

“Soviet Union and brotherly countries in every possible way help each other in the development of national economies. More than 300 industrial and agricultural objects were built or reconstructed with our technical assistance in the socialistic countries during the last five years. We supply our friends with the industrial production of different kinds on the mutually beneficial conditions. Soviet Union satisfies the needs of the Council for Mutual Economic Aid (CMEA), Cuba, Democratic Republic of Vietnam and Democratic Republic of Korea on 70% and more.
In its turn our national economy received equipment for 54 chemical factories from the countries of CMEA. More than 38% of marine- waterway tonnage, which supplemented our fleet during the period of last 5 years, is made on the shipyards of our friends. Countries of CMEA participate with their investments in the development of raw material and fuel branches of soviet economy, in the increasing of production of metal, fertilizers and cellulose. We also import consumer goods from brotherly countries.”

“The relations of socialistic solidarity and strong friendship connect our party and soviet people with the Party of working people of Vietnam and Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Following the precepts of great patriot and revolutionist Ho Chi Minh, Vietnamese people hold high the banner of socialism in their hands and fearlessly oppose imperialistic aggressors. Democratic Republic of Vietnam may rely on the brotherly support of Soviet Union in its military struggle and peaceful labor.
Soviet Union strengthened the collaboration with Republic of Cuba and Communist Party of Cuba. As the result of the mutual efforts the significant successes in the development of soviet- Cuban relations were achieved. People of Soviet Union and Cuba are comrades in their common struggle; their friendship is firm.
For the last years, the relations with Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have been widened; we are convinced that these relations answer the interests of both countries. Soviet Union supported and supports the suggestions of DPRK government about peaceful democratic unification of the country and the demands of Korean people about the withdrawal of American army out from South of Korea.”

That's all well and good and I admire the Soviet's Union's aid to revolutionary groups around the world. However I would hardly expect the Politburo to announce it's policies such as those shown in the article I posted above. Cuba like other's became a dependent on the Soviet Union, and in 1991 faced a crisis because it had become so dependent on the Soviet Union.

''So called “invasions” to Hungary and Czechoslovakia were basically the acts of oppression of counter- revolutionary movement. Red Army saved socialism from the restoration of capitalism. Do you call protection of socialism the crime of “imperialism”? Isn’t socialism something that we all stand for?''

Agreed and the Red Army was totally justified in invading Hungary. But Czechslovakia was Imperialism and as was Afghanistan.

''Workers of the World Unite Against the Soviet Intervention in Afghanistan!
‘And at Sarai Komar, the Centre for the development of Egyptian cotton in Tadjikistan, I saw a delegation of Afghans who came from across the Pianj to ask the local Soviet authorities to help them organise a collective farm.

‘But you are not Soviet citizens’, protested the Tadjik official. ‘Your country is Afghanistan. We can’t come there and organize collective farms’.

‘Why not?’ asked the naive Afghans. ‘You have a strong army.’

The thing appeared quite simple to the applicants – come with your army and organize collective farms.

‘It’s a long and very complicated story – why not,’ dodged the official. ‘But why not get together your belongings and come to us? We’ll organize you in a kolkhoz all right. We’ll settle you on good land, and give you credits, Remember we can use here another million and a half willing workers, first go back and think it over’.

Disappointed, the Afghans left.....’

(Joshua Kunitz: ‘Dawn over Samarkand’, Calcutta, 1943.)

What even the local Soviet Tadjik official understood in the time of Stalin that socialism cannot be exported by the Soviet army today the leaders of the Soviet Union do not understand. Kudos to revisionist dialectics.

According to the press reports 50,000 Soviet troops have entered into Afghanistan, captured all key towns and frontier posts and have liquidated the government headed by Hafizullah Amin and have replaced it by a new pro-Soviet government headed by Babrak Karmal.

The USSR has justified its military action on the grounds that they are giving support to socialist forces in Afghanistan. And in India the two major pro-Soviet parties, the CPI, and the CPI(M) have endorsed the Soviet action.

Many militant workers today still regard the Soviet Union, which was the first land of socialism, the land of Lenin and Stalin, as a leading socialist country.

The foreign policy of a socialist country is conducted on the basis of the principle of proletarian internationalism and a fundamental element of this principle is the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination. J.V. Stalin pointed out that those who do not recognize this principle cannot not only be considered Marxist they cannot even be considered democrats. Marxism-Leninism subordinates the national question to the class question:

‘Proletarian Internationalism demands (i) subordination of the interests of the proletarian struggle in one country to the interests of the struggle on a world scale; (ii) that the nation which achieves victory over the bourgeoisie shall display the capacity and readiness to make the greatest national sacrifice in order to overthrow international reaction.’

(Communist International: ‘Theses on the National and Colonial Questions’, 28th July, 1920).

The Soviet Union in the time of Lenin and Stalin respected the right of nations to self-determination and only in particular instances where the higher class interests of the international proletariat were at stake were Soviet troops to be found outside the territory of the USSR. In this period the Red Army was regarded by the world working class as not only the army of the Russian Socialist Republic but also the Red Army of the Communist International.

When the Red Army entered into Polish territory in 1920 it did so after destroying the reactionary attack of the Polish bourgeoisie and landlords upon the Russian Socialist Republic. Lenin described Poland as the last bulwark of reaction against the Bolshevik revolution. The Red Army crossed the borders of Poland as a counter-offensive against the counter-revolutionary white forces. At that moment the world proletarian revolutionary upsurge was at its peak: The offensive of the Red Army was also designed to link up the Soviet proletariat with that of Poland and Germany. The alliance of Soviet Russia and a Soviet Germany would have decisively breached the world imperialist front. At that time the interests of the proletariat in any one nation was subordinate to this key question. This counter-offensive against Poland was launched keeping in view the revolutionary upsurge of the Polish proletariat to the rear of the reactionary Polish troops. This heroic action of the Red Army was a great sacrifice by the Soviet workers and peasants to assist the world revolutionary process.

One of the first acts of the Russian Revolution was the recognition of the secession of Finland from Russia. When the Soviet Union was involved in preventative war with Finland in 1939 that country had become a base for international reaction directed against the USSR at a time of impending world war. The USSR proposed the exchange of strategic territory belonging to Finland required to protect the city of Leningrad in return for double the territory to be ceded by the Soviet Union. The President of Finland recognised that the Soviet proposal did not affect the integrity of Finland. Soviet troops marched into Finland in November 1939 after Finnish military provocations had taken place backed by world reaction. In the peace terms signed in Moscow in March 1940 the USSR ceded all territory beyond the requirements of the security of Leningrad. The Soviet-Finnish war and the subsequent peace treaty proved to the world the strength of the Soviet Union and its determination to uphold the principle of self-determination of nations and peaceful coexistence. The crucial importance of this was clear to the world proletariat in that it sabotaged the attempt of Anglo-American imperialism to turn the tide of Nazi imperialism against the Soviet Union and so compelled Anglo-American capital to form an alliance with the Soviet Union against Germany. During the course of the Anti-Fascist War the Soviet Army in alliance with the working class and democratic forces of these countries liberated many of the Eastern European states, North Korea and Northern China. Clearly the entry of Soviet troops into those countries was necessitated by the requirements of smashing the states linked with and subjected to German and Japanese imperialism and fascism. The territories liberated during the course of the antifascist war were handed over to the local democratic authorities upon the withdrawal of Soviet troops. In these instances, too, the USSR in the time of Stalin acted in such a fashion that the fundamental national right to self-determination was not violated.

Each of these instances reveals that, in the time of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Army entered into foreign territory when an offensive had been launched against the Soviet Union by the ruling classes of particular states, at a time when such states had became the focal base for the world capitalist offensive directed against the Soviet Union and when thus the reactionary ruling classes of a particular state had become the enemy of not just one national section of the world proletariat but an enemy of the world proletariat as a whole.

Even if it is supposed that the Soviet Union today is a socialist state it is not possible to justify the military intervention by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan; for the Hafizullah Amin government could not be considered as a bulwark of world imperialism which is being utilized as a base for launching war upon the ‘socialist’ Soviet Union. Indeed the USSR itself recognised the government of Hafizullah Amin as a democratic government and only after overthrowing it declared it to be an agency of imperialism. Such is the eclectic logic of Soviet revisionism designed to serve the pragmatist interests of Soviet neo-imperialism.

It is the bounden duty of the international proletariat and the socialist camp to render assistance to the revolutionary democratic forces in the colonial, semi-colonial and dependent countries. But this fraternal assistance should never be rendered in such a manner so as to violate the rights of self-determination of the nation thus assisted. During the course of the great national-revolutionary war of the Spanish people 1936-39 the Spanish government and people called for international fraternal assistance from the world working class and the democratic forces in their struggle against the fascist armed forces headed by Franco and backed by Hitler and Mussolini. In response to this call the Communist International formed the International Brigades and the Soviet Union rendered military assistance to the Spanish Republic. All volunteers were placed under the command of the General Staff of the Spanish democratic government. This reveals in a clear manner the principled approach of the world proletarian forces in not violating the sovereignty of the Spanish democratic state.

Has the Soviet Army intervened in Afghanistan in such a manner as to respect the right of the nationalities of Afghanistan to self-determination and the sovereign rights of the Afghan state? In reality the Soviet military forces overthrew the government of Hafizullah Amin which it had only recently regarded as representing the democratic forces of Afghanistan and instated the puppet Babrak Karmal government to state power. In acting in this fashion the Soviet Union of Brezhnev has violated the national sovereignty of Afghanistan. Subsequently, the Soviet Union has sought to legitimize its military occupation by arguing that it was rendering assistance to the socialist forces represented by the Babrak Karmal government. In its entire action in Afghanistan the government of the Soviet Union has not acted in the manner of the Communist International and the Soviet Union of the time of Stalin as exemplified in the case of the Spanish democratic revolution which would have required the ‘International communist movement’ and the Soviet Union to call for international assistance to the national-revolutionary forces in Afghanistan: assistance which would have been placed at the disposal of the government of Afghanistan and so respecting the sovereign right of the Afghanistan state. A cardinal principle of a socialist state is the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination. By consistently violating this principle the Soviet Union since the death of Stalin has forfeited the right to call itself the land of socialism.

The most clear expression of the violation of the Leninist-Stalinist understanding of the right of nations to self-determination by the Soviet Union subsequent to the death of Stalin was the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Warsaw Pact states in 1968. At that time, too, the modern revisionists justified this aggressive act as being necessitated by the requirement of preserving ‘socialism’ in Czechoslovakia which was endangered by the pro-imperialist machinations of the Dubcek clique. Of the forces of modern Indian revisionism the CPI(M) stood in the van of those who defended the alleged right of the ‘socialist’ Soviet Union to militarily intervene in Czechoslovakia, This was, of course, in opposition to the principles and practices of Leninism-Stalinism. It need only be recalled that in 1948 when the Yugoslavian revisionists headed by the Tito-Rankovich clique revealed themselves as social-fascist agencies of US imperialism and when this clique tortured and killed 80,000 Communists and workers in the concentration camp of Goli Otok, the Cominform and the Soviet Union headed by J.V. Stalin did not react by sending the troops of the Soviet Union to restore people’s democracy in Yugoslavia but rendered political assistance to the Yugoslav Communists with the end objective of exposing to the working class and working people of Yugoslavia and the world proletariat the social-fascist policies of the government of Yugoslavia. In essence modern revisionism seeks to build and defend ‘socialism’ on the point of ‘Soviet’ bayonets and not on the basis of raising the consciousness of the working class to its historical destiny.

The workers of the world have to face the painful reality that socialism exists no longer in the Soviet Union after the temporary defeat of the Marxist-Leninist forces headed by J.V. Stalin and the replacement of the dictatorship of the proletariat by the dictatorship of the new bureaucrat state capitalists. Today the neo-imperialist Soviet Union speculates on the socialist past and pursues its imperialist design of bringing the national democratic revolutions in the colonial, semi-colonial and dependent countries into the sphere of Soviet neo-imperialism through its ‘socialist aid’. The tragic events in Afghanistan can only be seen in this perspective. The exposure and defeat of Soviet revisionism and neo-imperialism and its allies is of prime importance to the world working class and democrat forces. The working class and democratic forces in Afghanistan as elsewhere in the colonial type countries during the course of the revolutionary democratic process will have to fight on two fronts against both the two major imperialist blocs headed by the Soviet Union and US imperialism.

Long Live the Struggle of Afghan People for National Self-Determination!

Long Live the Struggles of the World Working Class and Working People Against Imperialism and Social Imperialism!

Long Live Proletarian Internationalism!''

[Just Joe]

i'll go through what i said and tell you exactly what i mean by them:

banning of strikes

strikes were banned in Stalinist states. this was one of the things Solidarity campaigned against in Poland.

state control of trade unions

when the state controls unions, it rules for the state and its needs, not for the workers. all Stalinist countries had state control of unions.

shite living standards

even though capitalism has brought shiter living standards, thats no excuse for below average living standards that were evident in Stalinist days.

appointed leaders not elected ones

show me a popular election that made Brezhnev leader of the USSR.

imperialism

you've admitted yourself the invasion of Afghanistan was imperialism.

no free speech

how many anti-war demos were there in the USSR when Afghanistan was invaded? considering the massive unpopularity of it, i'd say the authorities cracked down on protests or the people were too scared to have an opinion.

no free press

Capitalist free press are much better than Soviet 'free' press. i've seen loads of Socialist and Marxist viewpoints in the media. i wonder how many Capitalists wrote for Pravda?

totalitarianism

i'd like to see that state youre talking about too,

repression of religion

youre saying its ok to repress religion because the Orthadox Church did bad things. whatever they did, religion was still wrongly repressed for years and still is in Russia.

ethnic cleansing

the Chechens were just one group of people Stalin deported for allegedly being 'Nazis'.

anti-semitism

what about the Jewish purges of 1952? or the mass repression of Yiddish culture?

mass murder

wow! they outlawed it for 5 years! uncle Joe sure made up for lost time didn't he.

a wall keeping me inside a country

whatever the reasons, the Communists were the ones to erect the wall.

having to ask permission to go on holiday

most holidays had to be booked years in advance and were mostly only in other Communist countries.

waiting in line for goods

there should not be an option of waiting for goods or not having them.

sharing an apartment with my parents at age 40

in most Communist countries, the waiting list for houses is enormous. you'd probobly be about 30 or so until you got your own place. unless you were a 'member'.

having to watch what i say everywhere

you, for the second time, give a worse example and think its ok. just because it wasn't Nazi Germany, doesn't mean its good. you shouldn't have to have to choice of Gestapo and Stasi. you should be free to say whatever.

the oppression of minorities

reffering more to the banning and imprisonment of homosexuals. laws that Stalin introduced if i'm not mistaken.

an economy in the hands of 10 men

the Poliburo gave there needs to the state planners. the average Politburo had about 10 old cronies in it.

a new ruling class

Communist Party members had it better than average folk. deny this an youre a fool.

a personality cult

Mao, Stalin, Brezhnev, Tito, that Romanian guy.

a quasi-hereditary monarchy

North Korea.

leaders living in palaces while workers starve to death

Stalins cronies lived in Dachas while collectivisation killed millions.

30% of the countrys budget going to the armed forces

this was common in the USSR. don't know the exact figures.

[Saint-Just]

'a quasi-hereditary monarchy

North Korea.'

Would you call the U.S. regime a hereditary monarchy? son of the former Bush now leads the country.

Kim Jong Il is one of a number of children of Kim Il Sung. Kim Jong Il was given leadership by the Central Commitee for his leadership qualities, knowledge and capabilities. If anything, being the son of Kim Il Sung hindered him in being in the shadow of such a great figure. From the 60's Kim Jong Il was high in the echelons of the party. He produced many great Juche and anti-revisionism works throughout the latter half of the 20th Century and was a powerful figure in creating party policy. He was NOT given leadership simply because he was the son of Kim Il Sung. You know little about the actual situation and prefer to believe in capitalist media.

I will let Cassius to respond to the rest if he feels it even necessary. To me you seem to be a liberal capitalist Just Joe. It amazes me the attacks you take on socialism.

[thursday night]

I'm going to petition for Just Joe to be restricted to this forum only.

[Cassius Clay]

''i'll go through what i said and tell you exactly what i mean by them:''

While ignoring the previous replies.

''strikes were banned in Stalinist states. this was one of the things Solidarity campaigned against in Poland.''

Poland was hardly 'Stalinist' at this time. I will once again point out that in Mao's China strikes were legal up until 1983. In the Soviet Union a worker could leave his or her job, but if a boss wanted to sack a worker they had to prove that the worker was not only not being productive but causing more harm than good.

''when the state controls unions, it rules for the state and its needs, not for the workers. all Stalinist countries had state control of unions.''

The state is made up of and for the workers so therefor you are right. During Stalin's time working class membership to the party increased from 54% to 63%.

''even though capitalism has brought shiter living standards, thats no excuse for below average living standards that were evident in Stalinist days.''

'Below average living standards' what are you talking about. Considering where the Soviet Union began stuck in the 15th Century and yet by the 1950's (despite all the damage inflicted in GPW) American economists generally feared the USSR would overtake the U$A in average living standards for it's citizens. Absoblute poverty is defined by lack of shelter, clothes and education. Not only did the Soviet Union wipe out the above but provided it's citizen's with much more.

In America 10% of the population doesn't have enough to eat.

''show me a popular election that made Brezhnev leader of the USSR.''

You don't understand socialist democracy? Brezhnev was elected by the politburo and the politburo was elected by the party and the party's members were elected by the people. I can though tell you that Trotsky recieved less than 6000 votes out of over 725,000 cast in elections held in December 1927.

''you've admitted yourself the invasion of Afghanistan was imperialism.''

Yes I did, and so did every other 'Stalinist'.

''how many anti-war demos were there in the USSR when Afghanistan was invaded? considering the massive unpopularity of it, i'd say the authorities cracked down on protests or the people were too scared to have an opinion.''

Only a 'crackdown' on those who stoped criticism. There is one account of a soldier who returned to his town in the early 80's and was treated like rubbish by the local party officials. The soldier's story sparked outrage and protest and over 500 people signed a petition pointing out the behaviour of the local officials. Pravda a few weeks later announced that those responsible had been 'severly punished'.

Source for this is a book in my College library which is anything but pro-Soviet, if your that bothered then I will give a precise account on Monday when I've got the book.

''Capitalist free press are much better than Soviet 'free' press. i've seen loads of Socialist and Marxist viewpoints in the media. i wonder how many Capitalists wrote for Pravda?''

Well Bukhrarin's programme was identical to that of Deng Xia Ping and Mikhail Gorbachev, eg Capitalist and he was editor of Ivesta.

''i'd like to see that state youre talking about too,''

The Soviet Union under Stalin.

''youre saying its ok to repress religion because the Orthadox Church did bad things. whatever they did, religion was still wrongly repressed for years and still is in Russia.''

My opinion is yes it's ok to repress religion. But the fact is it wasn't, all that happened was that the people started to get more education and were not brainwashed by priests and the state stopped funding the Church and other religious institutions. But it was hardly repressed when both Gorbachev and Yelstin were christained in the 1930's, you only have to look at the revival of the Churches during the GPW.

''the Chechens were just one group of people Stalin deported for allegedly being 'Nazis'.''

That was in circumstances bought on entirely by the Nazi invasion, no one defends this act and neither the deportation of the Crimean Tartars. However every nation Socialist or Capitalist that suffered occupation commited crimes on those it deemed of collobartion. It's not nice but it happened. Yes it caused suffering and pain, but 'Ethnic cleansing' hardly. Chechen's wen't on to recieve on average the highest number of medals by each national group in the Union.

''what about the Jewish purges of 1952? or the mass repression of Yiddish culture?''

All I'm aware of is out of nine doctors arrested six of whom happened to be Jewish on charges of spying and suspected of murdering Zhdanov.

''wow! they outlawed it for 5 years! uncle Joe sure made up for lost time didn't he.''

No he didn't. The FACT is the U$ has three million more people in prison than the Soviet Union ever did.

''whatever the reasons, the Communists were the ones to erect the wall.''

If western Imperialism had taken up Stalin's offer to withdraw from Germany on the mere condition that it remained neutral then it would of never happened. Thursday has posted a article on the wall, which gives a opposing view point. Once again what would you prefer a Nuclear holocaust or a wall?

''most holidays had to be booked years in advance and were mostly only in other Communist countries.''

Please back this up. And as a 'Free American' you are not allowed to travel to Cuba. That's a fact what you have written above is propaganda. Soviet workers had atleast one holiday a year, so your claim that they had to book 'years in advance' is rubbish. Considering one third of the Earth was infact Socialist I would not call it restriction of choice.

''there should not be an option of waiting for goods or not having them.''

Yes that option is called Socialism and Capitalism. And do you not have to wait in a line for your food every time you go to the supermarket?

''in most Communist countries, the waiting list for houses is enormous. you'd probobly be about 30 or so until you got your own place. unless you were a 'member'.''

And in today's Britain your probably be atleast in your mid 20's until you get a house of your own. Unlike Soviets people in the UK get there own house thousands of pounds in dect because this 'free' society doesn't provide a free education. Not to mention Soviets didn't have to worry about being thrown out into the street if circumstances didn't turn out right. Also 1 Billion people don't have a home atall under Capitalism which supposedly is 'free'.

''you, for the second time, give a worse example and think its ok. just because it wasn't Nazi Germany, doesn't mean its good. you shouldn't have to have to choice of Gestapo and Stasi. you should be free to say whatever.''

Even a western correspondent is admiting that the comparision in the first place is stupid and not worthy of a series argument. 'You should be free to say whatever', ask Thursday about his trip to Cuba. People walked right pass police stations and bluntly voiced there opinion about the government, which I gather was positive on the whole but not without criticism. And criticism and self-criticism is all party of socialist democracy.

''reffering more to the banning and imprisonment of homosexuals. laws that Stalin introduced if i'm not mistaken.''

And ofcourse homosexuals were treated like Kings in the west during that time. I have nothing against people who are gay and you will see that the Communist movement is progressing throughout the world and learning to be more tolernat.

''the Poliburo gave there needs to the state planners. the average Politburo had about 10 old cronies in it.''

Workers controlled the means of production, you will also note that members of the Politburo were usually from peasant and working class backgrounds, elected by the party to there position. Even under Brezheve the average politburo member had grown up in a mud hut.

''Communist Party members had it better than average folk. deny this an youre a fool.''

I do not deny it when talking about the Khruschev and Brezhneve era, but Stalin died with barely 100roubles to his name. They couldn't even find a spare pair of boots for his funderal and he slept on the couch most of the time.

''Mao, Stalin, Brezhnev, Tito, that Romanian guy.''

LOL, Tito a Communist? Neither was that 'Romanian guy' who goes by the name of Ceascescu. The other three, well Stalin for one fought against the 'personality cult'.

''North Korea.''

See Chairman Mao's reply.

''Stalins cronies lived in Dachas while collectivisation killed millions.''

According to Stalin's daughter he slept most of the time in his office on the couch, I will once again point out that under Stalin there were NO millionaires throughout the entire USSR. 'Collectivisation killed millions' what rubbish, why because Robert Conquest said so? Collectivisation tripled the amount of food the average peasant got.

''this was common in the USSR. don't know the exact figures.''

The U$ spent more on defence throughout the entire Cold War, and that '30%' or whatever it was had to be spent on defence. You forget it was the Cold War, the amount spent would of been entirely justifialbe.

[Mazdak]

Good grief Clay and Mao just whooped just joe's ass.

Excellent work.

[thursday night]

“Cuba like other's became a dependent on the Soviet Union, and in 1991 faced a crisis because it had become so dependent on the Soviet Union.”

I’d just like to point out here that Cuba, in my opinion, made some mistakes while trying to plan and industrialize it’s economy in the sixties. If they would have done a better job and creating a more stable and less Soviet dependant economy perhaps they would not have faced the crisis they did in the early nineties. However, socialism has proved brilliant on that free island again as they are slowly pulling out of their slump because they have found an ingenious and extremely lucrative trade industry that goes by the name of tourism.

“But Czechslovakia was Imperialism and as was Afghanistan.”

I know very little about the Czechoslovakian conflict and will refrain from giving an uneducated opinion. However I must disagree that the Red Army invasion of Afghanistan was ‘social-imperialism.’ If you will look a few pages back you’ll see that the People’s Democratic Party had made huge gains in that backward nation and I am of the belief that these gains were worth protecting.

''youre saying its ok to repress religion because the Orthadox Church did bad things. whatever they did, religion was still wrongly repressed for years and still is in Russia.''

I agree with Clay in that religion should be repressed because a) it is an opium of the people, B) it creates conflict and c) it creates disunity amongst people; not to mention that religion has since the beginning of socialism done everything in it’s considerable power to prevent it’s aspirations. However Just Joe, you are wrong when you say that the Soviet Union was anti-Semitic and if you would like proof I can search through the archives and find you a neat thread.

“i'd like to see that state youre talking about too”

Cuba is currently operating under socialist democracy, and I can confirm that it is a very democratic socialist state. Furthermore as far as I know the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is democratic, and I am sure that Chairman Mao is probably willing to say that North Korea is too.

“whatever the reasons, the Communists were the ones to erect the wall.”

See my thread on a GDR government publication about the Berlin Wall. While I am not one to defend the wall to extremes, it was not entirely the fault of the East Germany socialist government that the wall had to be erected.

“there should not be an option of waiting for goods or not having them.”

Well, damnit then, no more waiting in lines at the grocery store for me! ;)

[Revolution Hero]

Comrade Cassius Clay, I have expected to receive a good reply and my expectation proved to be correct. I do respect your viewpoint, just like I do respect your ideological struggle against so called anti- authoritarians.
I have to admit that the articles you mentioned in your post were pretty interesting and even surprised me; for example, I have not read anything about Leninism- Stalinism and socialistic imperialism before. The articles are interesting but present the position exaggerated to the unbelievable extent.
It says that Soviet Union built its economical relations particularly with GDR not on the basis of equality of sides, but on the basis of its own national interest. Author of the article put it very well. Do you think it was profitable for GDR to be engaged in such relations? Of course it was not, but it still did, because it was heavily dependent on USSR…That what the author says us. OK. GDR depended on USSR, in its turn USSR depended on the GDR. The latter is very clear, and the article perfectly shows this dependence. This situation is called INTERDEPENCE. Let’s move to another very important point.
Being “mother country”- “the center of empire”, which exploited and oppressed dependent neo- colonies, USSR should have had better social- economical situation than the states, which served the targets of Soviet “oppression”. Indeed, living standards of imperialistic states are always much higher than those of the oppressed by the imperialism. But USSR was not a part of this wild picture. In fact people of the Eastern Europe lived much better than Soviet people did. People of the Eastern Europe had more qualitative consumer goods and enjoy the comforts Soviet people couldn’t even dream of. Unfortunately I can’t provide latter statement with any figures, but this is an old truism, all people who lived in the Soviet Union and visited any of the Eastern European countries would prove my words. So, is it imperialistic paradox? And here comes next link of logical chain…
On the closed meeting of Brezhnev with high ranked KGB officers, gensec declared the secret official information: “Soviet Union spends 90% of state budget money on the development of military sector.”(!!!) Think over this figure…No doubt that it was the main mistake of the Soviet Union; the imperialistic states set the rules of armaments race and Soviet Union accepted that rules. Too bad…
The biggest mistake in Soviet Union’s history led to the creation of the strongest army and the best military equipment in the world. It should be understood that USSR made this wrong step having the aim to protect socialism all over the world. Armies of all socialistic states were provided with Soviet military equipment. Without considering this fact it is really hard to understand why Soviet Union stood on a slightly privileged positions in the trade relations with other brotherly states.


From one side the intervention of Warsaw pact countries to Czechoslovakia was the act of violation of state’s sovereignty. On the other hand it was the act of protection of socialism NOT ONLY in Czechoslovakia, but also of many other East European socialistic states. There is no doubt that mainly the agents of western influence initiated the coup in Czechoslovakia. You, Cassius, say:” What Brezheve should of done was isolate the Czech's and point out their mistakes and where it would lead to and give support to the Czech workers to overthrow Dubeck. Instead he ordered the tanks in”. Good. You admit that Czech’s were mistaken, more correct to say misled by the certain interested counter- revolutionary circles. Then, you said that the best way of teaching should have been lesson on the practical experience, which would help Czech’s understand their mistake. That’s right. It would have been a good lesson, but this kind of decision would not have conformed to the situation of that historical period.
Let’s just imagine the development of events after the counter- revolution in Czechoslovakia: 1. reactionary forces take a victory; 2. Countries of Warsaw Pact and CMEA break all kind of relations with Czechoslovakia, setting economical blockade; 3. Czechoslovakia receives economical support from western states; 4. Czechoslovakia enters NATO; 5. US soldiers are in the heart of Socialistic bloc…6. Crisis situation with unpredictable consequences arises…. Think over this one too.

Quote:” Long Live the Struggles of the World Working Class and Working People Against Imperialism and Social Imperialism!”

Not a good slogan. Calling to struggle against so-called “social imperialism” it splits revolutionary movement. You perfectly know that Communist Parties all over the world were supported by USSR. Basically that slogan calls proletariat not to follow Communist Parties.

You probably will call me revisionist now; whatever, I am not the one.

[thursday night]

"You probably will call me revisionist now; whatever, I am not the one."

No! You are certainly not a revisionist, Revolution Hero, in fact I think you are a good Marxist-Leninist.

[Cassius Clay]

No Revolution Hero as I and Thursday have allready pointed out you are one of the most genuine Marxists on this board I just happen to disagree with you over this issue.

You do have a point about Czechslovakia, afterall when in 1948 Stalin did precisly what I suggested Brezheve should of done it did not overthrow Tito. But I still disagree with it and I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Your point about there being higher living standards the further west you wen't is noted, and I have heard this before to. Sadly I and you don't have a reliable source to back that up.

Believe it or not I don't take the extreme view of some Maoists or Hoxhaists that the Soviet Union at this time was as bad as the U$. To take that view as you have said would be counter-productive and more importantly simply not correct. I do however belief that the Soviet Union at this time did become a 'Social-Imperialist' power and I don't belief to blame everything on Gorbachev to be correct. As I said Gorbachev was the final result of years of revisionism.

I do belief that today party's which take/took a pro-Soviet, pro-Albanian, pro-Mao or pro-Cuban view should put aside there differences and unite, this is not to say there are no differences or we should simply forget them. But I think we are united enough on a few things to create a stronger Communist movement internationally.

But I will point out that it was Khruschev who played the greatest role in causing these spilts and harming CP's throughout the world. As I once read to criticise Stalin and to point out his mistakes would of been one thing, but what Khruschev did and said was as one right-wing pundit said at the time 'The accusation's levelled at Stalin that night were far more brutal than even the most harsh Soviet-critics had accussed Stalin of' (although that isn't a precise quote).

[Saint-Just]

I think that this is only a small disagreement. We all support the USSR. It is merely a difference in the level of criticism we point towards the Soviet Union after 1953. Obviously, I have great criticism, specifically at the leaders succeeding Stalin. I would not level the USSR anywhere near as great political evil as the U.S. in this period. However, the fact that the USSR moved away from Marxism-Leninism coupled with its position as a world super-power make it ever more distasteful.

To take one example, the military aid brought to Afghanistan had much concern over it within the CPSU, Brezhnev had great concerns over the issue. So it could be asserted that the Soviet Union thought it might be a poor choice yet nonetheless it was action they took.


To Just Joe:

'a quasi-hereditary monarchy

North Korea.'

I have already answered, however I would also like to know what your opinion would be if Raul Castro took control of Cuba after the death of Castro, obviously unlikely since Raul is of considerable age like his brother.

[thursday night]

"the death of Castro"

I believe that, Comrade Mao, that Fidel will never die as he lives in the hearts of Marxist-Leninists everywhere for all of time. However, he will of course one day physically die and at that point there have been many prominent Cuban leaders who have been tipped to take the position as the Republic’s head of state. Dear old Fidel has stated that it is his personal desire to see his brother as his successor, but given (as Comrade Mao already has) the fact that he is not much younger than Fidel and he still retains many bad habits of his youth (smoking, heavy drinking, an inactive life style) I doubt that he would, and if he does it would probably only be for a short time. Whatever the case, we can be assured that next leader of the free island will be democratically elected by the directly elected National Assembly of People’s Power.

"We all support the USSR. It is merely a difference in the level of criticism we point towards the Soviet Union after 1953."

I agree with this statement very much. In my opinion, the follow must be pointed out while analyzing the Soviet Union:

1) the USSR provided for a better life for the average worker than before or after socialism.

2) the USSR helped the socialist states of Eastern Europe, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam fight imperialism and begin to set up an economy. It must also be noted that the excellent social services that the Cuban people today enjoy are very much so set up by the hand of the Soviets

3) the USSR helped national liberation movements in the Third World by giving them arms and monetary supplies. While they could have done more, it was something.

[Revolution Hero]

Comrades, I have found an interesting article about revisionism in the Soviet book called “Dictionary of the scientific communism”, which was published in 1983, right before renegade came to power. The article gives broad explanation of revisionism. I don’t have time to translate it now, but I’ll try to post it on Saturday.
Can all of you give the definitions of revisionism (Maoist, Hoxhaist and your own opinion), so we will compare it to the official soviet opinion and see if that article was written by revisionist or not…

And I do agree that we must cast aside our differences and unite in our struggle against enemies of Marxism- Leninism.

[Saint-Just]

Revisionism is essentially opportunism, bourgeois elements emerge in the ruling Marxist-Leninist party and turn on history to regress the social stages of class struggle for their own benefit. Crushing the working class desire for a revolutionary society. They do it under various banners, but importantly they deny the dictatorship of the proletariat and the Marxist concept of class struggle as is necessary for them to bring the bourgeoisie once again into the sphere of political influence.

Revisionism revises Marxism-Leninism to bring in concepts of capitalism. It changes state ownership to private ownership, co-operates with imperialism, augments class divisions and denies the rule of the proletariat. As Kim Jong Il points out, it gives up revolution halfway through, abandons socialism. Halting the class struggle and the repression of the proletariat to bring back the old order. These are some quotes on the subject from some anti-revisionist revolutionaries:

‘existence of bourgeois influence is the internal source of revisionism and surrender to imperialist pressure the external source’-Mao Zedong

And, so it can be seen the views of Mao and Hoxha are similar;

‘existence of bourgeois influence is the internal source of revisionism, while capitulation to the pressure of imperialism is its external source.’ -Enver Hoxha

‘revisionism which gives up the cause of revolution halfway or denies class struggle, and uphold the class principle and the spirit of uninterrupted revolution in the revolutionary theories of the working class.’ -Kim Jong Il

And finally, what we must do:

‘We must ceaselessly fight against the infiltration of bourgeois reactionary idea, revisionism and all other hues of ideological trend of opportunism so as to prevent the heterogeneous ideological trends from getting even a little chance of gaining ground and growing in our ranks.’ -Kim Jong Il

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 10:25 pm on Feb. 20, 2003)


(Edited by Chairman Mao at 6:30 pm on Feb. 21, 2003)

[Cassius Clay]

Thankyou Chairman Mao, I was about to go on a search to find something right on revisionism yet you've defined it perfectly.

Khruschev declared the ideas of Marx and Lenin 'to be dangerous' and thought a 'parliamentary road to socialism' could be built. If he were talking about today's Russia he may have a point, but in 1950's Europe and America's he was wrong and history has proven him to be. The British CP in the 50's published something called 'The British Road to Socialism' which although I haven't read I gather was completly revisionist, sad thing is only four leading members voted against it.

Was Brezhnev a revisionist? Well for sure he would of criticised Gorbachev and he was correct to point out that Dubeck was leading Czechslovakia down the direct road of Capitalism. I know the left is divided on Leonid, one of the people who originally convinced me that the Soviet Union under Stalin wasn't something from 1984 was a supporter of Brezhnev. Whatever his faults (and in my opinion their are many) atleast he got rid of Khruschev.


Hmm, where Just Joe?

[thursday night]

"Hmm, where Just Joe?"

Probably trying to figure out what all these big words mean. Poor guy!

[Saint-Just]

'Thankyou Chairman Mao, I was about to go on a search to find something right on revisionism yet you've defined it perfectly.'

Thank you, its clear we all most likely agree on this, as did Mao and Hoxha. Let us see what this 'Dictionary of the scientific communism' says.

[Cassius Clay]

Chairman Mao.

Have you read Hoxha's 'Revolution and Imperialism'? It does contain some anti-Mao stuff and Maoists criticise Hoxha for this. I take Hoxha's side, however in the interest of discussion I'll try and look at both sides.

Hoxha was of the belief that Mao had certain opportunist and ultra-leftist tendancies himself. Hoxha said something along the lines of 'In 1955 the Chinese Communists declared that U$ Imperialism was the main enemy, in 1968 they declared both U$ and Soviet Imperialism to be equal evils and by 1973 it was just Soviet Imperialism that was declared to be the main enemy' with that he was making the point that Mao and the PRC were a bit like that phrase to describe the U$ 'no permanent allies just permanent interests'.

Hoxha pointed out that the GPCR (Great Prolertariat Cultural Revolution) had a certain amount of ultra-leftism to it. This and the above is my view.

However Maoists would be correct to point out that bourgesie took over the party after Hoxha died and Mao has been proven right by history that his view that the bourgesie must be confronted not only by ideology but by violence is correct (although I may of misunderstood what Mao was saying I just remember reading a Maoist article which dealt with this precise Hoxha-Mao issue which made the same point).

But as a supporter of Hoxha I ask did not only the bourgesie take over the party after the GPCR but outright Capitalists in the shape of Deng and co?

BTW I don't wan't to start a fight or a slanging match, just for once have a interesting debate on this board where hopefully we can all learn something.

[Revolution Hero]

“Khruschev declared the ideas of Marx and Lenin 'to be dangerous' and thought a 'parliamentary road to socialism' could be built.”

Did he? If that what you said had been true then he had been expelled from his post for the right reason; Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary says that Khrushchev was expelled for voluntarism and subjectivism.

[Revolution Hero]

Revisionism.

“Revisionism is the rival to Marxism- Leninism ideological- political teaching, which appears inside workers’ and communist movement under the banner of “criticism”, “revision” or even “development” of Marxist- Leninist theory. It is one of the varieties of opportunism.
Revisionism is born by economical and social- political conditions of imperialism, privileged part of the working class- “working aristocracy” serves as its social basis. The use of the methods of “liberalism” and policy of reforms also causes strengthening of revisionism. The struggle between bourgeois and communist ideologies plays important role in its origin. From one side, each new success of Marxism- Leninism forces its enemies to dress up as Marxists, socialists. From the other side, theoretically unstable and weak participants of communist movement may not endure the pressure of bourgeois ideology and roll down to revisionist positions. Revisionism also appears in the connection with big turning- points in the workers’ and communist movement, when some communists are not capable to correctly realize new phenomenon of reality and tactical change of communist parties. Nationalism also can be the source, which feeds revisionism.
Bernshtein is the founding father of revisionism; he demanded the revision of Marx’s teaching at the end of 19th- beginning of 20th century. Already back then revisionism became an international phenomenon; it appeared not only in Germany, but also in France, Belgium, Russia and other countries. Revisionists revised Marxist philosophy, political economy and theory of scientific communism. For example, they stated that Marxism had been disproved by life long time ago. They suggested returning back to Kant’s idealism. They also suggested substituting dialectical revolutionary concept of development for evolutionary one. Wanting to insert “amendments” to Marx’s political economy revisionists created the theory of steadiness of petty production, they believed that monopolies led to removal of economical crises. They also stated that class antagonisms “deadened and softened” and that bourgeois democracy and universal electoral vote eliminates ground for class struggle. Preaching the “theory” of spontaneous “transformation of capitalism into socialism”, revisionists denied socialist revolution and dictatorship of proletariat. Pushing workers’ movement on the road to reformism, they declared the slogan:” Final aim is nothing, movement is everything.” Lenin unwearyingly and consistently unmasked Bernshtein and his followers, showing the danger of revisionism, revealing its social roots and essence. In this struggle Lenin protected revolutionary essence of Marxism and promoted the strengthening of revolutionary wing in the international workers’ movement.
The reviving of revisionism took place in the post- war period, particularly in the second half of the 50s, when from one side proletariat of developed capitalistic countries achieved the raising of salaries under the influence of workers’ movement and successes of world socialistic system, and from the other side the pressure of bourgeois ideology strengthened in the connection of counter- revolutionary revolt in Hungary and criticism of Stalin’s cult of personality on the 20th Congress of CPSU (!!!-RH). Revisionists tried to put out communist parties on the wrong way of criticizing Stalin’s cult of personality and discrediting of all achievements of socialism and communist movement (Khrushchev indirectly stimulated this tendency of the development of revisionism; RH). They declared only peaceful way to socialism and interpreted it in the typical reformist spirit; they demanded freedom of factions and groups and even liquidation of Marxist- Leninist parties. New reviving of revisionism took place in the second half of the 60s particularly in the connection with the attempts of antisocialist forces of Czechoslovakia to push this country out of the road of socialist society building. Revisionists (Shik, Harody, Fischer and others) came up with the “new models of socialism”, negating the common appropriateness of socialist building. They attacked the ideas of socialist revolution, dictatorship of proletariat; they objected to the principles of proletarian internationalism, rolling down to anti-sovietism. Revisionists provided fetishism of scientific- technical revolution with the denial of the leading role of working class in the international revolutionary movement; they considered intelligentsia and the students “new historical bloc”. Communist parties resolutely repulsed the attacks of revisionists.” (Dictionary of scientific communism; Moscow, 1983)

This is only the part of the article, but this part is enough to understand the official opinion of CPSU on revisionism. Obviously, it doesn’t contradict to the viewpoints of Mao and Hoxsha, in contrary it conforms to their opinions. As you have read the author pointed out the harmful revisionist character of criticism of Stalin. Thus, Khrushchev was revisionist to the extent of his indirect role of spreading anti- Stalinist propaganda; however Khrushchev did not deny the significance of achievements of socialism, which were the results of Stalin’s policy. So, Khrushchev can be called revisionist only to the certain extent.
It must be clear that Brezhneve was not revisionist, unlike Gorbachev, whose policy both internal and external completely conforms to the definition of revisionist policy. The main problem was that party members didn’t realize the revisionist essence of Gorbachev’s policy and thus didn’t oppose him as to the enemy of Marxism- Leninism. It should be noted that “communists” of 80s came from Brezhneve’s time, but the failure of the “communists” to reveal the traitor was not Brezhneve’s mistake, rather the mistake of those “communists” themselves.

[Cassius Clay]

Very interesting read there Revolution Hero.

I'll come up with a more detailed reply in a few days.

Suffice to say I agree with it and you are right to point out it does only NOT contradict Mao or Hoxha but is similar to those quotes that Chairman Mao (the member) posted.

Where ofcourse both Hoxha and Mao would disagree is that revisionism was far more widespread throughout the Soviet Union than that article maintains. Were Hoxha and Mao right? Well the traitor Gorbachev took over and the USSR fell apart, but as did Albania and unofficially China.

About Leonid Brezhnev, I gather you grew up under the man so you know more than some western student like myself.

[Saint-Just]

'Chairman Mao.
Have you read Hoxha's 'Revolution and Imperialism'? It does contain some anti-Mao stuff and Maoists criticise Hoxha for this. I take Hoxha's side, however in the interest of discussion I'll try and look at both sides.'

I know the gist of revolution and imperialism... I have not read it. I have read 'Reject the Revisionist Theses
of the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Anti-Marxist Stand of Krushchev's Group! Uphold Marxism-Leninism!', it is a lengthy speech by Hoxha which criticises Mao Tse-tung thought among other things.

Here is a quote from Hoxha, which demonstrates quite clearly and simply what he thought was wrong with the practice of Mao and the CPC.

'In this way, Mao Zedong took over the anti-Marxist concept of Katitsky, according to which, in the backward countries the transition to socialism cannot be achieved without going through a lengthy period of free development of capitalism which prepares the conditions to go over to socialism later. In fact, the so-called socialist regime which Mao Zedong and his group established in China,was and remained a bourgeois-democratic regime.'

In 'Revolution and Imperialism' I believe that Hoxha criticises Mao for class conciliation. If we look at the red back, there is not that much to suggest this, however one such quote that does is:

'The contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the working class is one between the exploiter and the exploited, and is by nature antagonistic. Nevertheless, in the concrete conditions of China, this antagonistic class contradiction can, if properly handled, be transformed into a non-antagonistic one and be resolved by peaceful methods' -Mao Zedong, quotations from the chairman

There is blatantly a conflict between Mao and Hoxha. However, Hoxha himself admits that he is perplexed by the policies of the CPC rather than viewing them as outright revisionist. He praises the CPC for its stand against Khrushchev.

As my namesake suggests I am a great fan of Mao. But I do not subscribe to the entirety of his views wholeheartedly. I can fully understand the criticisms of him as an opportunist.

Mao thought that some of the bourgeoisie would be re-educated peacefully. He did not let the bourgeoisie influence him however, such as Deng Xiaoping did. Perhaos conciliation invites influence to some extent. But Mao still believed in the potraction of the class struggle through socialism. He just did not use the correct way to fight that struggle. Where as, as you know, the outright revisionists denied that class struggle even existed in the construction of socialism, that it ended with the overthrow of capitalism.

I am an anti-revisionist like all of us. I would side with Hoxha more than Mao. I do not however disregard Mao. And certainly, after reading the 'Little Red Book', it can be observed that Mao was not revisionist.

I am an admirer of the Chinese revolution. Only Deng compromised socialist construction completely. Mao may have inadvertently paved the way for this. Mao suppressed the bourgeosie, with his theory of democratic dictatorship. The bourgeoisie were censored. Its that he did not remove them from society and fight the class war correctly that is the problem.

Had I have influenced the Chinese revolution I would not have created it in the way Mao did. There are a great many commendable aspects of Mao though, and in much of his thought we see pure quintessential Marxism-Leninism.


(Edited by Chairman Mao at 8:40 pm on Feb. 23, 2003)

[Cassius Clay]

Excellent post Chairman Mao.

Perhaps we should ask for this thread to be made a sticky.

Do you belong to any Maoist or Communist group btw?

[Cassius Clay]

LOL, insert 'Maoist OR ANY OTHER Communist group'

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 7:16 pm on Feb. 23, 2003
Excellent post Chairman Mao.

Perhaps we should ask for this thread to be made a sticky.

Do you belong to any Maoist or Communist group btw?


Thank you very much. I belong to the Juche Idea Study Group of England, affiliated with the International Juche Institute and the Korean Friendship Association.

There are so many leftist parties in the UK, I have not joined any of them. There are over 10 leftist parties. Around 5 are Marxist-Leninist. Its an absurd situation when, for example, you have the Communist Party of Britain, the Communist Party of Great Britain and the New Communist Party of Britain etc., etc.

Foremost I am a Marxist-Leninist. I enjoy JISGE, because of the existence of the DPRK, Kim Il Jong and Juche it is always interesting. So many Korean materials available and the existence of the country as a working socialist model, although there are many great difficulties at the moment.

Comrade Cassius Clay, do you belong to any Marxist-Leninist groups?

[Cassius Clay]

No regretably I'm not at the moment. I'm also from UK and my experience is that alot of 'Fellow leftists' are pot smoking hippies, anarchists or Trotskyites.

I'm also kind of put of by what I here to be alot of 'dogma' involved in Communist parties. As a 18 year old I don't really wan't to be in anything resembling the army. Hopefully you can vanish some of those fears Chairman Mao. Ofcourse when the time comes I think I will join a party, but I think it will kind of look better in a few years time when I'm thousands of pounds in dect and struggling for a place to live rather than the somewhat petty-bourgesie life style I shamefully enjoy right now.

The CPGB, I visited their website and to me they are the very worst kind of revisionists we talk about in this thread, proudly boasting about no longer arguing with Trotskyites.

The New Communist Party of Great Britain looks alot better, although I don't agree with their outright dissmissal of Cuba and Castro.

[thursday night]

I am currently not affiliated with any left-wing organizations or political parties. I have searched desperately for a group that matched by political beliefs but I have found none. Both the Communist Party of Canada and the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) are very withdrawn from the public and really almost non-existent. I have considered very seriously joining the New Democratic Party (Web site) (http://www.bc.ndp.ca) that currently holds two seats in my provincial legislative assembly and twelve in the House of Commons. They are a social-democratic/democratic socialist party and they are not nearly as radical as I am, but nevertheless it is a leftist political party and it does do a few quasi-radical things, such as sending it’s youth group to Cuba and sending some of their MPs to Washington DC to protest. Other than that, they are obviously not Marxist-Leninist whereas I am.

So, basically, I’m stuck without an organization, unfortunately.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 2:17 am on Feb. 24, 2003
No regretably I'm not at the moment. I'm also from UK and my experience is that alot of 'Fellow leftists' are pot smoking hippies, anarchists or Trotskyites.

I'm also kind of put of by what I here to be alot of 'dogma' involved in Communist parties. As a 18 year old I don't really wan't to be in anything resembling the army. Hopefully you can vanish some of those fears Chairman Mao. Ofcourse when the time comes I think I will join a party, but I think it will kind of look better in a few years time when I'm thousands of pounds in dect and struggling for a place to live rather than the somewhat petty-bourgesie life style I shamefully enjoy right now.

The CPGB, I visited their website and to me they are the very worst kind of revisionists we talk about in this thread, proudly boasting about no longer arguing with Trotskyites.

The New Communist Party of Great Britain looks alot better, although I don't agree with their outright dissmissal of Cuba and Castro.


Someone from the CPGB told me they were Marxist-Leninists, obviously not true. Someone from the CPB said they were Marxist-Leninists, I know that particular member is because he is also a member of JISGE. Maybe he views the CPB as a lesser of many evils. I know a number of members of the Socialist Labour Party, who also belong to JISGE. I admire the leadership of Scargill, however his own political views are somewhat unclear. At the moment they seem to be failry moderate, however I think Scargill intelligently does that too attract more support from the left-wing members of the New Labour Party.

'As a 18 year old I don't really wan't to be in anything resembling the army. Hopefully you can vanish some of those fears Chairman Mao.'

I do not entirely understand what you are referring to. However, I would say a number of things. As intellectual Marxists I think our skills lie beyond Army Infantry. Our skills our political, it is indeed true that Soldiers and workers must be politicised. We are politicised, but are also capable of detailed political analysis. I think it is sad for people to fight as soldiers and possibly die very young. In a Marxist-Leninist state, war on a grand scale must be a war worth fighting for all the people, such a war is a war all workers would be willing to fight even if they have immense fear, defeat would be worse than death.

A lot of leftists are pot smoking hippies, anarchists, Trotskyists etc. I like JISGE because.... because the idea of a pot smoking hippie, anarchist etc. in JISGE is making me laugh. So as you can imagine there are only Marxist-Leninists.

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 4:42 pm on Feb. 24, 2003)

[Just Joe]

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 11:21 pm on Feb. 18, 2003
'a quasi-hereditary monarchy

North Korea.'

Would you call the U.S. regime a hereditary monarchy? son of the former Bush now leads the country.

George Bush won the US election. he got where he is because of family connections but he did win even if it was very dodgy. Kim was not elected by the people but selected by an elite ruling class and it had a lot to do with his dad being the former leader.


I will let Cassius to respond to the rest if he feels it even necessary. To me you seem to be a liberal capitalist Just Joe. It amazes me the attacks you take on socialism.

i'm not a liberal capitalist. i don't support capitalism but i don't support Stalinism or Marxism-Leninism either.

[Just Joe]

Quote: from thursday night on 6:57 am on Feb. 19, 2003
I'm going to petition for Just Joe to be restricted to this forum only.


i'm trying to figure out whos' more of the anus. Revolution Hero for thinking any country with a hammer and sickle in its flag can go around doing what it likes to other countries and not be called imperialist, or you for being a cheerleading muppet who bases his whole theory of Communism on one trip to Cuba.

[thursday night]

A cheerleading muppet? That's a good one.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Just Joe on 7:55 pm on Feb. 25, 2003

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 11:21 pm on Feb. 18, 2003
'a quasi-hereditary monarchy

North Korea.'

Would you call the U.S. regime a hereditary monarchy? son of the former Bush now leads the country.

George Bush won the US election. he got where he is because of family connections but he did win even if it was very dodgy. Kim was not elected by the people but selected by an elite ruling class and it had a lot to do with his dad being the former leader.


I will let Cassius to respond to the rest if he feels it even necessary. To me you seem to be a liberal capitalist Just Joe. It amazes me the attacks you take on socialism.

i'm not a liberal capitalist. i don't support capitalism but i don't support Stalinism or Marxism-Leninism either.



The Worker's Party is an elite ruling class? They are the vanguards of the worker's revolutionary movement. Without leadership the workers are not a unified, organised and disciplined body. The workers created the party and its leadership and stand by it resolutely. The working class party made a choice of leadership, utmost in their mind a leader who is not divorced from the working class.

In all democracies, the party chooses its leader. If there were a multitude of parties in Korea, the masses would have to elect a leader. Since the system of society is one of a single class, there are no parties to represent any other class. The WPK is the party of the working class, a member of society who wishes to oust the working class party cannot be a member of a Socialist society since they deny working class leadership.

What would you say if Raul Castro was given the leadership of Cuba? Just Joe. I have already explained that is highly unlikely, but if Raul was younger it would indeed be very likely.

[Just Joe]

The Worker's Party is an elite ruling class? They are the vanguards of the worker's revolutionary movement. Without leadership the workers are not a unified, organised and disciplined body. The workers created the party and its leadership and stand by it resolutely. The working class party made a choice of leadership, utmost in their mind a leader who is not divorced from the working class.

this is only your view because youre a Marxist. Marxists are a minority in the world even amongst the working classes. youre saying North Korea doesn't need elections because the party represents the working class. but why doesn't the party let other parties form and contest elections? if it was the party of the working class, wouldn't it win the elections?

In all democracies, the party chooses its leader.

yeah but party leaders in democracies also have to be elected by the people.

What would you say if Raul Castro was given the leadership of Cuba? Just Joe. I have already explained that is highly unlikely, but if Raul was younger it would indeed be very likely.

noone should be 'given' leadership, Mao. if Raul was elected, which he probobly would be, i wouldn't have a problem.

[thursday night]

The President of the Republic of Cuba is elected by the Council of State, which is elected by the National Assembly of People’s Power, which is elected by the people directly. Think of it as an indirectly elected Cabinet electing a head-of-state.

[Saint-Just]

'this is only your view because youre a Marxist. Marxists are a minority in the world even amongst the working classes.' '

Marxists are hardly a minority. There are many political persuasions vieing for power. I would not say that neo-liberals are a larger group, nor national socialists or even socialists. It is very difficult to assertain. However, at one point in history one third of the entire world was under Marxist-Leninist government. Somewhat of a large achievement. Marxism-Leninism has been shown to be the only mass victorious ideology of the working class. Marxism-Leninism has withered recently, but is still strong and at the moment growing once again.

'youre saying North Korea doesn't need elections because the party represents the working class. but why doesn't the party let other parties form and contest elections? if it was the party of the working class, wouldn't it win the elections?'

The existence of a party representing another class would prescribe the existence of a nother class. In socialist construction they are attempting to suppress the bourgeois class and remove their political representation. Actually, there are a number of parties in the DPRK other than the WPK, that try to influence the government but not compromise the leadership of the working class party.

You suggest the WPK may not win the elections. People in Korea love the WPK and Kim Jong Il, they have been educated in around the Juche ideology and Marxism-Leninism for over 50 years. I am certain they would get somewhere in the region of 90+% of the vote. Those members of society who deny the leadership of the working class cannot create a socialist society, therefore, anyone who would vote against the WPK would be saying 'I do not follow the mass line, I hate socialism and the working class people'. The construction of socialism and a homogenous population in Korea would fall to pieces if it were to be a multi-party system.

'yeah but party leaders in democracies also have to be elected by the people.'

I cannot fathom exactly what you are saying here. I said 'In all democracies, the party chooses its leader.' I am saying that it would be impossible for Kim Jong Il to be elected directly by the people. In U.S. and Europe, parties select their own leader, the electorate does not. As thursday night pointed out however, they are inderectly chosen by the people, as the people vote in party representatives in local councils, their work places etc. which elect the higher levels and so on, until the Central Committee elects a leader. The leader of course having to retain the support of the CC to remain in power and the CChas to retain support of the national assembly.

'noone should be 'given' leadership, Mao. if Raul was elected, which he probobly would be, i wouldn't have a problem.

Kim Jong Il was elected by the CC, his father was dead when he came to power, his father did not 'give' him leadership. The CC did, in a similar way the Republicans in the U.S. 'gave' George W. Bush leadership.

In Cuba, Raul may not be elected like the elections in the U.S. elected Bush. He would be given power by the party. thursday night shows has showed how the system works in Cuba.

[Just Joe]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 10:34 am on Feb. 19, 2003
''strikes were banned in Stalinist states. this was one of the things Solidarity campaigned against in Poland.''

Poland was hardly 'Stalinist' at this time. I will once again point out that in Mao's China strikes were legal up until 1983. In the Soviet Union a worker could leave his or her job, but if a boss wanted to sack a worker they had to prove that the worker was not only not being productive but causing more harm than good.

playing with words there cassius. Poland was modelled on the Soviet Union which was a Stalinist state.


''when the state controls unions, it rules for the state and its needs, not for the workers. all Stalinist countries had state control of unions.''

The state is made up of and for the workers so therefor you are right. During Stalin's time working class membership to the party increased from 54% to 63%.

do you have proof of that? the Soviet Union was made up of bureacrats not workers.


''even though capitalism has brought shiter living standards, thats no excuse for below average living standards that were evident in Stalinist days.''

'Below average living standards' what are you talking about. Considering where the Soviet Union began stuck in the 15th Century and yet by the 1950's (despite all the damage inflicted in GPW) American economists generally feared the USSR would overtake the U$A in average living standards for it's citizens. Absoblute poverty is defined by lack of shelter, clothes and education. Not only did the Soviet Union wipe out the above but provided it's citizen's with much more.

living standards were higher in the west than in the Communist east. the Soviet Union did make massive economic gains but eventually declined.


''show me a popular election that made Brezhnev leader of the USSR.''

You don't understand socialist democracy?

i understand the USSR did not have it.


Brezhnev was elected by the politburo and the politburo was elected by the party and the party's members were elected by the people. I can though tell you that Trotsky recieved less than 6000 votes out of over 725,000 cast in elections held in December 1927.

please. Brezhnev may be mr popular in Russia now because they suck so much, but he was not a popular ruler. he was corrupt and i'm sure if presidential elections were held with other candidates, Brezhnev would not have ruled for going on 20 years.


''you've admitted yourself the invasion of Afghanistan was imperialism.''

Yes I did, and so did every other 'Stalinist'.

Revolution Hero seems to think countries who are red cannot be imperialist.


''how many anti-war demos were there in the USSR when Afghanistan was invaded? considering the massive unpopularity of it, i'd say the authorities cracked down on protests or the people were too scared to have an opinion.''

Only a 'crackdown' on those who stoped criticism. There is one account of a soldier who returned to his town in the early 80's and was treated like rubbish by the local party officials. The soldier's story sparked outrage and protest and over 500 people signed a petition pointing out the behaviour of the local officials. Pravda a few weeks later announced that those responsible had been 'severly punished'.

Afghanistan was more unpopular with the world and the Soviet people than the Iraqi war is today. but how many protests were there?


''Capitalist free press are much better than Soviet 'free' press. i've seen loads of Socialist and Marxist viewpoints in the media. i wonder how many Capitalists wrote for Pravda?''

Well Bukhrarin's programme was identical to that of Deng Xia Ping and Mikhail Gorbachev, eg Capitalist and he was editor of Ivesta.

Bukharin was a devouted Communist. he was also killed by Uncle Joe.


''i'd like to see that state youre talking about too,''

The Soviet Union under Stalin.

i wanna see evidence of that then.


''youre saying its ok to repress religion because the Orthadox Church did bad things. whatever they did, religion was still wrongly repressed for years and still is in Russia.''

My opinion is yes it's ok to repress religion. But the fact is it wasn't, all that happened was that the people started to get more education and were not brainwashed by priests and the state stopped funding the Church and other religious institutions. But it was hardly repressed when both Gorbachev and Yelstin were christained in the 1930's, you only have to look at the revival of the Churches during the GPW.

the 'revival' was because Stalin needed patriotism to save his regime because the people would not simply die for him. the same way Hussein has used Islam in recent years.


''the Chechens were just one group of people Stalin deported for allegedly being 'Nazis'.''

That was in circumstances bought on entirely by the Nazi invasion, no one defends this act and neither the deportation of the Crimean Tartars. However every nation Socialist or Capitalist that suffered occupation commited crimes on those it deemed of collobartion. It's not nice but it happened. Yes it caused suffering and pain, but 'Ethnic cleansing' hardly. Chechen's wen't on to recieve on average the highest number of medals by each national group in the Union.

so you admit it happened, buts its ok because Capitalist countries did it too?


''what about the Jewish purges of 1952? or the mass repression of Yiddish culture?''

All I'm aware of is out of nine doctors arrested six of whom happened to be Jewish on charges of spying and suspected of murdering Zhdanov.

what about repression of Yiddish culture?


''wow! they outlawed it for 5 years! uncle Joe sure made up for lost time didn't he.''

No he didn't. The FACT is the U$ has three million more people in prison than the Soviet Union ever did.

how many did Stalin kill, Cassius?


''whatever the reasons, the Communists were the ones to erect the wall.''

If western Imperialism had taken up Stalin's offer to withdraw from Germany on the mere condition that it remained neutral then it would of never happened. Thursday has posted a article on the wall, which gives a opposing view point. Once again what would you prefer a Nuclear holocaust or a wall?

both sides were to blame. both sides were imperialist. but the east shot people who tried to leave there country, something the west didn't do.


''most holidays had to be booked years in advance and were mostly only in other Communist countries.''

Please back this up. And as a 'Free American' you are not allowed to travel to Cuba. That's a fact what you have written above is propaganda. Soviet workers had atleast one holiday a year, so your claim that they had to book 'years in advance' is rubbish. Considering one third of the Earth was infact Socialist I would not call it restriction of choice.

i'll get back t'ya on that.


''there should not be an option of waiting for goods or not having them.''

Yes that option is called Socialism and Capitalism. And do you not have to wait in a line for your food every time you go to the supermarket?

not like in Russia.


''in most Communist countries, the waiting list for houses is enormous. you'd probobly be about 30 or so until you got your own place. unless you were a 'member'.''

And in today's Britain your probably be atleast in your mid 20's until you get a house of your own. Unlike Soviets people in the UK get there own house thousands of pounds in dect because this 'free' society doesn't provide a free education. Not to mention Soviets didn't have to worry about being thrown out into the street if circumstances didn't turn out right. Also 1 Billion people don't have a home atall under Capitalism which supposedly is 'free'.

i don't like capitalism. i think it sucks. but i'm arguing against Stalinism and Communism and not a genuine Socialist alternative. actually, i'm arguing more against the USSR specifically because they spent billions on arms while people waited in line for basic goods.


''you, for the second time, give a worse example and think its ok. just because it wasn't Nazi Germany, doesn't mean its good. you shouldn't have to have to choice of Gestapo and Stasi. you should be free to say whatever.''

Even a western correspondent is admiting that the comparision in the first place is stupid and not worthy of a series argument.

the GDR was a free paradise compared to Nazi Germany. but it still wasn't good enough.


'You should be free to say whatever', ask Thursday about his trip to Cuba. People walked right pass police stations and bluntly voiced there opinion about the government, which I gather was positive on the whole but not without criticism. And criticism and self-criticism is all party of socialist democracy.

Cuba has never been a Stalinist state.


''reffering more to the banning and imprisonment of homosexuals. laws that Stalin introduced if i'm not mistaken.''

And ofcourse homosexuals were treated like Kings in the west during that time. I have nothing against people who are gay and you will see that the Communist movement is progressing throughout the world and learning to be more tolernat.

homosexuality was banned in Russia until 1993.


''the Poliburo gave there needs to the state planners. the average Politburo had about 10 old cronies in it.''

Workers controlled the means of production, you will also note that members of the Politburo were usually from peasant and working class backgrounds, elected by the party to there position. Even under Brezheve the average politburo member had grown up in a mud hut.

yes but they stopped being working class when they moved into there dachas didn't they. the Soviet people did not control the means of production or there economy wouldn't have collapsed would it. if the workers would have produced for the workers and not the military, the Soviet economy would be number 1 in the world.


''Communist Party members had it better than average folk. deny this an youre a fool.''

I do not deny it when talking about the Khruschev and Brezhneve era, but Stalin died with barely 100roubles to his name. They couldn't even find a spare pair of boots for his funderal and he slept on the couch most of the time.

Stalin, yes. his cronies, no.


''Mao, Stalin, Brezhnev, Tito, that Romanian guy.''

LOL, Tito a Communist? Neither was that 'Romanian guy' who goes by the name of Ceascescu. The other three, well Stalin for one fought against the 'personality cult'.

Stalin against the personality cult?

riiiiight.....


''Stalins cronies lived in Dachas while collectivisation killed millions.''

According to Stalin's daughter he slept most of the time in his office on the couch, I will once again point out that under Stalin there were NO millionaires throughout the entire USSR. 'Collectivisation killed millions' what rubbish, why because Robert Conquest said so? Collectivisation tripled the amount of food the average peasant got.

it also came at a massive cost to human life when it was first introduced.


''this was common in the USSR. don't know the exact figures.''

The U$ spent more on defence throughout the entire Cold War, and that '30%' or whatever it was had to be spent on defence. You forget it was the Cold War, the amount spent would of been entirely justifialbe.


it wasn't justified when there people were not enjoying the standard of life as your average American.

[Saint-Just]

'it wasn't justified when there people were not enjoying the standard of life as your average American.'

America is an imperialist power. It has a wealth of resources and sweats foreign labour to create its massive profits. But still there are masses of poor and social deprevation in that country. Higher living standards are enjoyed in Europe, Europe is more let wing.

I could enjoy high living standards by stealing from and oppressing others. Without the left-wing there is no progression. The U.S. could never have stopped suppressing blacks had it not been for left-wing ideal.

Most importantly, the U.S. was created in the 16th C. The Soviet Union, PRC etc. were created 27-86 years ago. The U.S. has been one of the most developed countries in the world for centuries. Those countries that had socialist revolutions were in feudalism and extremely poor, they developed extremely fast, but it is impossible to over take a country such as the U.S. in 25 years or so. An absoultely ridiculous suggestion.

If there were revolution in developed Europe your criticism may have slightly more validity.

[Just Joe]

the critsism is not of the Socialist economy. it is of the governments that use it. East German people enjoyed fairly good standards of livings because they didn't neglect the people in the same way the Soviet leadership did. thats why stalinism sucks. it creates a new ruling class of a few old men who control everything and use the power for there purpose and not for the benefit of the people.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Just Joe on 3:20 pm on Feb. 26, 2003
the critsism is not of the Socialist economy. it is of the governments that use it. East German people enjoyed fairly good standards of livings because they didn't neglect the people in the same way the Soviet leadership did. thats why stalinism sucks. it creates a new ruling class of a few old men who control everything and use the power for there purpose and not for the benefit of the people.


I stand unequivocally defeated.


.......was being sarcastic by the way


(Edited by Chairman Mao at 8:32 pm on Feb. 26, 2003)

[Cassius Clay]

''playing with words there cassius. Poland was modelled on the Soviet Union which was a Stalinist state.''

Poland was NOT 'Stalinist' it was barely socialist. Not playing with words, merely stating fact. Let's see what Hoxha had to say about the events in Poland.

"....transmission belts, of the policy of the revisionist party". ('Only the revolutionary road can take the Polish working class to victory', in; Zeri i Popullit", September 7th, 1980)''

And below from the 'Stalinist' Communist League in the UK.

''Under these circumstances, (even though the leaders of Solidarnosc may well have been in league with the CIA), the demands of solidarnosc on behalf of its millions of members such as the right to strike, could hardly be considered reactionary. In fact, as far as Marxist-Leninists within Poland were concerned, the struggle to raise revolutionary consciousness of the workers could surely best be carried out in organisations not dominated by the revisionist-fascist state, and once a degree of freedom of speech for the workers could be achieved.''

''do you have proof of that? the Soviet Union was made up of bureacrats not workers.''

'If everyone is a beureacrat then there are no bureacrats' Lenin. Do you provide any evidence to back up your statement? No you don't, as for 'prove' here it is.

'To be able to direct this giant industrialization effort, the Party had to
grow. The number of members rose from 1,300,000 in 1928 to 1,670,000 in 1930.
During the same period, the percentage of members of working class background
rose from 57 to 65 per cent. Eighty per cent of the new recruits were shock
workers: they were in general relatively young workers who had received
technical training, Komsomol activists, who had distinguished themselves as
model workers, who helped rationalize production to obtain higher productivity.
This refutes the fable of "bureaucratization" of the Stalinist party: the party reinforced its worker base and its capacity to fight. Industrialization was accompanied by extraordinary upheavals. By the end of 1932, the industrial labor force doubled from 1928 to more than six million. After twenty years of titanic efforts, the workers built a country that could stand up to the most developed capitalist power in Europe, Hitler's Germany.'

From a article 'In defence of Stalinism' written by I belief comrade Ludo Martens of the Workers Party of Belgium.


''living standards were higher in the west than in the Communist east. the Soviet Union did make massive economic gains but eventually declined.''

Well it's debatable whether the west enjoyed higher living standards than those in the east anyway. But it seems you've ignored my post, anyway how did the west come to enjoy it's living standards through condemming 1 Billion people to a life of complete misery and slavery. Once again consider the west had a massive head start, even in 1945, Poland and the Soviet Union were literally ruined and the rest of eastern Europe was just emerging from Feudalism (remains of Austro-Hungarian Empire only one generation before). Also bare in mind the level of progress from say 1917 to the 1950's and afterwards, that's the result of revisionism. As one historian has said 'Stalin inherited Russia in ruin and left it a superpower, Gorbachev inherited Russia as a superpower and left it in ruin'.

''i understand the USSR did not have it.''

Go to page three of the 'Stalin's death' thread, USSR was very democratic.

''please. Brezhnev may be mr popular in Russia now because they suck so much, but he was not a popular ruler. he was corrupt and i'm sure if presidential elections were held with other candidates, Brezhnev would not have ruled for going on 20 years.''

I'll let comrades like Revolution Hero defend Brezhnev, I will just point out that when the invasion of Afghanistan happened Brezhnev voted against it.

''Revolution Hero seems to think countries who are red cannot be imperialist.''

Could I care that Revolution Hero thinks this? I respect RH, but I don't agree with him on this and if you didn't notice me and him had a discussion over precisly this.


''Afghanistan was more unpopular with the world and the Soviet people than the Iraqi war is today. but how many protests were there?''

Bit of a bold statement that, that the war was more unpopular than Iraq today? Rubbish, hell I've read a Trotskyite article from the time supporting the invasion. Anyway I don't know how many protests there were but the Soviet media began to demand a withdrawal from around 1986 on (source 'Cold War' by Jeremy Issacs).

''Bukharin was a devouted Communist. he was also killed by Uncle Joe.''

'Uncle Joe' said he was against Bukharin's execution, how the hell could Stalin of killed Bukhrain? Stalin was General Secretary of the Party, not a cop. Does Tony Blair have the power to kill me, ofcourse he doesn't. Why would Stalin have the power to order the execution of anybody?

Oh and don't make me laugh Bakhurin a Communist, the man stood up for the Kulaks and the NEP men, his slogan was 'enrich yourself'.

''i wanna see evidence of that then.''

The importance of this distinction was noted by Martin Nicholas in his
"Restoration of Capitalism in the USSR". This was a concrete meaning of the
phrase that labor power in the USSR was no longer a commodity bought and sold
like any other: its price (wages) was no longer depressed by the existence of a
relative surplus army of unemployed and the inalienable right of commodity
buyers to refuse to buy -- the right to not hire and to lay off -- was no longer recognized. Except during wartime, workers were free to quit; but managers could not fire them except by proving some criminal offense against them. Thus, lacking the whip hand, the managers were weak.

Also the workers had power to counter act a director who abused his
authority. As the British bourgeois scholar Mary McAuley writes (in "Labour
Disputes in the Soviet Union," Oxford 1969), there were special courts to
hear industrial disputes to which only workers had access; managerial personnel could appear there only as defendants and were barred from initiating cases (pp. 54-55). Even before matters came to court, there were ways that the workers on the shop floor could let a troublesome director know who was boss.

One of these avenues, the production meeting, is described by the bourgeois
scholar David Granick in his book, "The Red Executive":

"Management is operating under severe ideological and practical
handicaps in its efforts to keep down worker criticism. One factory director . .
. implied that production meetings were a real ordeal for him. But at a question
as to whether workers dared to criticize openly, he said, 'Any director who
suppressed criticism would be severely punished. He would not only be
removed, he would be tried.'" (New York, 1960, p. 230)''

I also belief there are pacific example's of this happening at the Redcomrades site in the Stalin and Yezhov articles.

''the 'revival' was because Stalin needed patriotism to save his regime because the people would not simply die for him. the same way Hussein has used Islam in recent years.''

Your merely speculating, once again people like Gorby and Yelstin were christianed in the 30's, before the war.

''so you admit it happened, buts its ok because Capitalist countries did it too?''

No it's not 'ok' Stalin is rightly criticised for it. What I'm saying is every country that suffered Nazi or Fascist occupation commited atrocities on those they thought had collobarted, it's not nice but it happened.

''what about repression of Yiddish culture?''

What repression? Who was it who wanted to set up a Jewish Altonomus (spell) Republic in the Union? Comrade Stalin.

''how many did Stalin kill, Cassius?''

None, Joe.

''both sides were to blame. both sides were imperialist. but the east shot people who tried to leave there country, something the west didn't do.''

Correct.


''not like in Russia.''

Why how did they wait in line in Russia? Incidently the Communist Bill Bland's one of reasons of becoming a Communist was because when he wen't to Russia in the 30's he saw full shelves of bread in the stores, unlike in the west.

[quote]''in most Communist countries, the waiting list for houses is enormous. you'd probobly be about 30 or so until you got your own place. unless you were a 'member'.''


''i don't like capitalism. i think it sucks. but i'm arguing against Stalinism and Communism and not a genuine Socialist alternative. actually, i'm arguing more against the USSR specifically because they spent billions on arms while people waited in line for basic goods.''

So what would you advise to Politburo to do? Stick with the Spitfires and maybe a MiG 15 or two while America is producing F-16's.

Answer me a question do you agree or disagree with the below statement?

''Every candidate for leadership or worker in party or government posts must follow the principle of wages laid out by the Paris Commune - the wages of ANY leader or functionary cannot exceed that of a skilled worker. It would be a crime to institute any privileges for party functionaries, and after Soviet power is established, state functionaries. No one cannot receive higher wages than a skilled worker, otherwise it would be against the best interests of our Soviet Motherland.''

Now just answer yes or no.

''the GDR was a free paradise compared to Nazi Germany. but it still wasn't good enough.''

Ofcourse it 'wasn't good enough' that's why it fell.


''Cuba has never been a Stalinist state.''

But Poland was modelled on the Soviet Union according to you, precisly what is Cuba then? There are many problems and faults with the Cuban Communists and the construction of socialism on that Island never the less it has acheived enourmous success, which leads me to point out that Che Guavera admired Stalin.

''homosexuality was banned in Russia until 1993.''

Good thing that that ban was lifted and homosexuality was mad legal don't you think.


''yes but they stopped being working class when they moved into there dachas didn't they. the Soviet people did not control the means of production or there economy wouldn't have collapsed would it. if the workers would have produced for the workers and not the military, the Soviet economy would be number 1 in the world.''

I've responded to each one of these points allready.

''Stalin, yes. his cronies, no.''

I will once again repeat that there were NO millionaires in USSR as of 1953, none. If Stalin the GS of the party has very few material luxuries just who the hell would?

''Stalin against the personality cult?

riiiiight.....''

Yes he was, read.

''Stalin – Enemy of the Cult of Personality

So much has been written about the "Cult of Stalin" by enemies of socialism and communism that unfortunately many people, even some who profess and call themselves "communist" believe this lie, which works on the principal that Goebbels of Nazi Germany used so effectively: "Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe that it's the truth".

We reprint just a few quotes of J.V. Stalin that he made when he fought against the cult of any personality... all started by the enemies called "social revolutionaries" (Trotskyites) of the type that was Trotsky and Khrushchev. Of course it was supported by imperialism and the propaganda machine of the social-democrats.

"Lenin taught us that real Bolsheviks can only be those that not only know how to explain and teach the workers and the peasants, but also know how to learn from them."

In 1938 there was a book published for children "Childhood of Stalin" by the CC of the Soviet Komsomol. Stalin wrote them a letter on February 16,1938 which said in part:

"I am absolutely opposed to this book being published. This book contains unfathomable lies and sayings which are not substantiated, overemphasis, glorification and other innuendoes. The authors went way overboard and swallowed so much that they are choking on these falsehoods and over-glorification. This is a tragedy for the authors But this is not the main criticism of this book. This book has a tendency to imprint on the minds of the children and adults a cult of a personality, cult of heroes, real or believed. This is very dangerous This theory of "heroes" and masses" is not a Bolshevik theory, but the theory of social revolutionaries. People give birth to heroes... that is how Bolsheviks should reply to these social revolutionaries. This book is water for the mill of social revolutionaries. Any book of such caliber will be to the advantage of the enemies of the people. And this brings harm to our Bolshevik work."

Regarding the phraseology that began to be used by the intelligencia about Stalin, he admonished them in these words:

"You speak to me about your 'dedication' to me. Maybe this remark is just off-the-cuff so to speak. Maybe it is... but if this is not just an off-the-cuff remark, I would suggest to you to eliminate this 'dedication to you' from our vocabulary. This is not being a Bolshevik!"

In many receptions that Stalin had, he always criticized the cult of personality tendencies. Stalin said many times that it is those people who came late into the revolutionary movement from the other side, and now are trying to ingratiate themselves to take advantage as the wind blows. In one instance he was very upset that those people that bootlick and also perpetuate the cult are just "Bootlicking fools!"

In 1946 Stalin wrote a letter to a Colonel of the Red Army, Dr Professor Razin, who wrote in many articles, all praising Stalin as a genius during the Great Patriotic War: "... my ears are hurting from all those hymns dedicated to Stalin. It is even shameful to read and hear them".

When he was speaking to a group of scientists and academics who wrote a biography of him Stalin said very forcefully: "This work is full of praise of Stalin, his personality… bordering on a religious cult! What must a reader of these volumes do after he reads it? Go on his knees and pray to me? We do not need any more icons! Nowhere in these 6 volumes is there one very important notation, that I am just a student of Lenin..."
("Pravda" No.28-29, 1999)

Nikita Khrushchev, a hidden Trotskyite, was the most slavish in praising Stalin before he died The rest is history that should open up the minds of those who still swallow the Big Lie of the Cult of Stalin, while pretending that they are for Socialism and Communism!

"Bolshevik" newspaper - Odessa''

''it also came at a massive cost to human life when it was first introduced.''

No it didn't.

''it wasn't justified when there people were not enjoying the standard of life as your average American.''

I've allready addressed this, but let's see the 'avearage American' stadard of living. 10% don't have enough to eat, 5.5 million people in prison, victims of rascism (particularly during the Cold War when the FBI would kill young 17 year old's who were members of the Black Panther and over 100 members of supporters of the AIM disapered in the early 70's in Dakota) no free health care and this is just of the top of my head.

Would you prefer to live as a Black person in LA in the 60's or as a Soviet worker where you if your boss was abusing his power you could have him sacked? I know what I would choose. So what if America provides a reasonable stading of living, so did Nazi Germany during the war, you don't support them do you. And how did Nazi Germany do it, through slave labour of millions of Russians, Jews, Slavs etc. America now does it by terror in Salvador and sweatshops in South East Asia.

[Just Joe]

Poland was NOT 'Stalinist' it was barely socialist. Not playing with words, merely stating fact. Let's see what Hoxha had to say about the events in Poland.

if Poland was not Stalinist, it was based on Soviet Communism; based on bureacracy and totalitarianism. the foundations of Stalinism never really left Russia and eastern Europe after 1953. most of them haven't left Russia today.

''do you have proof of that? the Soviet Union was made up of bureacrats not workers.''

when you become a career politician or a career party member, you are a bureacrat. the major players in the Soviet Communist Party were all career bureacrats.

'If everyone is a beureacrat then there are no bureacrats' Lenin.

Lenin layed the grounds for Stalin. he was the Napoleon of the 20th century. his quotes or persona is not to be admired.

From a article 'In defence of Stalinism' written by I belief comrade Ludo Martens of the Workers Party of Belgium.

thats not really proof, now is it. heres a good overview of the social make up of the party. most members were white collar professionals not prolaterians:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/...d(DOCID+su0209) (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+su0209))

Well it's debatable whether the west enjoyed higher living standards than those in the east anyway.

the only country with good living standards was East Germany. the rest were poor countries. especially the USSR which also had class structure to it.

Go to page three of the 'Stalin's death' thread, USSR was very democratic.

this is just silly. the USSR oppressed huge numbers of people for simply saying the wrong things. it put dissidents in hospitals. thats why it was destroyed cassius.

I'll let comrades like Revolution Hero defend Brezhnev, I will just point out that when the invasion of Afghanistan happened Brezhnev voted against it.

its an argument against Democratic Centralism rather than just against Brezhnev. a leader should be held accountable to the people not the Politburo.

Could I care that Revolution Hero thinks this? I respect RH, but I don't agree with him on this and if you didn't notice me and him had a discussion over precisly this.

but you said Stalinists were against the invasion. but Revolution Hero is a Stalinist and supports it.

Bit of a bold statement that, that the war was more unpopular than Iraq today? Rubbish, hell I've read a Trotskyite article from the time supporting the invasion. Anyway I don't know how many protests there were but the Soviet media began to demand a withdrawal from around 1986 on (source 'Cold War' by Jeremy Issacs).

'86 was during the Gorbachev years.

'Uncle Joe' said he was against Bukharin's execution, how the hell could Stalin of killed Bukhrain? Stalin was General Secretary of the Party, not a cop. Does Tony Blair have the power to kill me, ofcourse he doesn't. Why would Stalin have the power to order the execution of anybody?

Stalin sent Bukharin into a mickey mouse show trial where i could have been prosecuting and got a conviction.

Oh and don't make me laugh Bakhurin a Communist, the man stood up for the Kulaks and the NEP men, his slogan was 'enrich yourself'.

he was a Bolshevik who wrote Communist literature. he thought the NEP was needed but was still a devouted Marxist.

None, Joe.

how many did he order killed? how much blood does Stalin have on his hands?

Why how did they wait in line in Russia? Incidently the Communist Bill Bland's one of reasons of becoming a Communist was because when he wen't to Russia in the 30's he saw full shelves of bread in the stores, unlike in the west.[/b]

why did the USSR collapse, Cassius? according to you, the living standard was good and there was a lot of democracy. what possible reason was there for a collapse?

So what would you advise to Politburo to do?

make peace with the United States and rule as a sovereign nation. the US would not have invaded the Soviet Union.

Answer me a question do you agree or disagree with the below statement?

''Every candidate for leadership or worker in party or government posts must follow the principle of wages laid out by the Paris Commune - the wages of ANY leader or functionary cannot exceed that of a skilled worker. It would be a crime to institute any privileges for party functionaries, and after Soviet power is established, state functionaries. No one cannot receive higher wages than a skilled worker, otherwise it would be against the best interests of our Soviet Motherland.''

Now just answer yes or no.

i agree, yes. shame the Soviet government didn't agree. actually wasn't it Uncle Joe who scrapped that law?

But Poland was modelled on the Soviet Union according to you, precisly what is Cuba then?

Cuba doesn't have anywhere near the repression of a Stalinist state.

Good thing that that ban was lifted and homosexuality was mad legal don't you think.

but i thought it was just the period of time? the Communist government were imprisoning homosexuals at late as the early 1990's. a law set up by Stalin who was a supposed egalitarian.

I will once again repeat that there were NO millionaires in USSR as of 1953, none. If Stalin the GS of the party has very few material luxuries just who the hell would?

Leonid Brezhnevs' wage was hardly anything. its the fringe benefits that count when discussing the Soviet Union. Stalin was not like that, but a lot of his associates were.

Yes he was, read.

there was a town named after him in his lifetime. he was the one who glorified Lenin and embalmed him against Lenins wishes. it was his picture on the walls of Red Square every May 1st. you tellin me he couldn't stop these things?

(Edited by Just Joe at 9:30 pm on Feb. 26, 2003)

[RedComrade]

I am by no means a Stalinist but i do not necessarily consider myself oposed to authoritarianism (they are two different things are they not?). I am curious and have a question to you authoritarians. Is authoritarianism hostile to democracy, multiple parties, free speech, trial by jury, and does an authoritarian system necessarily imply the existence of one man with the most power. From my studies in government i feel a much more communistic government would be run by a senate if anything but would not empower one sole individual more so than others if anything power would be shared by a senate of elected officials, is this hostile to authoritarianism? also were can i go to read more about authoritarianism?

[thursday night]

“Is authoritarianism hostile to democracy, multiple parties, free speech, trial by jury, and does an authoritarian system necessarily imply the existence of one man with the most power.”

Lenin, who was of course an ‘authoritarian’ himself, once said that “communism is ... a million times more democratic than capitalism.” And he was right. A Marxist-Leninist system is in no way hostile to democracy and hardly empowers a single head-of-state with seemingly unlimited power. In fact, if we look at Cuba we see a Marxist-Leninist country with an elected National Assembly, elected provincial assemblies and elected local people’s councils. I am sure that Chairman Mao would point out how the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is democratic and Cassius Clay would explain how the Soviet Union was at times in it’s history democratic.

As to the question of free speech and a multi-party system I will answer the former first. I can tell you of my own experience in Cuba where I walked down the streets of Havana with locals and they chatted about the government freely, while walking past uniformed police and military officials. This is only one example of how Marxism-Leninism does not repress freedom of speech. I also believe that Mao Zedong made an excellent statement on this matter.

“The only way to settle questions of an ideological nature or controversial issues among the people is by the democratic method, the method of discussion, of criticism, of persuasion and education, and not by the method of coercion or repression.” February 27, 1957

As to the question of political parties I believe that a one-party people’s republic is the most effective and democratic means of running a socialist state. What is the need of a multi-party state? The revolutionary party, which serves as a vanguard of socialism, is the party of the working-class and in socialism it is the working-class which grasps the reins of power. What good is Marxism-Leninism when a Communist Party can be elected, make leaps of progress for working people and then simply to removed from power by a capitalist/reactionary political party? Do not confuse a one-party state with autocracy, because the belief that a one-party republic is undemocratic is totally fallacious. One simply needs to look at Cuba, Vietnam or other past or present socialist states to see a one-party democratic society.

[Cassius Clay]

''if Poland was not Stalinist, it was based on Soviet Communism; based on bureacracy and totalitarianism. the foundations of Stalinism never really left Russia and eastern Europe after 1953. most of them haven't left Russia today.''

Oh dear, it's clear that you've ignored most of my reply's and the evidence bought up in them while the parts you have replied to you simply misinterpretate. 'Most of them haven't left Russia today' god this one is quotable, Russia today is a free-market Capitalist society, nothing is state owned, the workers are forced to work or starve and McDonalds reigns free in Redsquare. No I don't want you to ask 'why is this then?' but admit that your comparision between the USSR under Stalin and today's Russia is totally stupid.


''when you become a career politician or a career party member, you are a bureacrat. the major players in the Soviet Communist Party were all career bureacrats.''

Still no prove Joe, if you acknowledged the prove I have provided you will see the Soviets did there best to fight carrerists, opportunists and beuracrates particularly under Stalin. Is everyone perfect? Ofcourse not, communism eliminates exploitation not sin.

''Lenin layed the grounds for Stalin. he was the Napoleon of the 20th century. his quotes or persona is not to be admired.''

Matter of opinion I suppose, your just making it further obvious that you are brainwashed by Capitalist propaganda by repeating worn out and boring rhectoric.


''thats not really proof, now is it. heres a good overview of the social make up of the party. most members were white collar professionals not prolaterians:''

You asked for 'proof' that working class membership of the party increased, I provided it what more do you wan't? Unless somehow you can prove Ludo Martens is lying. I will check the link soon, suffice to say I'm not interested in opinions or lies but FACTS. Although that source may just provide something new and you might be proved right, although I'm not going to hold my breath.

''this is just silly. the USSR oppressed huge numbers of people for simply saying the wrong things. it put dissidents in hospitals. thats why it was destroyed cassius.''

Did you even read the article? What is so hard to understan there Joe? Can you somehow prove it is all a falsifcation? No instead you say it's 'silly' and come up with rubbish about people being thrown into jail simply for saying something.

''its an argument against Democratic Centralism rather than just against Brezhnev. a leader should be held accountable to the people not the Politburo.''

The last part I agree with.

''but you said Stalinists were against the invasion. but Revolution Hero is a Stalinist and supports it.''

Who said RH is a 'Stalinist'? Certainly he hasn't, I seem to remember RH saying months ago that he wasn't. Anyway what does it matter? Me and RH discussed Afghanistan and agreed to disagree, now your arguing with me and I'm against the invasion and so are many 'Stalinists'.

''86 was during the Gorbachev years.''

So what? In the 30's the Soviet media in the form of travelling plays which toured throughout Soviet Union made fun of and criticised the purges.

''Stalin sent Bukharin into a mickey mouse show trial where i could have been prosecuting and got a conviction.''

Is this backed up by any FACT? No it isn't prove that the trial was 'mickey mouse'.

''he was a Bolshevik who wrote Communist literature. he thought the NEP was needed but was still a devouted Marxist.''

His ideology was exactly the same as that of Gorbachev and Deng Xia Ping, both of whom ordered massacres of protestors and introduced their nations to Capitalism.

''how many did he order killed? how much blood does Stalin have on his hands?''

Why don't you tell me?

''why did the USSR collapse, Cassius? according to you, the living standard was good and there was a lot of democracy. what possible reason was there for a collapse?''

You've ignored my point and came up with this which can't possibly be answered in a short few sentences. You wan't me to give my opinion as to why the USSR collapsed, then start a new thread.

''make peace with the United States and rule as a sovereign nation. the US would not have invaded the Soviet Union.''

Like they never invaded unarmed Grenada, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea and funded death squards in relativly weak Salvador, Chile and Niguragua you mean?

''i agree, yes. shame the Soviet government didn't agree. actually wasn't it Uncle Joe who scrapped that law?''

It's writen by Victor Anpilov who is the leader of the so called 'Stalin-Bloc' throughout the former Soviet Union and who is now leading the new CPSU.

''Cuba doesn't have anywhere near the repression of a Stalinist state.''

Can I ask why Joe you refuse to accept what the Miami Herald or CNN claims about Castro and Cuba but not only accept by embrace what the same people tell you about Stalin and the Soviet Union?


''but i thought it was just the period of time? the Communist government were imprisoning homosexuals at late as the early 1990's. a law set up by Stalin who was a supposed egalitarian.''

Did not the Soviet goverment make mistakes then? It was wrong and now more and more Communists are seeing that this pacific policy was wrong.

''Leonid Brezhnevs' wage was hardly anything. its the fringe benefits that count when discussing the Soviet Union. Stalin was not like that, but a lot of his associates were.''

Who precisly, the only one who had a reputation for living the high life was Yagoda and he was a ideological ally of Bakhurin.

''there was a town named after him in his lifetime. he was the one who glorified Lenin and embalmed him against Lenins wishes. it was his picture on the walls of Red Square every May 1st. you tellin me he couldn't stop these things?''

Why have you ignored the article Joe? Stalingrad was renamed from Tsaritsyn because the people of that city voted it so, in the early 20's because Stalin had led the cities defence in the civil war.

[Just Joe]

Oh dear, it's clear that you've ignored most of my reply's and the evidence bought up in them while the parts you have replied to you simply misinterpretate.

so you don't think Poland was based on the Soviet model of Communism?

'Most of them haven't left Russia today' god this one is quotable, Russia today is a free-market Capitalist society, nothing is state owned

Russias state owns large parts of the economy. i'd suspect because of a large Communist parliment blocking sales. didn't they actually defeat a bill proposing land sales a while ago?

No I don't want you to ask 'why is this then?' but admit that your comparision between the USSR under Stalin and today's Russia is totally stupid.

Stalin layed the foundations of repression and authoritarianism. this still happens today in Russia with forced military service and state control of the media.

Still no prove Joe, if you acknowledged the prove I have provided you will see the Soviets did there best to fight carrerists, opportunists and beuracrates particularly under Stalin. Is everyone perfect? Ofcourse not, communism eliminates exploitation not sin.

you want proof there were bureacrats running the Soviet Union? Brezhnev, Kosygin, Suslov, Andropov and Gorbachev were all bureacrats and were all in the Politburo some time around 1980.

Matter of opinion I suppose, your just making it further obvious that you are brainwashed by Capitalist propaganda by repeating worn out and boring rhectoric.

what have you seen about the USSR that i haven't? i'm no capitalist i'm a socialist. if anything, i'd have a biased view in support of the USSR. but the USSR went against what i think to be socialism.

You asked for 'proof' that working class membership of the party increased, I provided it what more do you wan't?

proof from reliable sources or archives. not the ramblings of some un reconstrcuted Stalinist jackass.

I will check the link soon, suffice to say I'm not interested in opinions or lies but FACTS.

George W Bush is a woman. prove i'm lying.

don't work does it.

Did you even read the article? What is so hard to understan there Joe? Can you somehow prove it is all a falsifcation? No instead you say it's 'silly' and come up with rubbish about people being thrown into jail simply for saying something.

listen to yourself. anything that goes against the view that Stalin was Jesus Christ himself is dismissed as Capitalist propaganda.

Who said RH is a 'Stalinist'?

Stalinism isn't some sort of ideology. its just a perversion of Marxism. the USSR was a Stalinist state and anyone who supports it is a Stalinist.

So what? In the 30's the Soviet media in the form of travelling plays which toured throughout Soviet Union made fun of and criticised the purges.

where do you get this shite from? pravda?

Is this backed up by any FACT? No it isn't prove that the trial was 'mickey mouse'.

i'll see if i can get something later.

His ideology was exactly the same as that of Gorbachev and Deng Xia Ping, both of whom ordered massacres of protestors and introduced their nations to Capitalism.

he just wanted development of the economy before Socialism. he was still a Socialist. Bukharin was probobly the only hope for the USSR i reckon.

Why don't you tell me?

if were countin collectivisation, i'd say between 5 and 10 million. could be lower but i wouldn't go higher than 10.

You've ignored my point and came up with this which can't possibly be answered in a short few sentences. You wan't me to give my opinion as to why the USSR collapsed, then start a new thread.

i'll do it as soon as i finish this. no doubt it will be put down to 'revisionism' though.

Like they never invaded unarmed Grenada, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea and funded death squards in relativly weak Salvador, Chile and Niguragua you mean?

what do all those countries have in common? they're all tiny third world countries. the Soviet Union was an industrial superpower that covered 1/6 of the world. it had easily enough nuclear weapons by about 1970 to defend itself. it could have slashed defence spending 4 times over. but then again, when your leader is held to account by a Politburo of military men, what d'you expect?

Can I ask why Joe you refuse to accept what the Miami Herald or CNN claims about Castro and Cuba but not only accept by embrace what the same people tell you about Stalin and the Soviet Union?

the people of Cuba generally support Castro and free speech is tolerated. i see it with my own eyes on TV and in the news.

Who precisly

Beria, Khrushchev, Malenkov, Yagoda.

[Cassius Clay]

''so you don't think Poland was based on the Soviet model of Communism?

No I don't, Poland at this time had long abanoned the road to Marxism-Leninism and was State-Capitalist. Once again read what Hoxha and other other 'Stalinists' said about those events, what precisly do you disagree with Hoxha and the Communist league over Joe?


''Russias state owns large parts of the economy. i'd suspect because of a large Communist parliment blocking sales. didn't they actually defeat a bill proposing land sales a while ago?''

Seriesly could you inform me what part of the economy the state owns in Russia? But is it of significance anyway? The Labour goverment in the UK after the war introduced state-ownership on alot of things and created the NHS, does that suddenly not make Britain a Capitalist society? Ofcourse it doesn't.

''Stalin layed the foundations of repression and authoritarianism. this still happens today in Russia with forced military service and state control of the media.''

You still continue with rubbish about 'repression and authoritarianism', back these claims up. I've provided a source showing the USSR under Stalin had a very democratic process, you've yet to respond to it.

''you want proof there were bureacrats running the Soviet Union? Brezhnev, Kosygin, Suslov, Andropov and Gorbachev were all bureacrats and were all in the Politburo some time around 1980.''

I'm actually inclined to agree that alot of these men were bureacrats, never the less all you've done is state this without no evidence to back it up.

''what have you seen about the USSR that i haven't? i'm no capitalist i'm a socialist. if anything, i'd have a biased view in support of the USSR. but the USSR went against what i think to be socialism.''

What do you think to be socialism? I posted a part of one groups theory and you agreed with it, it happened to be from a group of 'Stalinists'. You think I support the USSR because I take anything CNN sais seriesly?

''proof from reliable sources or archives. not the ramblings of some un reconstrcuted Stalinist jackass.''

Well I know Ludo Martens bases alot of his work on the archives of the CPSU, as do others why should this pacific point about working class membership be different? That you don't want to accept a fact when it is shown to you is not my problem, you asked for prove I gave it to you.

''George W Bush is a woman. prove i'm lying.

don't work does it.''

Let's see, medical certificate/s, eye witnesses, likely photographic evidence, the fact he has kids who could be proven to be such by blood tests etc, etc. Although do you have any sources to back up your claim that GWB is a women? I mean I've provided evidence and sources which support my claims, you've failed to do the same.

''listen to yourself. anything that goes against the view that Stalin was Jesus Christ himself is dismissed as Capitalist propaganda.''

Get back to the topic Joe, stop with the rhectoric. Can you prove that article about Labor disputes in the Soviet Union I believe to be a falsification?

''Stalinism isn't some sort of ideology. its just a perversion of Marxism. the USSR was a Stalinist state and anyone who supports it is a Stalinist.''

Wow talk about generilisation, RH has never called himself a 'Stalinist' and if anything has said the opposite. Anyway do you not think your even the least falling into a trap of labbeling everyone who disagree's with you a 'Stalinist' (which you belief to be the equivalent of a Fascist)?

''where do you get this shite from? pravda?''

"The purge is really ended at last, as has already been indicated by the replacement of Yezhov by Beria at the Ministry of Internal Affairs, by the execution of five GPU officials at Kiev for gross abuse of power..., by the present trial in a mid-Siberian town of four GPU officials for arresting over 150 children, some under 12, as terrorists, etc., under Article 58, by a play now on in Moscow exposing the abuses of the purge to enthusiastic audiences, and, finally, by the return of political prisoners in hundreds, if not in thousands".

("The Times", February 27th., 1939; p.11).

''i'll see if i can get something later.''

While you do read these.

http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv8n1/bukharin.htm

http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/mo-trial.html

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node109.ht...400000000000000 (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node109.html#SECTION001033400000000000000)

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node112.ht...700000000000000 (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node112.html#SECTION001033700000000000000)

And from a interview that Kaganovich gave in the early 90's.

''The Cunning Fox

And what did Molotov tell you about Bukharin?

His opinion was that in the year 1918 Bukharin supported the arrest of Lenin.

I shall tell you, said L.M. Kaganovich, that the Left SRs, who were against the Brest Peace treaty were together with the 'Left' Communists. The leader of the latter was Bukharin. The Socialist Revolutionaries told Bukharin that Lenin's arrest would solve the purpose of breaking up the Brest peace treaty. The idea was that Lenin might later on be resurrected but the treaty would have fallen apart. Thereafter they wanted to assign the work to Pyatakov.

There are documents which were published in the newspapers which prove all of this. In one of the Regional Conferences Bukharin himself narrated this story when he was in the Central Committee and fighting the Trotskyites. When confronted with accusations later on and to justify himself he said: "Well, I only told you this!"

Bukharin was then supporting the Left SRs?

Of course, they proposed Lenin's arrest. The 'Left' Communists published Bukharin's explanation in 'Pravda'. Bukharin not only did not refute the statement, but did not even inform the CC.

Till the year 1924, not a word passed Bukharin's lips about this story, that the 'Left' SRs proposed Lenin's arrest to the Communists. See what blasphemy! I don't know whether Molotov told you or not that amongst ourselves we called Bukharin a cunning fox. Bukharin in my opinion was a double-faced man. He was unreliable. A lot can be said about him and then there were contradictions too. Stalin affectionately called him 'Bukharchik'. We also related well to him. But when he once again went to the right and started lashing out at the Party, and organised his own rightist followers, we all opposed him. This should be underlined. Today people would like to juxtapose Stalin the cruel man, with Bukharin the kind, affectionate person, in order to rake up unpleasantness.

What is being written today is that if only they had paid heed to Bukharin there would have been no collectivisation or its victims.

Exactly, today the 'democrats' are using him as a shield and support as the symbol of kulak restoration: Chayanov, Kondratiev and Bukharin. Chayanov and Kondratiev openly supported the kulaks and stood for kulak cooperatives. Nobody talks about all this. It is wrong to say that Chayanov was a theoretician of the cooperatives, he was a propagator of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois cooperatives. The fact is that Bukharin shielded them as communists and marxists.''

And.

''Cross-Examination of Bukharin in the Politbureau

Since the days of his youth at the gymnasium, Stalin asks him: 'What was your underground name?' He answers: 'Blokha' [flea]. Stalin looks at the court and says 'Blokha!' Bukharin's character has been developed at the cost of servile caricaturisation of another part, this is a kind of theft.

Why, was he untrustworthy?

Of course not. But he did everything to destroy Stalin, this is for sure.

Is this true?

Yes, there was his confrontation with Kulikov. He was a Moscovite. At the meeting of the Politbureau members, Kulikov addressed Bukharin: 'You remember, Nikolai Ivanovich, how you took me by the arm and we walked along the Vozdvizhenka, and I said to you: 'Why are you wasting your time there, when it is time to act and simply talk.' Bukharin inquires 'but where are your people? Who would act?' 'Well, people could be found.' 'And why don't you act yourself? Participate in terrorist acts?'

'I never said that' shouted Bukharin. How do you deny this when you wanted the surnames [familia] of the persons I had listed - said Kulikov who was a member of the Moscow Committee, Secretary of the Regional Committee, a tanner by trade and very politically aware.

Sergo [Ordzhonikidze] asks Bukharin whether he had said this or not.

Yes, answered Bukharin.

How could you?!

I thought that Sergo was about to hit him.

I asked Kaganovich whether he was present during all of this.

Yes, of course.

Which year was it?

Perhaps 1933 or 1934 or 1935. Sergo was still alive. Bukharin was arrested in 1938.

The Trial was already in 1938.

He only sat for awhile... Slepkov was cross-examined during the trial: 'Did Bukharin send you to the Northern Caucasus?' - 'Yes'. 'What tasks did he give you? - 'The task was to find out the mood of the Kazakhs, and the residents of the Kuban and the Don whether they were prepared for something or not?' Once again they asked Bukharin: 'Did you say this to him?' He hesitated and said 'Yes'.

Once again Sergo sprang up: 'Is it really possible that you might have said this?' - 'Then I was opposed to all the politicians of the CC, but today - no.

I asked Kaganovich whether Stalin was present in these proceedings.

Of course, he, as well as all members of the Politbureau were present. Voroshilov was there. Molotov chaired the meeting.

Rykov's proceedings were arranged with Chernov.

And was not this Kulikov already arrested? Yagoda might have cooked up something.

Look, a cross-examination was arranged to see the truth in Kulikov's utterances. We were convinced about his statement.

Kulikov perished after that?

Yes, perished.

I wonder whether it was worth executing them. They should have been removed front all posts, and sentenced to an unknown life in some provincial town.

See, my dear, the situation of capitalist encirclement was very complicated. There were the supporters of Trotsky, Zinoviev and Rykov. Each one of these could have headed separate governments. Out of the opponents of Stalin three states could have emerged.

Trotsky was sent away. Bukharin could also have been.

Those were difficult and complicated times. This only shows Stalin's patience, that he carried along with Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev uptil 1927. Kamenev in those days had organised a parallel rally: 'Down with the Government, Down with Stalin!' Then he was dropped from the Politbureau, he was a member of the P.B. until 1927. How forbearing Stalin was! There were times when Kirov and Kamenev wanted to drop Trotsky from the Politbureau and Stalin was defending him.

It is said that you shot people even for ideas.

Not for ideas. Why for ideas at all? But who would believe that these old, experienced conspirators, using the experience of Bolshevik conspiracy and cooperation, underground organisation would not get together to form an organisation.

They did form an organisation. Tomsky and Zinoviev did get together. They met at their dacha. And what about the Ryutin Platform - these were not ideas. These people organised an uprising against the Soviet state and they could have headed a revolt.

The entire method of Lenin's struggle against the bourgeoisie could have been used against us. They had their people everywhere, in the army and elsewhere. They had formed organisations spread out in chains. Bukharin used to meet Kamenev and others and talk over the matters of the CC. How could one let this happen freely? People ask how could they possibly get in touch with foreign governments? Well, they saw themselves an independent underground government. Trotsky being a good organiser could have led the revolt.

They were all in contact with each other. One would show restraint and the other would say everything. We already knew that this was a strong, organised group, such opponents who could organise terrorist activities and even kill.

It is also said that Stalin held discussions with Bukharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev: 'If they confess they would be pardonned, or their children and their wives would be shot.' They were told all this?

They themselves asked for a meeting. I know that Zinoviev and Kamenev met Stalin, Voroshilov was also present. Kamenev and Zinoviev had requested mercy. They were already arrested, still Stalin met them. Stalin asked them to admit their guilt. They said that they were guilty. It was clear that they would never forgive Stalin for cornering them like this.

There were rumours that he promised them their lives.

This I do not know. I doubt that there was such a conversation. Stalin immediately understood that Kamenev and Zinoviev were against the October Revolution. Trotsky was a Menshevik and he did not believe in socialist revolution. Rykov also was against the revolution and refused to be part of Lenin's government. Bukharin knew that the SRs wanted to have Lenin arrested and still chose to keep silent.

With such people around him Stalin could not have possibly waited for such a time when these people would have caught him by the neck and like they did to Robespierre annihilated him. Robespierre was eliminated because he awaited a reconciliation with his opponents. Those who had applauded him were today shouting: 'To the Guillotine!' If Robespierre had not been there, with all his ferocity, feudalism would not have been uprooted. He was a despot, as they say, the Trotsky of the French revolution.

If things are analysed legally one may draw different conclusions. But if one keeps the larger historical consequences in view then one can say that Stalin acted decisively and strongly. Stalin was a man of great historical will and if we can speak bluntly, so was Lenin. We did still arrest communists. In 1907 we were together with the Mensheviks in the Stockholm Party congress and already by 1918 we arrested them and shot them. Not everybody can understand this revolution where you have to destroy your own comrades and relatives. Each revolution they say devours its own children. Nothing of the sort! Lenin saw beyond all this, he defended Martov, and even allowed him to leave. The rest, of course, did not...

The Menshevik Trukhanov at the 7th Congress of the All-Russian Soviets in 1920 spoke of Lenin's dictatorship in politics and deeds. Lenin spoke against him and said workers' dictatorship did not mean the dictatorship of an individual. With our kind of situation with peasant reserves and with capitalists all around us we had to stand up and preserve our state.''

''he just wanted development of the economy before Socialism. he was still a Socialist. Bukharin was probobly the only hope for the USSR i reckon.''

Just like Gorbachev and Deng I suppose.

''if were countin collectivisation, i'd say between 5 and 10 million. could be lower but i wouldn't go higher than 10.''

Reading to much of Robert Conquest I see.

''i'll do it as soon as i finish this. no doubt it will be put down to 'revisionism' though.''

Good in time I'll try to give you a detailed answer.

''what do all those countries have in common? they're all tiny third world countries. the Soviet Union was an industrial superpower that covered 1/6 of the world. it had easily enough nuclear weapons by about 1970 to defend itself. it could have slashed defence spending 4 times over. but then again, when your leader is held to account by a Politburo of military men, what d'you expect?''

And what did you suggest the USSR do? Make peace with the U$ and stop producing weapons, so they would infact end up as military powerful as those countries that I listed, eg not very militarily power. The U$ invaded Soviet Union in 1920, the German Fascists along with a half a dozen allies invaded in 1941, both invasions ruined the country and cost millions of lifes.

You then wan't to tell the politburo many of whom saw there friends and families die as a result of those invasions to make peace beacuse the U$ promises it won't invade.

Your right by around 1970 the USSR did have enough weapons, hence why if you look into history you will see there was then a decade known as 'dentente'. Only when Ronald 'We Can win a Nuclear War' Reagen start's talking about 'Star Wars' does the Politburo become concerned again. Who'd blame them.

Really, when was the last time CNN, Miami Herald or the BBC ever anything but harsh on Castro? Ofcourse though Castro doesn't face even a fraction of the wrath the ruling class unleashes on Stalin so your statement is understandable.

''Beria, Khrushchev, Malenkov, Yagoda.''

If you say so.

[Revolution Hero]

Just Joe, obviously Cassius has a good memory, he is completely right saying that I am not Stalinist. Moreover I would disagree with the very notion of so called "Stalinism". Stalin was Marxist- Leninist and all his works are the perfect proof to this. You probably will argue that Stalin "perverted" Marxism, but the very ridiculous thing about the latter statement is that Stalin never did this. Read his works and you will get it.
I strongly believe that Stalin would have invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia as well. Although I am not sure about Afghanistan's case.
That was Stalin who said that class struggle could reach the highest point of its development during socialism. Hungary and Czechoslovakia were the very cases of class struggle intensification; history proved Stalin's thesis being correct. What has to be done if bourgeois class tries to take over? Fight back and provide help to the brotherly working people; revolution has to protect itself and the task of other socialistic states to act according to the principle of proletarian internationalism and provide all necessary help to the proletariat in danger.


(Edited by Revolution Hero at 8:52 pm on Feb. 27, 2003)