Defending Stalin

[Winter]

In Communist Parties around the world, the ideological struggle around the Stalin question presents many common characteristics


In all capitalist countries, the economic, political and ideological pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie on Communists is incredibly strong. It is a permanent source of degeneration, of treason, of slow descent into the other camp. But every treacherous act requires ideological justification in the eyes of the one who is committing it. In general, a revolutionary who engages on the downward slope of opportunism `discovers the truth about Stalinism'.

He or she takes, as is, the bourgeois and anti-Communist version of the history of the revolutionary movement under Stalin. In fact, the renegades make no discovery, they simply copy the bourgeoisie's lies. Why have so many renegades `discovered the truth about Stalin' (to improve the Communist movement, of course), but none among them has `discovered the truth about Churchill'? A discovery which would be much more important for `improving' the anti-imperialist struggle! Having a record of half a century of crimes in the service of the British Empire (Boer War in South Africa, terror in India, inter-imperialist First World War followed by military intervention against the new Soviet republic, war against Iraq, terror in Kenya, declaration of the Cold War, aggression against antifascist Greece, etc.), Churchill is probably the only bourgeois politician of this century to have equalled Hitler.

Every political and historical work is marked by the class position of its author. From the twenties to 1953, the majority of Western publications about the Soviet Union served the bourgeoisie's and the petit-bourgeoisie's attacks against Soviet socialism. Writings by Communist Party members and of Left intellectuals trying to defend the Soviet experience constituted a weak counter-current in defending the truth about the Soviet experience. But, from 1953--1956, Khrushchev and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union would take up, bit by bit, all the bourgeois historiography about the Stalin period.

Since then, revolutionaries in the Western world have been subject to a terrible and unending ideological onslaught about the crucial periods in the rise of the Communist movement, particularly the Stalin era. If Lenin led the October Revolution and drew the main lines for building socialism, it was Stalin who actually put those lines into action for thirty years. The bourgeoisie's hatred is of course concentrated on the titanic task achieved under Stalin. A Communist who does not adopt a firm class position with respect to the misleading, one-sided, incomplete or false information that the bourgeoisie spreads around will be lost forever. For no other subject in recent history does the bourgeoisie denigrate its adversaries so fiercely. Every Communist must adopt a attitude of systematic mistrust towards all `information' furnished by the bourgeoisie (and the Khrushchevites) about the Stalin period. And he or she must do everything possible to discover the rare alternative sources of information that defend Stalin's revolutionary endeavor.

But opportunists in different parties dare not directly confront the anti-Stalin ideological offensive directly, despite its clear anti-Communist goal. The opportunists bend backwards under pressure, saying `yes to a criticism of Stalin', but pretending to criticize Stalin `from the Left'.
Today, we can sum up seventy years of `criticisms from the Left' formulated by the revolutionary experience of the Bolshevik Party under Stalin. There are hundreds of works available, written by social-democrats and Trotskyists, by Bukharinists and `independent' Left intellectuals. Their points of view have been taken up and developed by Khrushchevites and Titoists. We can better understand today the real class meaning of these works. Did any of these criticisms lead to revolutionary practices more important than the work under Stalin? Theories are, of course, judged by the social practice they engender.

The revolutionary practice of the world Communist movement under Stalin shook the whole world and gave a new direction to the history of humanity. During the years 1985--1990, in particular, we have been able to see that all the so-called `Left critics' of Stalin have jumped onto the anti-Communist bandwagon, just countless cheerleaders. Social-democrats, Trotskyists, anarchists, Bukharinists, Titoists, ecologists, all found themselves in the movement for `liberty, democracy and human rights', which liquidated what remained of socialism in Eastern Europe and in the USSR. All these `Left criticisms' of Stalin had as final consequence the restoration of savage capitalism, the reinstatement of a merciless dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the destruction of all social gains, cultural and political rights for the working masses and, in many cases, to the emergence of fascism and of reactionary civil wars.

When Khrushchev initiated the anti-Stalin campaigns in 1956, those Communists who resisted revisionism and defended Stalin were affected in a peculiar manner.

In 1956, the Chinese Communist Party had the revolutionary courage to defend Stalin's work. Its document, `Once more on the experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat', considerably helped Marxist-Leninists all over the world. Based on their own experience, the Chinese Communists criticized certain aspects of Stalin's work. This is perfectly normal and necessary in a discussion among Communists.

However, with the benefit of time, it seems that their criticisms were formulated too generally. This negatively influenced many Communists who lent credibility to all sorts of opportunistic criticisms.

For example, the Chinese comrades claimed that Stalin did not always clearly distinguish the two kinds of contradiction, those among the people, which can be overcome through education and struggle, and those between the people and the enemy, which require appropriate means of struggle. From this general criticism, some concluded that Stalin did not properly treat the contradictions with Bukharin, and ended up embracing Bukharin's social-democratic political line.

The Chinese Communists also stated that Stalin interfered in the affairs of other parties and denied them their independence. From this general criticism, some concluded that Stalin was wrong in condemning Tito's politics, ultimately accepting Titoism as a `specifically Yugoslav form of Marxism-Leninism'. The recent events in Yugoslavia allow one to better understand how Tito, since his break with the Bolshevik Party, followed a bourgeois-nationalist line and ultimately fell into the U.S. fold.

The ideological reticence and errors enumerated above about the Stalin question, occurred in almost all Marxist-Leninist parties.
A general conclusion can be drawn. In our judgment of all the episodes during the period 1923--1953, we must struggle to understand completely the political line held by the Bolshevik Party and by Stalin. We cannot accept any criticism of Stalin's work without verifying all primary data pertaining to the question under debate and without considering all versions of facts and events, in particular the version given by the Bolshevik leadership.

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node8.html#SECTION00300500000000000000

[LiberaCHE]

http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/banner-wiout-nav.gif


http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/

[LiberaCHE]

"ON THE QUESTION OF STALIN"

by the Communist Party of China

http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/QS63.html

[JimmyJazz]

Nice post. Although I think it is important that we remain free to criticize Stalin (and Lenin too (and Marx too)), especially in their economic policies, I think it is stupid to group ourselves into factions revolving around our position on the Stalin question. IMO such factionalism should have ended no later than the day Khrushchev's speech became known in the West. And although I personally know very little of Soviet history from Stalin to Gorbachev, it's clear to me that the standard oversimplified formulations (state capitalism, degenerated workers' state, new ruling class) are primarily maintained by many as an easy way to deflect criticisms by capitalism's apologists. IOW, it is primarily an act of laziness. This is an extremely stupid reason to maintain these positions, and extremely naive: do we not realize they'll simply move on to criticizing Lenin? So clearly we can't let our positions be determined, even slightly, by the folks who have a hard-on for capitalism. Instead we should be the ones seeking the truth about Stalin rather than parroting Conquest's "scholarship" like most others do. I have only met one so-called Stalinist before (I expect to meet more on this site), and then as now, the perspective was refreshing, regardless of how true or false.

As an aside, although I will likely be crucified for this, I think it's mistaken to call Hitler a bourgeois politician. I have always felt that National Socialism was more than merely the last refuge or the military wing of the bourgeoisie. It is a qualitatively different ideology from the one which sustains capitalism--as comprehensively different as communism, in fact. Capitalism doesn't consider ideology an end in itself: "Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets" for the bourgeoisie. Ideology merely performs a supporting role for what is ultimately a material goal. But fascism actually is an ideology, one built around race rather than class. It frustrates class struggle, but it isn't its opposite. It seeks to spend money for a national goal, not to maintain conditions where money can be peacefully accumulated by an elite. I could go on, but I won't. Maybe I'll start a thread on it.

Anyway, good post. I recommend Pilger's Freedom Next Time: Resisting the Empire, which explicitly lays out the scale of some of the crimes against humanity by Churchill and others. Another good bit of writing about Churchill is an essay, "Our Infantile Search for Heroic Leaders", by Johann Hari. Just google the title.

I do have one question for you, though: under what circumstances would you agree that the leader of the world's first socialist country had indeed betrayed what that project originally stood for? If you can think of certain criteria, which Stalin simply didn't meet, you'll have greater credibility with everyone.

[LiberaCHE]

:hammersickle: :hammersickle: :hammersickle: :star2: :hammersickle: :hammersickle: :hammersickle:

-WrAQKP7VPs

... Meanwhile Billy-Goat sunbathed in Mexico and fucked Frida Kahlo*




* (who later after he got ice-picked ... called him a traitor, and backed Stalin = Pwned)

[Norseman]

In all capitalist countries, the economic, political and ideological pressure exerted by the bourgeoisie on Communists is incredibly strong. It is a permanent source of degeneration, of treason, of slow descent into the other camp. But every treacherous act requires ideological justification in the eyes of the one who is committing it. In general, a revolutionary who engages on the downward slope of opportunism `discovers the truth about Stalinism'.

He or she takes, as is, the bourgeois and anti-Communist version of the history of the revolutionary movement under Stalin. In fact, the renegades make no discovery, they simply copy the bourgeoisie's lies. Why have so many renegades `discovered the truth about Stalin' (to improve the Communist movement, of course), but none among them has `discovered the truth about Churchill'? A discovery which would be much more important for `improving' the anti-imperialist struggle! Having a record of half a century of crimes in the service of the British Empire (Boer War in South Africa, terror in India, inter-imperialist First World War followed by military intervention against the new Soviet republic, war against Iraq, terror in Kenya, declaration of the Cold War, aggression against antifascist Greece, etc.), Churchill is probably the only bourgeois politician of this century to have equalled Hitler.Churchill was no more bourgeois than Stalin. Churchill let a few people gain do no work, and merely gain from the labor of others by virtue of what they owned. Stalin, on the other hand, took an entire country for himself. Did he ever work in any of his gulags? Did he even once pick up a hammer or sickle and work? Stalin was nothing but a bourgeois parasite on Russia; worse than that, even. Not only did he refuse to do his fair share of work, he allied with Hitler, he crushed the communist revolution in Russia, and Spain, and committed genocide. If Stalin was communist, then communism is not only impossible, it's not even remotely desirable.

Let's look at The Communist Manifesto, for a moment.


In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:

(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.

(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

Note that there is no mention of putting some king on a throne to rule the proletarians. In fact, it explicitly rejects that. It specifically calls for the proletarians to be formed into a class to conquer political power for the proletariat, not for Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or even for communists or communism. At the very least, communism must be a direct democracy, because the proletarians must be the ones with the political power, not the Communist party. It must be the proletarians who desire to have communism in order for communism to develop. It can't be imposed upon them from above.


We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. Note this, because it's important to understand before continuing the next part. It says nothing about the communists being in power. It says the proletarians must be in power. They must "win the battle of democracy".


The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. There it is again, and it's neatly summarized. Again, it says nothing about the communists being in charge. It says the proletarians are in charge, and that by state, it is meant "the proletariat organized as the ruling class", and, as mentioned earlier, this state is a democracy.


Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production. This is also important to note. It doesn't say "Ok, let's let Stalin control the entire country for as long as he wants." It acknowledges that the measures it's about to suggest can't be sustained in the long term, and can only be taken by the proletarians in the course of advancing their society to a point where such practices are no longer needed or useful. The measures will make themselves obsolete.


These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. As you're about to see, this didn't work in Russia, China or Cuba, because the people who tried to implement this were dictators who wanted to hold on to power, not proletarians. In order for the measures to obsolete themselves, they must also make class antagonisms obsolete, and thereby make the democracy which implemented them, and any other kind of government obsolete. Communism cannot exist while there is any apparatus for class oppression; the democracy controlled by proletarians is only a lead-up to it. Communism ultimately requires anarchy.


When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. To summarize: communists do nothing but "bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat" and "represent the interests of the movement as a whole". "They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement." The proletarians take political power for themselves. They use that political power in their interests. They strip the bourgeoisie of all of the remaining social power they wield, i.e. the capital they possess. The bourgeoisie, as a class, disappears, and only the proletarians remain. Any government which remains is merely an organizational apparatus. It wields no political power, because the people it controls are the same people who control it. That is communism in a nutshell.

I recommend reading through The Doctrine of Fascism and trying to spot differences and similarities between it Stalinism and communism, as has been defined in The Communist Manifesto. I'm guessing that the biggest difference you're going to find between Stalinism and Fascism is this:


The Fascist state claims its ethical character: it is Catholic but above all it is Fascist, in fact it is exclusively and essentially Fascist. Catholicism completes Fascism, and this we openly declare, but let no one think they can turn the tables on us, under cover of metaphysics or philosophy.

Now, let's continue with the bullshit about Stalin being a good communist:


Every political and historical work is marked by the class position of its author. From the twenties to 1953, the majority of Western publications about the Soviet Union served the bourgeoisie's and the petit-bourgeoisie's attacks against Soviet socialism. Writings by Communist Party members and of Left intellectuals trying to defend the Soviet experience constituted a weak counter-current in defending the truth about the Soviet experience. But, from 1953--1956, Khrushchev and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union would take up, bit by bit, all the bourgeois historiography about the Stalin period.

Ok, so why not list what Stalin did and didn't do? Did he invade Poland with Germany? Did he sign a nonagression pact with Hitler? Did he kill hundreds of thousands of communists he had locked away in gulags? Did he refuse to work like everyone else? Did he appropriate an inordinate amount of Russia's labor for himself? Did he give the Russian proletariat control of Russia? Did he ultimately make his measures obsolete, and create real communism, with no bourgeois class? Did he supply weapons to communists in Spain on the condition that they prevent revolution? Now, feel free to list all of the good things that Stalin did which make up for all of that.


Since then, revolutionaries in the Western world have been subject to a terrible and unending ideological onslaught about the crucial periods in the rise of the Communist movement, particularly the Stalin era. If Lenin led the October Revolution and drew the main lines for building socialism, it was Stalin who actually put those lines into action for thirty years. The bourgeoisie's hatred is of course concentrated on the titanic task achieved under Stalin. A Communist who does not adopt a firm class position with respect to the misleading, one-sided, incomplete or false information that the bourgeoisie spreads around will be lost forever. For no other subject in recent history does the bourgeoisie denigrate its adversaries so fiercely. Every Communist must adopt a attitude of systematic mistrust towards all `information' furnished by the bourgeoisie (and the Khrushchevites) about the Stalin period. And he or she must do everything possible to discover the rare alternative sources of information that defend Stalin's revolutionary endeavor.

So, what sources do you have? Did Stalin shit gold and piss perfume? You can't defend Stalin by claiming he was misrepresented unless you're offering some specific evidence about things he did or did not do. So far, four paragraphs into this, you have offered nothing except a "Churchill was genocidal too!". Well, no shit. Bourgeois pigs with power kill people for profit? I've never heard of such a thing! The point of communism is to get rid of that. There is no excuse for genocide. Just because Hitler, Churchill, Suharto and others committed genocide does not make genocide excusable. On the contrary, it makes it less excusable. Bourgeois pigs have been murdering communists and proletarians on a massive scale since the decline of feudalism. It should be the goal of communists to end genocide everywhere, not to claim that's ok when self-proclaimed communists do it!!!


But opportunists in different parties dare not directly confront the anti-Stalin ideological offensive directly, despite its clear anti-Communist goal. The opportunists bend backwards under pressure, saying `yes to a criticism of Stalin', but pretending to criticize Stalin `from the Left'.
Today, we can sum up seventy years of `criticisms from the Left' formulated by the revolutionary experience of the Bolshevik Party under Stalin. There are hundreds of works available, written by social-democrats and Trotskyists, by Bukharinists and `independent' Left intellectuals. Their points of view have been taken up and developed by Khrushchevites and Titoists. We can better understand today the real class meaning of these works. Did any of these criticisms lead to revolutionary practices more important than the work under Stalin? Theories are, of course, judged by the social practice they engender.

Ok, so what did Stalinism engender? What, exactly, are you contradicting? What do you think Stalin did? And do you think that what he did was good? Five paragraphs in, you're still giving me nothing. You've said nothing that makes Stalin appear to be anything but a bourgeois tyrant.


The revolutionary practice of the world Communist movement under Stalin shook the whole world and gave a new direction to the history of humanity. During the years 1985--1990, in particular, we have been able to see that all the so-called `Left critics' of Stalin have jumped onto the anti-Communist bandwagon, just countless cheerleaders. Social-democrats, Trotskyists, anarchists, Bukharinists, Titoists, ecologists, all found themselves in the movement for `liberty, democracy and human rights', which liquidated what remained of socialism in Eastern Europe and in the USSR. All these `Left criticisms' of Stalin had as final consequence the restoration of savage capitalism, the reinstatement of a merciless dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the destruction of all social gains, cultural and political rights for the working masses and, in many cases, to the emergence of fascism and of reactionary civil wars.

There never was socialism in Eastern Europe. When a couple of new people claim they own your farm, or your factory, that's not socialism. That's tyranny. Socialism is when people kick their bosses out and guarantee that people are allowed to work without having to give extra labor to some capitalist, so that everyone can work if they want to, and so that no one is subservient to capitalists. When Stalin comes along and takes your workplace and says he owns it now, and you have to work for him now, that's the exact opposite of socialism. That's the worst kind of capitalism because then you don't even get to choose not to work for capitalists.

And now we get to China, which is just depressing... I'm done. I've lived in China. It's not communist. It's more capitalist than the US. Not only can capitalists make money without having to work, but they're allowed to work people like slaves. Women are not allowed to take vacations when they're pregnant. The doctors are corrupt as hell, you have to bribe them to make sure they don't accidentally kill you, and even that doesn't help sometimes. The government is absurdly corrupt. As long as you have money in China, you can do anything. If you're poor, like the vast majority of Chinese people, you have no political power whatsoever. There are something like 60,000 riots and protests in China every year, according to the Chinese government. The Chinese proletariat is pissed off, and if it weren't for the indoctrination in Chinese schools and the control of news on both the TV and internet, China would have had a second, real, communist revolution by now.

Just do me a favor. Read The Communist Manifesto. Make sure you understand it. Then, ask yourself what Marx and Engels were trying to accomplish, and compare that to what Stalin and Mao accomplished. Ask yourself whether Marx and Engels' aims were good. Ask yourself whether Stalin and Mao's aims were good. Ask yourself what Stalin and Mao did, and whether those were in line with their purported aims, and in line with The Communist Manifesto. Or, if you reject The Communist Manifesto then ask yourself whether "the Left" are the revisionists, or if you are.

[Black Sheep]

DAmn, these videos piss me off LiberaCHE!
Showing off our military power, troops marching and giving the "right head" to the party leadership, huge psoters of stalin and lenin...
wtf!? i fail to see how this is a soviet controlled country!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This shoud be in History (or better 'Fantasy' if we had such a section), I think; it is misplaced in 'Learning', anyway.

[Trystan]

(or better 'Fantasy' if we had such a section),

Quite. Whenever I visit some pro-Stalin site I feel as if I've fallen asleep, and am wandering around some cultish nightmare.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Rev/left is fantasy land!

[Invader Zim]

Rev/left is fantasy land!

CSG has a point...

[Red_or_Dead]

(or better 'Fantasy' if we had such a section),

I say we make a Fantasy Opposing Ideologies forum, and restrict Stalinists there.

Here comes the shitstorm...

[Winter]

I posted this in learning to give people an alternative perspective from the mainstream view of Stalin. If someone wants to move it, be my guest. I'm not going to tell anyone to go to the gulags or anything like that, and if you disagree with this view, so be it, I am convinced there is no way I or any other Anti-Revisionist can convince you otherwise.

I want solidarity with all of you, I love this message board because it is the only place where I can talk Marxism with everyone. I live in a very conservative city and I often think I'm the only Marxist in town. So, no need to write huge responses to this because I have heard everything before just as you have heard everything before about my position. If anyone is new and wanted to learn a little more about Stalin, I posted this primarily for them.
Thanks comrades.

~ Joseph Winter

[Winter]

I say we make a Fantasy Opposing Ideologies forum, and restrict Stalinists there.

Here comes the shitstorm...

LOL, nah, it's all good. I can understand why you would think that and I respect your right to believe it. More power to you. :)

[The Author]

But, from 1953--1956, Khrushchev and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union would take up, bit by bit, all the bourgeois historiography about the Stalin period.This is true. If one reads the 1962 edition of History of the CPSU: Short Course, they see huge differences in content between this edition and the original 1939 edition. It's almost like the Khrushchevites weren't even trying in their criticism, they just did a lot of cutting and pasting.


Every political and historical work is marked by the class position of its author. Also true. Some of the "communists" around here never seem to get this, though. Especially those under the influence of scholasticism.


The revolutionary practice of the world Communist movement under Stalin shook the whole world and gave a new direction to the history of humanity. During the years 1985--1990, in particular, we have been able to see that all the so-called `Left critics' of Stalin have jumped onto the anti-Communist bandwagon, just countless cheerleaders. Social-democrats, Trotskyists, anarchists, Bukharinists, Titoists, ecologists, all found themselves in the movement for `liberty, democracy and human rights', which liquidated what remained of socialism in Eastern Europe and in the USSR. All these `Left criticisms' of Stalin had as final consequence the restoration of savage capitalism, the reinstatement of a merciless dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the destruction of all social gains, cultural and political rights for the working masses and, in many cases, to the emergence of fascism and of reactionary civil wars.A lot of the "criticisms" involve such convoluted understandings of the Marxist theory and practice. They abstract the theory and ruin it, pick it apart and separate it from what it is.

Engels once said in 1873, "The outcome... is that not only have the once so well organised and numerous Spanish sections of the International -- both the false and the true ones -- found themselves involved in the downfall of the Intransigents and are now actually dissolved, but are also having ascribed to them innumerable atrocities, without which the philistines of all nationalities cannot imagine a workers' uprising, and this may make impossible, perhaps for years to come, the international re-organisation of the Spanish proletariat." When revisionism brought down the socialist camp, it created the same objective conditions- with the proletariat discouraged by the idea of revolution and swayed by the phony ideas of the "Left Critics" listed above. In time, the proletariat will overcome these erroneous ideas through practice and hold high the red banner again, just like their predecessors did years before.

[Red_or_Dead]

LOL, nah, it's all good. I can understand why you would think that and I respect your right to believe it. More power to you. :)


Same to you.

I agree with Norseman (just to clear up my position).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trystan:


Quite. Whenever I visit some pro-Stalin site I feel as if I've fallen asleep, and am wandering around some cultish nightmare.

Absolutley; as others have here pointed out:

1) Stalin is apparently the only human being ever to have walked the earth who never made a single mistake, and anyone who even so much as suggests otherwise is a bourgeois stooge, and anachist scum-bag, or a trotskyite wrecker.:rolleyes:

CriticiseSomethingsSometimes being an excellent example.

2) Stalinophiles resemble holocaust deniers.

And once more, this should be in History. Can a Global Mod please move it?

[JimmyJazz]

Even though this is in History, I'm still going to participate in it, but people should realize I know exactly nothing about the history of the USSR from Stalin onward. So go easy.

If you are coming from an anarchist perspective like Norseman's, then I sort of understand your beliefs about Stalin.

The Trots confuse me the most. You think Lenin was great, awesome, the model for all time; but you emphatically reject Stalin? For all the easy phrases about Stalin being "the opposite of true socialism"--whereas Lenin was, naturally, the embodiment of it--I have never heard a Trot give one hard piece of evidence (in the presence of a Stalinist who could try and refute it) that there was a qualitative break from Lenin's policies to those of Stalin. Well, OK, one thing: the party purges. But surely any good communist thinks that purging the top circle of the communist party is preferable to Churchill's "purging" of peaceful Indians, peaceful German civilians, etc.? Frankly, I don't think there's a government in the world that couldn't use a little periodic puring at the highest levels. And Lenin himself was an incessant purger (albeit by expelling people from the party, not by killing or jailing them), and this is considered by his fans to be one of his biggest assets: that he was so "uncompromising" in his dealings with the would-be leaders of the worldwide proletarian movement. With Stalin it becomes a monstrous crime.

Trotskyism just seems so dishonest to me. As someone who falls between anarchism and Stalinism, Trotskyism should really be right up my alley. But all I hear Trots repeating are cliches and unsubstantiated-yet-catchy phrases that are supposed to sum up the entire Stalin era and deflect bourgeois criticisms without any real mental effort. You act as if Stalinists don't believe in internationalism, workers' control, and so on. Yet talking to even one Stalinist is enough to reveal that this is false: they do believe in all these things, fervently. They simply say that Stalin carried on with all those things. Maybe I just haven't been a radical for long enough, but I've yet to see a single Trot taking these arguments head on, and showing, against all pro-Stalin objections, that Stalin actually betrayed Leninism in a major way.

Considering that I do not consider myself even a Leninist per se, much less a Stalinist, I hope my criticisms of Trots can be seen as fairly objective. It just strikes me as a hopelessly formulaic and mentally lazy approach to our history. Either you can reject Stalin altogether and reject Lenin mostly (like anarchists), or you can accept Lenin altogether and accept Stalin mostly. Until you prove this supposedly massive discontinuity between Lenin and Stalin, those are your only logically consistent options.

[Led Zeppelin]

The Trots confuse me the most. You think Lenin was great, awesome, the model for all time; but you emphatically reject Stalin? For all the easy phrases about Stalin being "the opposite of true socialism"--whereas Lenin was, naturally, the embodiment of it--I have never heard a Trot give one hard piece of evidence (in the presence of a Stalinist who could try and refute it) that there was a qualitative break from Lenin's policies to those of Stalin.

No offense but maybe you should read some more to find that "hard piece of evidence", because it's pretty easy to find.

Here's just one example. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/index.htm)

[Red_or_Dead]

I will leave a Trot to answer the rest but this:


But surely any good communist thinks that purging the top circle of the communist party is preferable to Churchill's "purging" of peaceful Indians, peaceful German civilians, etc.


I must comment:

I for one do not see anything preferable in purges, no matter who does it. It was a crime, it was wrong, and the responsible should face reprecautions for it. Saying that its "preferable" to another crime of that era (or any other crime of any other era) does not make it even remotely allright.

[bcbm]

In time, the proletariat will overcome these erroneous ideas through practice and hold high the red banner again, just like their predecessors did years before.

Yeah, if we just go around babbling like a bunch of cultish nutters about historical revisionism and some dead **** most workers today couldn't give less of a fuck about, we will soon be well on our way to socialism. Its really only the lies about Stalin that are holding us back. :rolleyes:

[JimmyJazz]

No offense but maybe you should read some more to find that "hard piece of evidence", because it's pretty easy to find.

Here's just one example.

No offense of course, I said I was new to radical politics. But I have posted on the same message board as at least one Trot for several years, and I also got my start in socialism by reading several titles from Haymarket Books, an ISO publisher. Even then, while thoroughly unconvinced about socialism, I thought the Trotskyist line seemed simplistic and never seemed to be backed up by hard facts, just strong assertions.

Your link isn't working for me, but I'm not interested in reading Trotsky (any more than Stalin). Do you have a link to a substantive debate between an anti-Stalin and a pro-Stalin Marxist? That I would definitely want to read.

[Andres Marcos]

Wow who could have expected from a Stalin thread to generate into one where those who supported his line are "bourgeois" and are "holocaust deniers", I am sooooo Surprised.



2) Stalinophiles resemble holocaust deniers.


Typical response for a Stalin thread. It seems like Stalin in terms of Communism is treated like theology, All the forces that aren't pro-Stalin are on the forces of good and represent "true" Communism and NEVER make mistakes or have flaws(just look how pissed anarkids get when you talk shit about Makhno, or Trotskidiots when you relay the fact to them that Trotsky was depressed whenever he lost a debate revealed in Duetcher's bios about the man[and as I predict some anarcho-Trot warrior will go here and tell me how much I "dont know about anarchism" or "trotskyism" because I dared speak the truth about their man-god]) while those who support Stalin are on par with Holocaust deniers and are from hell. Lets see its pretty much typical for you types to respond to arguments like that which are pure strawmen, so lets make a horrible one up as well. Stalinophobes resemble underage liberal activists and a bunch of self-righteous humanists.


No offense but maybe you should read some more to find that "hard piece of evidence", because it's pretty easy to find.

Here's just one example. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/index.htm)Thats about as useless as Henri Barbusse's "biography" of Stalin, this "hard evidence" is dubious at best. Better books to read on Stalin are Hingsley's Stalin: Man and Legend, Getty's The Great Purge Reconsidered, Stalin's Wars by Geoffrey Roberts, and various monographs by Popov, Davies, and Erik Van Ree.

[Incendiarism]

I've seen the marxist-leninists on this board constantly concede that Stalin made many problems. I don't think they treat him as a pristine model of socialist leadership, but simply see his achievements amidst a situation of unrelentingly hostile capitalist countries and internal problems.

But that's just me.

[bcbm]

All the forces that aren't pro-Stalin are on the forces of good and represent "true" Communism and NEVER make mistakes or have flaws

Oh come off it. I've seen plenty of shit talked on ol Makhno from anarchists around here. I've also seen none of the worshiping that seems to come with Stalin. Some will defend him from the more absurd accusations, but that's about where it ends. And you ought to know as well as anyone that all the forces on the anti-Stalin left hate each other as much as they hate the pro-Stalin side. Not like anarchists and ultra-leftist, trotskyists, marxists, etc all circle jerk each other.:rolleyes:

The point being made is not inaccurate and, beyond not getting it, you do nothing to disprove it either. You just sling a few insults. Class. Nobody is saying they are on par with them, just that they resemble them in their fanaticism and how they respond to criticism. I mean really, look at any thread on Stalin and see how quick critics get called bourgeois.

[The Author]

Absolutley; as others have here pointed out:

1) Stalin is apparently the only human being ever to have walked the earth who never made a single mistake, and anyone who even so much as suggests otherwise is a bourgeois stooge, and anachist scum-bag, or a trotskyite wrecker.:rolleyes:

CriticiseSomethingsSometimes being an excellent example.

2) Stalinophiles resemble holocaust deniers.

And once more, this should be in History. Can a Global Mod please move it?

Do you know how full of shit you are?

I said in a thread on the Hoxhaist forum,


There were a lot of mistakes made, but I consider them to be made by everyone in the Soviet government, I never lay the blame solely on Stalin alone. He is one person, who could be misled by other members of the party with the wrong kind of information, and could make mistakes because of it.

Unlike your baseless claim of my thinking Koba was infallible, I do realize he made mistakes. What bothers you, and I've said this before to you, is that my ideological outlook doesn't mesh with your distorted way of thinking.

As for the "holocaust denier" remark, it's been said before. And it was just as meaningless then as it is now, especially from ivory tower ilk such as yourself.

[Andres Marcos]

Oh come off it. I've seen plenty of shit talked on ol Makhno from anarchists around here.

I dont think so, maybe those who dont cling off the mans sack but others typically respond "you dont know shit about anarchism shut the fuck up hardy har har" thats typical of most Revleft posts when it comes to people they dont like.


Not like anarchists and ultra-leftist, trotskyists, marxists, etc all circle jerk each other.:rolleyes:

hahahahaha thats funny:lol: since anyone who talks good about the USSR is a "Stalinist"(no matter that Ive actually met Trots who criticize Stalin but still think the USSR was better than anything else) on these boards and will get chewed out by anyone who feels appropriate at doing so. Yet criticisms of anarchism(without using the usual "****" "fuck" etc. etc.) is met with Oh your a "sectarian" funny how only anarchist critics can only be sectarian...not once have I ever heard an anarkid being called out by a more respectable anarchist for "sectarianism".


I mean really, look at any thread on Stalin and see how quick critics get called bourgeois.

yeah I know, the first one to call "stalinists" bourgeoisie was an anarchist who was apparently unprovoked and the "commited revolutionary" psuedo-Marxist Rosa just said this belongs in the "fantasy section" so we cant take the blame if on every thread we make gets pissed on especially when Winter's demise has really been cool about it.

[bcbm]

I dont think so, maybe those who dont cling off the mans sack but others typically respond "you dont know shit about anarchism shut the fuck up hardy har har" thats typical of most Revleft posts when it comes to people they dont like.

Can't say I've seen too much of that in regards to Makhno, but then I don't really read those threads because I think squabbling about shit that happened 90 years ago is stupid. It does occur elsewhere... but its typical across all strains. We've all got immature fuckwits in our camp.


hahahahaha thats funnyhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif since anyone who talks good about the USSR is a "Stalinist"(no matter that Ive actually met Trots who criticize Stalin but still think the USSR was better than anything else) on these boards and will get chewed out by anyone who feels appropriate at doing so. Yet criticisms of anarchism(without using the usual "****" "fuck" etc. etc.) is met with Oh your a "sectarian" funny how only anarchist critics can only be sectarian...not once have I ever heard an anarkid being called out by a more respectable anarchist for "sectarianism".

There's more pro-USSR threads on this board then I could shake a stick at. Which is sad, really, and says a lot about the state of the left today. And no, everybody gets called sectarian though it usually isn't by people from their own ideology. I don't know about other people's approach, but I just generally ignore the kiddies of all stripes- they aren't worth my time and they'll grow up eventually. Or get banned, whatever.


yeah I know, the first one to call "stalinists" bourgeoisie was an anarchist who was apparently unprovoked and the "commited revolutionary" psuedo-Marxist Rosa just said this belongs in the "fantasy section" so we cant take the blame if on every thread we make gets pissed on especially when Winter's demise has really been cool about it.

You and I both know it goes both ways. Both sides throw shit at each other and call each other bourgeois. Stalin is a sensitive topic, given that he got a lot of comrades of other ideologies killed. A shame we still have to go on babbling about some dead asshole who is irrelevant though.

[Panda Tse Tung]

I think Ludo Martens makes a valid point when he states that Stalin is usually pulled to the forefront when anti-Communism gets out. They actually do it a lot of times, you could protest that it's not Communism but they could simply answer that; 'it was done in the name of Communism, thus it is an act which could be committed within the framework of 'Communism''.
Anyhows. I think Stalin should be defended when it gets important, for example some guy came up to me during an anti-fascist demonstration against this performer with old Nazi-ties. He started screaming well the CPN (the old Communist party of which the party I'm a member of is the direct off-spring) supported Stalin's molotov-ribbentop pact. So i basically dissed the guy in these terms. Only on this level i think supporting Stalin is relevant at this point, that is the point to which they can 'use' Stalin to harm our movement.

Of course when they start rambling about casualties you could simply state: Fine we will assume that all states that have claimed the Red Banner combined have made 100 million casualties which took them approcimatly a century, which is all excess deaths from that period of time. Capitalism makes 100 million casualties each 3 years by starvation only. End of story (ohw and 150 million people murdered by Capitalists for their ideology in the last century or so).

[Andres Marcos]

I think squabbling about shit that happened 90 years ago is stupid.

This is quoted for the truth.



There's more pro-USSR threads on this board then I could shake a stick at. Which is sad, really, and says a lot about the state of the left today. to tell the truth, the topics especially in the History section bore the hell out of me. I can understand putting threads in history to show how can we learn from this but most of it is just ideological penis measuring, which is partly why ive stopped coming to these forums regularly as its just the same thing over and over and over and over again. The USSR imho is something all people can learn from; its positive and negative aspects the same goes for any workers movement from the Communards to the anti-globalization movement.

@ Mao Chi

Communism ddnt kill 100 million thats from the book the Black Book of Communism which is a propagandist book and full of lies, there is one I can tell you off the bat now from the BBC its a lie saying that Nestor Makhno was an anti-semite who did pogroms on Jews and Mennonites I believe.

[Panda Tse Tung]

@ Mao Chi

Communism ddnt kill 100 million thats from the book the Black Book of Communism which is a propagandist book and full of lies, there is one I can tell you off the bat now from the BBC its a lie saying that Nestor Makhno was an anti-semite who did pogroms on Jews and Mennonites I believe.

To quote myself:


Fine we will assume that

;)