Anarchism or Socialism? - A book by Joseph Stalin

[Supernius]

http://www.marx2mao.org/Stalin/AS07.html

Read it -- Stalin refutes many of those dogmatic claims which all anarchists are in the habit of asserting.

But what we really need is for the anarchists to be open-minded, to acknowledge criticism, to acknowledge the fact that their entire ideology is wrong and will always be wrong. Of course, that would require a certain degree of intelligence; consequently I have my doubts as to whether that would ever happen :).

[Chiak47]

Stalin was a mass murdering lunatic.
May he rot in turmoil...

[Politrickian]

Of course, Stalin, because of all his evil deeds against humanity could have never said at least one smart word.

[Chiak47]

He lost all credibility with me...I could care less if the beast stated the sky was blue.
I have noticed you like all kinds of beasts citing you sig...

[Supernius]

Brilliant!! Attack the author when you can't refute his argument!! Utterly brilliant!!

[Chiak47]

WTF?I did not read any of that dribble.
Get his cream off your chin.

[Supernius]

Quote: from Chiak47 on 6:35 pm on April 25, 2003
WTF?I did not read any of that dribble.
Get his cream off your chin.

Then don't comment on the article when you have not in fact read it.

[Hampton]

But what we really need is for the anarchists to be open-minded, to acknowledge criticism, to acknowledge the fact that their entire ideology is wrong and will always be wrong.

Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

[Xvall]

Quote: from Supernius on 6:44 pm on April 25, 2003

Quote: from Chiak47 on 6:35 pm on April 25, 2003
WTF?I did not read any of that dribble.
Get his cream off your chin.

Then don't comment on the article when you have not in fact read it.


Why not write your own article and present it to an anarchist website, instead of posting some book written by someone who died half a century ago.

[Xvall]

Additionally, Stalin did not create socialism. [i]Socialism[i] is a concept that has always existed; it is not up to Stalin to decide what socialism means.

[Xvall]

Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

Yes. Basically, he said:

" You need to be tolerant, so you can realize that all people like you deserve to be shot. "

[Supernius]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 10:00 pm on April 25, 2003
Additionally, Stalin did not create socialism. [i]Socialism[i] is a concept that has always existed; it is not up to Stalin to decide what socialism means.


Can anyone tell me which logical fallacy Drake here committed? I dare you to tell me!

:)

[Supernius]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 10:02 pm on April 25, 2003
Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

Yes. Basically, he said:

" You need to be tolerant, so you can realize that all people like you deserve to be shot. "


Shot? Where in that article was the word "shot" used? Where did I use that word? Another informal fallacy. Brilliant, Drake!! Utterly brilliant!!

[hazard]

supernius:

what school of informal logic are you familiar with? tell me and I'll ID the fallacies as they occur.

might be equivocation, unless you're from some splinter weirdo informal logic group that has different names and variances of the same fallacies that weren't originally drafted by its creators.

[rAW DEaL bILL]

fuck you supernius, you totalitarian fuckhole. stop sucking a mass murdering dictators cock will you? there was not a single good thing about stalin and if u hate anarchism THAT MUCH u must REALY FUCKIGN HATE freedom. ud rather have some rich exploitative dictator ruling your entire life and calling state-run capitalsim socialism than have a society in which the people govern themselves and there is no exploitation authority or hierarchy?!?!?!?!? u must be fucking retarded. fuck off.

[redstar2000]

At Comrade Junichi's forum, Supernius has the title superanus. :biggrin:

:cool:

[RedCeltic]

You can't read something printed in 1954, without considering historical context. In 1954, when Stalinism was the ideology of numorous nations in Eastern Europe, than, Stalin had perhaps bit of credibility.

However, today we know that Stalin did not have the best interest of the people in mind, and in fact it is Stalinism which is a failed ideology. So today in 2003, when the facts of Stalin's terror is well known, it is foolish to take anything he wrote seriously. Expecially him calling another group evil.. lol...

[rAW DEaL bILL]

stalinists should be limited to OI so someone can put superanus as his ranking. :-D

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from rAW DEaL bILL on 2:13 pm on July 5, 2003
stalinists should be limited to OI so someone can put superanus as his ranking. :-D

He's already restricted to OI... I think I did that when he first showed up and posted similar bullshit.

He's now Super-anus. ;)

[rAW DEaL bILL]

YES! lol awesome. my wish came true! *sniffle sniffle*

[Loknar]

Thanks for the site, I've found my way to reading Mao's writings..... wait what am I doing, i am a stone cold Capitolist....

[Cassius Clay]

'Hang them Stalinists high. Don't let them breed there freedom hating ideas among us democratic folks. They've commited so many crimes against humanity. Let em starve to death, no let's torture them. Bullets, no that's a waste of the taxpayers money. They're in a conspiracy dam it, them and the freedom hating terriorists. Why are they even tolerated, all they've done is cause oppression, totilitarianism and lets face it are worse than dogs. They're just a bunch of anti-semitic, muslim hating, baby eating, christ killing, Ayrian hating sub human bastards. As I said hang them high.'

The words of Adolf Hitler, Ronald Reagen, Boris Yelstin, General Franco, Ariel Sharon or Osama Bin Landen? Whatever it be the SS soldiers who massacred millions in delibarte genocide, the death squards in Salvador, General Suharato's army in Indonesia, General Pinochet in Chile and Saddam Huissein's Republican Guard they were all taught the same thing.

Hang them Stalinists high, were fighting for freedom.

Kudos to Orwellian speak!

[mentalbunny]

I have nothing against stalinists as long as they are prepared to be civil (if you know what I mean, I can't think of a better word right now). The thing is there's no such thing as perfection and we all make mistakes (same difference) so we have to listen to each other.

[Vinny Rafarino]

For fuck's sake Comrade Clay! Besides being reponsible for 40 billion murders, the middle ages' plague, the kennedy assassinations AND N'Synch you mean he also condoned baby-eating!

Hanging is not bad enough...Off with their heads!

[redstar2000]

They're in a conspiracy dam it, them and the freedom hating terriorists. Why are they even tolerated, all they've done is cause oppression, totilitarianism and lets face it are worse than dogs. They're just a bunch of anti-semitic, muslim hating, baby eating, christ killing, Ayrian hating sub human bastards.

Besides being reponsible for 40 billion murders, the middle ages' plague, the kennedy assassinations AND N'Synch you mean he also condoned baby-eating!

C'mon guys, quitcher braggin'.

:cool:

[RedCeltic]

In the spirit of our recently passed Independance day (July 4th) I'd like to share one of my favorite quotes from that period:::

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." --- Ben Franklin

At the signing of the Declaration of Independence

This Stalinist / Anarchist hate thing has been going around and around long enough on this fucking message board. In real life both Anarchists and Stalinists know too well that it's difficult as it is to get activism in our communities without being picky as to who stands next to you on the picketline... least of all Stalinists who's numbers range from 2 - 6 people in any given city, so have no room for a holier than thou attitude against the Anarchists and their highly mobelized Black Bloc movement.

You want to sit home and be an armed chair revolutionary? Fine, but don't complain about the ideology of people who are out there trying to make a difference and overturn Capitalism!

[antieverything]

Why did Stalin really hate anarchists? Because they were a viable political alternative to Stalinism in some areas which were in danger of falling into an independant sphere that was neither soviet nor western...namely Spain. Hell, if the Stalinists had spent less time trying to sabotage the Anarchists, the Republicans might have beat Franco.

[Loknar]

As bad as he was we also are in his debt. Had he not industralized RUssia the way he did the Germans would have likely captured Moscow and the Soviet Union would have collapsed from there.

[RedCeltic]

to build a successful anti-capitalist movement, that will truly make a difference rather than just spout out the same load of hot air, we need to put old rivalries to rest. If you are unable/unwilling to work with people who don't see eye to eye with you on every issue, than you are not willing to work for true revolutionary change. The arguments here "Socialism vs. Anarchism" etc... has been ingrained into the sands of time, and will not bring the end of capitalism any sooner.

[Cassius Clay]

Comrade RAF you forget that Stalin also had no problems in killing people personally. Did you not hear that he literally ate the peasants while he tossed their kids onto his fire and laughed away in his great big castle which was built with the bare hands of Ukrainian children.

According to a childhood freind (well he grew up in the same village, but we all know Stalin is the antichirst so the source is good enough for me) who happened to join the Nazi party later on. He liked to bully other kids and smiled when cats and other animals died. Or was that Ivan the Terrible? Damn if I can tell the difference.

Do you not remember those glourious scenes when the freedom loving Ayrian troops liberated all those horrible camps? The starving prisoners singing for joy, 'Down with Stalin. Long live freedom' as the German camerman's eyes began to shed a tear for this historic moment.


Seriesly though, Redceltic makes a good point. I got nothing against Anarchists or Trotskyites personally, I think the only reason they chose this label is because their taught 'Stalinists' are a bunch of devil worshippers and see that Trot or the Spanish Anarchists fought against that. If I bought 2% of what they say about Stalin I would denounce the guy right away.

Oh yes and somebody bought up the Spanish Civil War. That is supposed to be a example of how great the Anarchists are and how bad them 'Stalinists' are? Yes try reading up on it, quite the opposite happened infact.

But fact is fact, If I'm getting tear gas at me or worse I don't think I would give a flying fuck if I'm besides whoever. The left doesn't really have the time, nor do I think it is actually possible to unite or agree on everything. This is correct for the western world and unfournatly me and you Comrade RAF are in a minority. Ofcourse go outside the western world and our privalaged life styles which enable us to post on a computer for a few hours a day and your see struggles being waged which are brining about general social progress.

Only problem is there a bunch of 'Stalinists'. Hang them high.

BTW mentalbunny I thought I was civil. Just not up beat enough.

[Liberty Lover]

/´¯/
/¯ /
/ /
/´¯/' '/´¯¯·¸
/'/ / / /¨¨/¯
('( ´ ´ ¯&;/' ')
' /
'' _.·´
(


Fuck you all!

[mentalbunny]

CC you were very civil! I like you and Chairman Mao and I'm always rpepareds to read what you say, even if we don't always see eye to eye!

RedCeltic speaks well! You've got to sort out your priorities, and the end of capitalism should come first before squabbles between the various ideologies of the left.

[redstar2000]

You've got to sort out your priorities, and the end of capitalism should come first before squabbles between the various ideologies of the left.

Maybe it "should", but it won't.

Sometimes "squabbles" on the "left" are just that...but usually they represent substantive disagreements on the shape of post-capitalist society.

It's not enough to just say "overthrow capitalism" and then we'll sort out the differences. If it were, then we could sign up some feudal aristocrats...who would also like to see capitalism come to an end. I suspect there are even clerical fascists who would regulate capitalism so heavily that it would be almost unrecognizable to us now. And that's not to mention "National Bolsheviks"...who want to nationalize the means of production and exterminate whoever they designate as "inferior races" at the same time.

Consider the range of opinions on this message board:

Anarchists (more than one kind)

Leninist-Stalinists

Leninist-Trotskyists

Leninist-Maoists

Libertarian Marxists

Social Democrats (Both "Left" and "Right"...)

And perhaps others I've overlooked.

These people are all opposed to capitalism--in one sense or another--but disagree profoundly on the shape of post-capitalist society.

To ask them to refrain from struggling for their respective visions "until after the revolution" is to demand that pigs commence flying. They won't do it.

Should they do it?

Obviously, things would look bleaker for capitalism if every single individual in the world who was opposed to capitalism for any reason joined into one unified effort to overthrow it.

But when you ask people to do that, what you're really saying to them is "bet your life and your hopes and your dreams on a roll of the historical dice and hope for the best".

Die-hard gamblers will bet on anything; most people are much more cautious. Why become involved in the "risky business" of major social upheaval unless there's a good chance you can influence the outcome in the direction you want?

And that's not an easy thing to do when you have other "anti-capitalists" who are trying just as hard as you are to make things "turn out" the way they want them to...so you react to them just as you would react to any obstacle in your chosen path--with resentment, anger, and hatred.

"If those pig-headed fools would just see things my way, then victory would be inevitable"...or, at least, more probable.

Now, what about objective reality? Suppose there really are better ways and worse ways to both conduct the struggle to overthrow capitalism and to construct a post-capitalist society?

Of that list I posted above, suppose some of those ideas actually retard the struggle, while others really advance the struggle? Suppose some of those ideas would create a post-capitalist society that would hardly be any improvement on what we have now and, moreover, would degenerate quickly back into what we have now? And suppose some of those other ideas would really work, would free us once and for all from class society...would transform human existence in ways we can hardly even imagine now?

Wouldn't you, wouldn't anyone, want to oppose the bad ideas and fight for the good ideas with all the strength and passion that you possess?

I know that all this is (or can be) very bewildering to people who are "new" to left politics...it seems often enough like petty squabbling. And I agree, sometimes that is really all that's going on.

But there's something else going on as well and often it's very clear and out in the open for everyone to see: what will be the shape of post-capitalist society?

In pre-revolutionary France, people spent a half-century arguing about what a just society ought to look like...before getting around to the petty detail of removing the king's head. In Russia, they were arguing about overthrowing the Czar in 1820...it took nearly a century to actually do it.

I think it is in the very nature of "revolutionary politics" to be full of internal struggle, both before and after the revolution itself.

In the long run, the "transfer of power" is a petty detail. What really counts is the quality of the new society. And the stakes are far too high to simply "roll the dice" and "hope for the best".

So people will struggle with each other as hard as they can...not because they're incurable sectarians (though some are) or "just stupid" (though some are), but because the stakes are so high.

It's not just a pile of chips on a felt-covered table...it's the future.

:cool:

[mentalbunny]

You know what I mean redstar, I meant the main factions of the left that aren't totally at odds with each other. Besides we're hardly laying plans for the society right now, we have to educate the people who can really make the difference, the workers, those who are suffering more and more under the yoke of capitalism, those who do not reap enough from their labour. We are here to raise awareness, put the writings of various thinkers into their hands and let them decide for themselves if they are anarchist, libertarian to a lesser extreme or even authoritarian. I may be speaking out my arse here but I really wish we could put more effort into that kind of stuff rather than this internal fughting. That said, why am I posting here? oh well, i'm a hypocrite I guess.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 12:12 pm on July 7, 2003
/´¯/
/¯ /
/ /
/´¯/' '/´¯¯·¸
/'/ / / /¨¨/¯
('( ´ ´ ¯&;/' ')
' /
'' _.·´
(


Fuck you all!


Now this is absolutely brilliant. There is nothing like good debate from the intellectuals of the right-wing.

You deserve a big cookie LL.

[sc4r]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 7:17 pm on July 7, 2003
You know what I mean redstar, I meant the main factions of the left that aren't totally at odds with each other. Besides we're hardly laying plans for the society right now, we have to educate the people who can really make the difference, the workers, those who are suffering more and more under the yoke of capitalism, those who do not reap enough from their labour. We are here to raise awareness, put the writings of various thinkers into their hands and let them decide for themselves if they are anarchist, libertarian to a lesser extreme or even authoritarian. I may be speaking out my arse here but I really wish we could put more effort into that kind of stuff rather than this internal fughting. That said, why am I posting here? oh well, i'm a hypocrite I guess.


Ypu are totally correct. REdstar is, I'm afraid, one of the worst allies we could have becuase he advocates doing nothing and wont co-operate in any attempt at progressing unless everyone agrees with his view of an end goal (which even extends to everyone accepting his view of moralities which have nothing directly to do with socialism).

He wont seemingly even compromise to the extent of looking for common ground. I dont think he actually wants a non capitalist society; all he wants is to be acknowleged as right.

[redstar2000]

Ypu are totally correct. REdstar is, I'm afraid, one of the worst allies we could have becuase he advocates doing nothing and wont co-operate in any attempt at progressing unless everyone agrees with his view of an end goal (which even extends to everyone accepting his view of moralities which have nothing directly to do with socialism).

He wont seemingly even compromise to the extent of looking for common ground. I dont think he actually wants a non capitalist society; all he wants is to be acknowleged as right.

Your socialist duty is plain, sc4r. Proceed to Chit-Chat and start a new "Why I Hate Redstar2000" thread.

Petty squabbling, anyone?

:cool:

[CopperGoat]

"Being reponsible for 40 billion murders"

Isin't that number a little too high?

[antieverything]

...subtracting deaths that probably couldn't have been avoided, yeah.