A question for the Stalinists. [Archive]

BobKKKindle$

20th November 2008, 17:03

I'm not a "Stalinist", but it is still stupid to try and use childish caricatures to refute what many revolutionaries have seen as a legitimate political position. Stalin had many flaws as an individual but serious academic scholarship on the events which took place in Russia during his period of rule acknowledges that Stalin cannot be held personally accountable for all of the people who were unjustly killed, even those who were killed as part of the purges. Consider Arch Getty's 'Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives' which moves beyond accounts which focus solely on Stalin's personality by showing that the actions of other officials and popular enthusiasm also had an important role in allowing the purges to take place and carrying out attacks against those who were suspected of disloyalty. The same collection of essays also investigates the death toll and by using empirical data which has only become available since the opening of the Soviet archives concludes that the death toll has been vastly overstated in the past, to justify and support opposition to the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The entire book is available online here (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NWYvGYcxCjYC&dq=stalinist+terror+new+perspectives&pg=PP1&ots=4GuSCJOL2A&source=bn&sig=FJIEIh5gkonjTaTOSsWIGkxQG3o&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result), so you have no excuse.

If you want to discuss Mao's China then you can go and start a thread in history, but for a post which deals specifically with the death toll of the Great Leap Forward, read this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1286677&postcount=22).

I know Communists have a history of glossing over atrocities committed by communist or socialist leaders (Che, Chavez)Name one atrocity committed by either of those leaders.

I have troubling understanding Stalinism and authoritarian socialism in general. Point being, it didn't work!The governments which existed in countries such as China were not prefect and we should accept that there were serious mistakes, but at the same time we should also acknowledge that these mistakes were at least partly the result of the difficult conditions these governments were faced with when they seized power, and the fact that developing socialism was something that had never been attempted before, and that, despite these mistakes, there were also impressive achievements which allowed for massive improvements in the lives of the working population. In China, for example, the CCP ensured that women were able to enjoy equal status with men by changing divorce laws and encouraging women to enter professions which were previously seen as male spheres of activity, and official growth in Chinese life expectancy between 1950 and 1980 ranks among the most rapid in documented global history.

Pogue

20th November 2008, 17:11

Che and Chavez have not commited any atrocities, so it's stupid to say that. And I'm assuming you assume Che Guevara was some sort of Stalinist. He wasn't.z

I quite agree that Stalinists seem irrational and somewhat idiotic, and I don't consider them revolutionary leftists because Stalinist Russia wasn't revolutionary or socialist.

skki

20th November 2008, 17:29

I mention Che once... And then the inevitable shitstorm.
Apparently I don't have enough posts to post links yet >:3
So google "che murderer" and go to the freetheanimal link for his atrocities, and just go to the criticism section of Chavez's wikipedia page for his.

inb4 western media conspiracy blah blah not interested.

PostAnarchy

20th November 2008, 17:34

PostAnarchy

20th November 2008, 17:37

In China, for example, the CCP ensured that women were able to enjoy equal status with men by changing divorce laws and encouraging women to enter professions which were previously seen as male spheres of activity, and official growth in Chinese life expectancy between 1950 and 1980 ranks among the most rapid in documented global history.

Ah yes the usual statistics about life expectancy and the like to "prove" Stalinist and Maoist government were good.

Here's the kicker: Even in some bourgeois countries life expectancy has gone up. You sound like a capitalist comparing the statistics in say South Korea vs North Korea or back in the day East vs West Germany. I'm sure the statistics there weren't very favourable to the Stalinist government yet does that excuse capitalism??

NO! Of course not. Same as universal healthcare (again something that is present in many bourgeois social democratic countries) does not make capitalism "OK" or tolerable. Both were anti worker, both rejected the ideas of workers control in favor of either.

A. Bourgeois Democracy
B. State Capitalism under a 1 party system

skki

20th November 2008, 17:48

I'm not a "Stalinist", but it is still stupid to try and use childish caricatures to refute what many revolutionaries have seen as a legitimate political position. Stalin had many flaws as an individual but serious academic scholarship on the events which took place in Russia during his period of rule acknowledges that Stalin cannot be held personally accountable for all of the people who were unjustly killed, even those who were killed as part of the purges. Consider Arch Getty's 'Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives' which moves beyond accounts which focus solely on Stalin's personality by showing that the actions of other officials and popular enthusiasm also had an important role in allowing the purges to take place and carrying out attacks against those who were suspected of disloyalty. The same collection of essays also investigates the death toll and by using empirical data which has only become available since the opening of the Soviet archives concludes that the death toll has been vastly overstated in the past, to justify and support opposition to the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The entire book is available online here, so you have no excuse.

If you want to discuss Mao's China then you can go and start a thread in history, but for a post which deals specifically with the death toll of the Great Leap Forward, read this.

Name one atrocity committed by either of those leaders.

The governments which existed in countries such as China were not prefect and we should accept that there were serious mistakes, but at the same time we should also acknowledge that these mistakes were at least partly the result of the difficult conditions these governments were faced with when they seized power, and the fact that developing socialism was something that had never been attempted before, and that, despite these mistakes, there were also impressive achievements which allowed for massive improvements in the lives of the working population. In China, for example, the CCP ensured that women were able to enjoy equal status with men by changing divorce laws and encouraging women to enter professions which were previously seen as male spheres of activity, and official growth in Chinese life expectancy between 1950 and 1980 ranks among the most rapid in documented global history.

Childish caricatures? I called him a Mass Murderer: death toll debatable (somewhat), but he's definitely a mass murderer, regardless of whether he was responsible for the deaths of millions or hundreds of thousands. I called him a Totalitarian: You're honestly going to dispute that? I called him paranoid: Well the purge was largely due to Stalin being terrified of an assassination from other higher-ups in the Bolsheviks. These are not simply personality flaws, and the use of them in an evaluation of Stalin is certainly not childish.

Chinawat

Dr. Rosenpenis

20th November 2008, 18:09

This thread is a fucking joke.
Non revisionist Marxism Leninism isn't about following Stalin's personality cult
They're called Stalinists for ideological reasons, not because they like "totalitarian baby eaters", or whatever you kids are calling him these days

BobKKKindle$

20th November 2008, 18:16

Here's the kicker: Even in some bourgeois countries life expectancy has gone up. You sound like a capitalist comparing the statistics in say South Korea vs North Korea or back in the day East vs West GermanyObviously life expectancy in other countries increased, but this does not mean that the Chinese revolution is not something we should value and celebrate, because the extent of China's achievements in this area exceed all other developing countries, with the possibly exception of Cuba. If we want to get an idea of whether the Chinese revolution was beneficial in terms of its impact on the Chinese people, then we have to compare China with other countries which were at the same stage of economic development before the revolution took place and then look at how China has performed in relation to these other countries, which did not undergo revolutions. A comparable country in the case of China is India, as the Indian economy was also based on a feudal agricultural sector in 1949, and India had also suffered a series of foreign invasions in its recent history culminating in a prolonged colonial occupation, which gave rise to an economy geared towards the interests of foreign countries instead of the welfare of the Indian people. The modern contrasts between these countries are striking - China was able to abolish illiteracy amongst large sections of the population within a few years of the CCP taking power across the entire country and today every Chinese citizen is provided with free education up to the age of eighteen, and prior to the introduction of market reforms following the death of Mao in 1976 higher education was also available for free, whereas in India literacy is still below eighty percent for the entire country and even lower in rural areas where education is not available for the working population, especially women, who are still prevented from participating in public life on an equal basis with men and are often victims of abuse feudal practices such as arranged marriages. Life expectancy in China is currently 73, and during the Mao era healthcare was also available for free as part of the "iron ricebowl" welfare system which ensured that every citizen was able to enjoy access to basic services regardless of their income, whereas in India even today life expectancy is just 60 years. The crucial factor behind these differences is that China was transformed through the efforts of the working masses under the leadership of the CCP, whereas India retained feudal structures and customs and so was not able to make the same advances.

but he's definitely a mass murderer, regardless of whether he was responsible for the deaths of millions or hundreds of thousands.Calling someone a "murderer" suggests that they are personally responsible for the deaths of others, and that their decisions to kill was deliberate and premeditated. Can you provide evidence to show that Stalin fits this definition?

zimmerwald1915

20th November 2008, 18:16

They're called Stalinists for ideological reasons
Like the fact that Stalin was one of their most visible spokesmen throughout his lifetime?

Matty_UK

20th November 2008, 18:22

and just go to the criticism section of Chavez's wikipedia page for his.

inb4 western media conspiracy blah blah not interested.

Ah, wikipedia, that reliable source of information.

Election rigging in Venezuela? Opposition activists claim this, yet offer no evidence. Exit polls, and ALL international observers confirm the elections as free and fair.

Censorship? ALL of the private media channels in Venezuela take the most rabidly anti-government stance possible, all the time, and RCTV was not banned; Chavez did not renew it's license for free over-the-air broadcasting because of it's complicity in the coup attempt, but it still broadcasts via satellite. Any other country would come down way harder on a station that was involved in conspiracy to overthrow a democratically elected government and install a dictatorship, but Chavez has to be so careful to avoid giving the west an excuse to paint him as a dictator.

And the only accusation of Chavez killing anyone, comes from during the coup when the opposition alleged snipers fired on an anti-Chavez demo. However, the police force were working for the governor of Caracas, an opponent of Chavez, and everyone killed by the snipers were people from the (much, much larger) pro-Chavez demonstration. (see the documentary below)

I suspect you're young and don't remember the coup and thus has a skewed understanding of Chavez, but I recommend you watch the opening of this film to catch up:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3739500579629840148&hl=en-GB

And Bob Kindles, +1 for that post. I've taught in a Chinese school before for 6 months, lived with a Chinese girl in China for 1 month, and I'm going to Tsinghua Uni in Beijing the coming september-I know China, and I'm yet to meet a single Chinese person who thinks the revolution was a bad thing. It's obscenely patronising to ignore their opinions, or more likely suggest that it's because "they've all been brainwashed."

Tower of Bebel

20th November 2008, 18:37

I have troubling understanding Stalinism and authoritarian socialism in general. Point being, it didn't work!

- The state did not "wither away" it only got bigger.
- There was no worker control, only control by a privileged bureacracy.
- There was no democracy - only one-party dictatorship which did not represent working people but privileged party bureacrats against the working class
- The result was not the permanent destruction of capitalism but the eventual return of it.

This has been proven over and over again. I don't understand how honest, sincere revolutionaries can look at this evidence with an objective mind and still cling to their conclusions.
I don't care about people making deductions, but only when they restrict this method to mathematics. Society is far too complicated to make such simple claims. I mean: comparing the USSR to Engels' analysis of the proletarian state is ridiculous. Even Lenin said that in 1924 it was an isolated workers' and peasants' state with a bureaucratic twist to it. In other words: Lenin knew that the USSR could not be compared with the proletarian state which Marx and Engels had in mind. And Lenin knew why. This degeneration did not come from flaws in theory, but problems with the material circumstances revolutionaries had to work with. The ways "marxist" theory developed afterwards only reflected these problems.

skki

20th November 2008, 18:40

Can you provide evidence to show that Stalin fits this definition?
This is a little bit like being asked to provide evidence for Hitlers involvement in the holocaust.

zimmerwald1915

20th November 2008, 18:50

This is a little bit like being asked to provide evidence for Hitlers involvement in the holocaust.
The discussion is now over:laugh:

BobKKKindle$

20th November 2008, 18:53

I've taught in a Chinese school before for 6 monthsThanks comrade, and I hope you have a great time when you go to live in China, I come from Hong Kong as you may know but I'm studying in the UK at the moment, but I'm already planning on working in China as soon as I graduate, it's such a fascinating country. You're right about the Chinese Revolution, of course - what many people don't know is that the protesters at Tienanmen Square in 1989 were not only demanding greater democracy, they were also calling for an end to the market reforms which were being implemented by the government at that time, because the people were aware that the reforms would result in increased economic insecurity in terms of jobs and wage levels, and an end to many of the guarantees which they had enjoyed under Mao. Although there were some protesters who favored the reforms and wanted the government to press ahead with its plans to sell state assets off to private investors and remove price controls, the workers who participated in the demonstrations were essentially demanding a return to the collective system which had existed before Mao's death in 1976.

This is a little bit like being asked to provide evidence for Hitlers involvement in the holocaust.

Then you should be able to provide lots of credible and accepted evidence for it.

20th November 2008, 18:57

So, if socialism cannot work because of Stalin, then anarchism fails as hard because of Makhno, mirite?

/sarcasm

Lenin's Law

20th November 2008, 19:00

but I'm already planning on working in China as soon as I graduate, it's such a fascinating country. You're right about the Chinese Revolution, of course - what many people don't know is that the protesters at Tienanmen Square in 1989 were not only demanding greater democracy, they were also calling for an end to the market reforms which were being implemented by the government at that time, because the people were aware that the reforms would result in increased economic insecurity in terms of jobs and wage levels, and an end to many of the guarantees which they had enjoyed under Mao.
.

Excellent point about the Tienanment Square incident. Many protestors were even singing "The International". Conveniently however, the western media in most countries did not bother reporting it.

I also think China is a fascinating country with a rich history that I would love to visit if given the opportunity.

Led Zeppelin

20th November 2008, 19:33

Calling someone a "murderer" suggests that they are personally responsible for the deaths of others, and that their decisions to kill was deliberate and premeditated. Can you provide evidence to show that Stalin fits this definition?

Jeez, I'm surprised they haven't kicked you out of the SWP yet.

"Stalin wasn't personally responsible for the deaths of others and his decision to kill was not deliberate or pemeditated"? Seriously, what is this crap?

Pogue

20th November 2008, 19:41

20th November 2008, 19:46

Read something credible. Che criticised Stalin later in life, theres even been rumours that he was a Trotskyist. Read the My Life: Fidel Castro, where he clears up that Che was in fact highly criticial of Stalin.

There are quite some suspicions that Che was in fact shadowed by the KGB while he was in Bolivia and Moscow had a hand in his demise.

Anyway, let's not spoil the fun for the anarkiddies.

BobKKKindle$

20th November 2008, 19:48

Seriously, what is this crap? "Stalin wasn't personally responsible for the deaths of others and his decision to kill was not deliberate or pemeditated"?

This isn't "crap" at all. Stalin initiated the purges, but once the movement had been initiated it is absurd to suggest that he personally executed every single person who was accused of being hostile to the government. We also have to acknowledge the role of other figures who were part of the upper reaches of the government such as the leaders of the NKVD, as well as ordinary Soviet citizens who often took advantage of the political climate to get back at people who had treated them unfairly in the past or to settle personal grudges. This is fully consistent with the Marxist approach to history, which recognizes that historical events and social movements are not controlled by the arbitrary decisions of individuals, but by the activity of ordinary people whose ideas are the product of the material conditions in which they live.

20th November 2008, 19:53

This isn't "crap" at all. Stalin initiated the purges, but once the movement had been initiated it is absurd to suggest that he personally executed every single person who was accused of being hostile to the government. We also have to acknowledge the role of other figures who were part of the upper reaches of the government such as the leaders of the NKVD, as well as ordinary Soviet citizens who often took advantage of the political climate to get back at people who had treated them unfairly in the past or to settle personal grudges. This is fully consistent with the Marxist approach to history, which recognizes that historical events and social movements are not controlled by the arbitrary decisions of individuals, but by the activity of ordinary people whose ideas are the product of the material conditions in which they live.

Didn't he carry full responsibility? Politically at least?
To contrast this Trotsky took full responsibility over the infamous Kronstadt debacle as head of the Red Army, despite ever being there at the time.

Led Zeppelin

20th November 2008, 19:55

This isn't "crap" at all.

Yes it is.

Stalin initiated the purges

Ah, ok, see, I thought initiating purges was actually the same as premeditating - and deliberately be responsible for - the deaths of others.

Silly me.

but once the movement had been initiated it is absurd to suggest that he personally executed every single person who was accused of being hostile to the government.

It is also "absurd to suggest" that Hitler "personally executed every single person who was accused of being hostile to the government".

Who gives a shit?

Well, apparently you do.

BobKKKindle$

20th November 2008, 20:04

Didn't he carry full responsibility? Politically at least?On the contrary, Trotsky argued that the bureaucracy as a whole should be seen as responsible for the purges, because the purges were carried out by the members of the bureaucracy at every level of the state apparatus and were designed to solidify the power of the bureaucracy by wiping out anyone who might be able to challenge their position and argue for the restoration of democracy and political liberty. This is why the purges were directed primarily against individuals such as Zinoviev who had participated in the original seizure of power and still occupied important positions within the state which they could have used to expose the true nature of the bureaucracy and prevent the bureaucracy from gaining a monopoly of political power.

Thomas [Norman Thomas, leader of the American Socialist Party] fails to understand that it is not a question of antagonism between Stalin and Trotsky, but of an antagonism between the bureaucracy and the proletariat. To be sure, the governing stratum of the USSR is forced even now to adapt itself to the still not wholly liquidated heritage of revolution, while preparing at the same time through direct civil war (bloody “purge” – mass annihilation of the discontented) a change of the social regime.Leon Trotsky: Stalinism and Bolshevism, Questions of Morals (August 1937) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/08/stalinism.htm)

Even this analysis is too limited, however. Not only was the bureaucracy as a group responsible, there is also an argument for extending responsibility to the mass of ordinary Soviet citizens, as they directly participated in the execution of the purges by reporting people they suspected of being opposed to the government or people they disliked on a personal basis to the authorities, leading to the imprisonment and in many cases the execution of their fellow citizens, despite the lack of evidence to show that they were actually guilty of committing a crime or planning to undermine the government.

Wanted Man

20th November 2008, 20:08

inb4 western media conspiracy blah blah not interested.

This is a little bit like being asked to provide evidence for Hitlers involvement in the holocaust.

The discussion is now over:laugh:

Then what's the point of the thread? Useless trolls.

So, if socialism cannot work because of Stalin, then anarchism fails as hard because of Makhno, mirite?

/sarcasm
But, but... tough conditions, leninist repression, evil vanguardists, blah, blah, blah...

Led Zeppelin

20th November 2008, 20:14

On the contrary, Trotsky argued that the bureaucracy as a whole should be seen as responsible for the purges

Yes, you're right, Trotsky never said that Stalin was responsible for anything himself. I mean, it's not like he wrote an article titled Stalin Seeks My Death (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/05/stalin.htm), or like he said:

In these conditions Stalin, after vacillating for one year, decided to resort to exile abroad as the lesser evil. He reasoned that Trotsky, isolated from the USSR, deprived of an apparatus and of material resources, would be powerless to undertake anything. Moreover, Stalin calculated that after he had succeeded in completely blackening me in the eyes of the country, he could without difficulty obtain from the friendly Turkish government my return to Moscow for the final reckoning. Events have shown, however, that it is possible to participate in political life without possessing either an apparatus or material resources. With the aid of young friends I laid the foundations. of the Fourth International which is forging ahead slowly but stubbornly. The Moscow trials of 1936-1937 were staged in order to obtain my deportation from Norway, i.e., actually to hand me over into the hands of the GPU. But this did not succeed. [arrived in Mexico. I am informed that Stalin has several times admitted that my exile abroad was a “major mistake.” No other way remained of rectifying the mistake except through a terrorist act.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/05/stalin.htm)

And I can find thousands more examples like that.

Just admit it, you wrote an idiotic defense of Stalin's actions and apologized for his crimes, and then desperately tried to defend it by claiming that Trotsky himself shared the same view when you were called out on it.

Pretty low, but I've been seeing you move towards Stalinism for some time now, so it doesn't really surprise me.

Hope you have have fun with Maoism.

BobKKKindle$

20th November 2008, 20:24

And I can find thousands more examples like that.In the article you quoted, Trotsky is suggesting that Stalin is personally responsible for what happened to Trotsky after the revolution became isolated because Stalin did actually make those decisions as Trotsky's personal rival during the leadership struggle, and there is also evidence to suggest that Stalin may have personally ordered Trotsky's execution in 1940, whereas in the case of the purges which followed Trotsky's exile, although Trotsky correctly acknowledges that Stalin was responsible for initiating the purges, he did so in his capacity as the leader of the bureaucracy which had taken control, and thereafter the purges were carried out by the members of the bureaucracy, not Stalin himself. This is what Trotsky argued in the quote I posted above, and by refuting the notion that the purges signified a conflict between Trotsky and Stalin as individuals, Trotsky is implicitly recognizing that if any other individual had taken the leadership, even Trotsky himself, they would have acted in the exact same way, because they would have been the leader of the same social group and so would have been forced to resort to the same measures to protect their own interests. I don't see why this has to be such a contentious issue - I am not suggesting that the people who died in the purges deserved it, or that the purges were necessary, I am merely challenging the simplistic suggestion that Stalin was personally responsible for everything that happened, in the same that that Lenin was not responsible for all the mistakes committed by the Cheka during the Civil War. Why is this so hard to understand?

Pretty low, but I've been seeing you move towards Stalinism for some time now, so it doesn't really surprise me.The only thing that's "pretty low" in this thread is this comment. This is ridiculous, I am not a Stalinist, nor am I moving towards Stalinism in any way.

Led Zeppelin

20th November 2008, 20:36

In the article you quoted, Trotsky is suggesting that Stalin is personally responsible for what happened to Trotsky after the revolution became isolated because Stalin did actually make those decisions as Trotsky's personal rival during the leadership struggle, and there is also evidence to suggest that Stalin may have personally ordered Trotsky's execution in 1940

...but you asked for evidence for exactly this only a few posts ago:

Calling someone a "murderer" suggests that they are personally responsible for the deaths of others, and that their decisions to kill was deliberate and premeditated. Can you provide evidence to show that Stalin fits this definition?

You changed your mind within the time span of 30 minutes? :confused:

whereas in the case of the purges which followed Trotsky's exile, although Trotsky acknowledges that Stalin was responsible for initiating the purges, he did so in his capacity as the leader of the bureaucracy which had taken control, and thereafter the purges were carried out by the members of the bureaucracy, not Stalin himself.

When you initiate a purge, you have premeditated the deaths of others. You are responsible for the deaths of others. You deliberately caused the deaths of others. Why? Because you initiated it "as the leader of the bureaucracy", as you said.

Now, just because Stalin didn't go into Gulags and personally shoot everyone in the back of the head doesn't mean that he wasn't responsible for it, now does it?

By the same logic Hitler had no blood on his hands, because after all, he didn't "carry out the Final Solution by personally turning on the switch at the gas chambers."

It was just totally inane of you to even bring this up if you did so only to point out the difference between "carrying out" an execution and "ordering it", and we both know that you brought it up initially as a defense of Stalin and only later backed down on the issue when you were called out on it.

I don't see why this has to be such a contentious issue - I am not suggesting that the people who died in the purges deserved it, or that the purges were necessary, I am merely challenging the simplistic suggestion that Stalin was personally responsible for everything that happened, in the same that that Lenin was not responsible for all the mistakes committed by the Cheka during the Civil War.

You weren't "merely challenging" anything, you were saying that Stalin was not responsible for any deaths that happened and asked for evidence proving the contrary (evidence that you later yourself said existed), which is apologism for Stalinism.

The only thing that's "pretty low" in this thread is this comment. This is ridiculous, I am not a Stalinist, nor am I moving towards Stalinism in any way.

Hey, I'm not the person who said:

"Calling someone a "murderer" suggests that they are personally responsible for the deaths of others, and that their decisions to kill was deliberate and premeditated. Can you provide evidence to show that Stalin fits this definition?"

Don't blame me from taking what you say literally.

BobKKKindle$

20th November 2008, 21:04

You changed your mind within the time span of 30 minutes?No, you have failed to recognize that the struggle against Trotsky, and the Great Purges were two separate events which occurred at different points in time and so in each case different standards of responsibility apply. Trotsky was expelled from the Central Committee in 1927, and by that time the Stalinist bureaucracy had already managed to establish itself as the dominant position within the party and was increasingly taking control of the state to attain a position of hegemonic political control, but the struggle against Trotsky was generally confined to the upper reaches of the party and did not take the form of a social movement which involved ordinary Soviet citizens. Hence, in this case, it does make sense to argue that Stalin was solely responsible, as he personally carried out attacks against Trotsky and eventually ordered Trotsky's exile. The Great Purges took place during the period 1936-1938 and unlike the struggle against Trotsky, this event was a social movement which rested on the cooperation of the general population and in some cases received enthusiastic support (see 'The Russian Revolution' by Shelia Fitzpatrick as well as Getty's work mentioned in my first post at the beginning of this thread) or was used for personal ends, as mentioned above. This does not detract from the fact that Stalin initiated the movement and so must receive most of the blame, but it prevents us from asserting that Stalin was solely responsible for every single death.

When you initiate a purge, you have premeditated the deaths of others. You are responsible for the deaths of others. You deliberately caused the deaths of othersThe issue here is not whether Stalin physically shot the people who were accused, as clearly someone can still be held solely accountable for a series of deaths even if they do not personally conduct the executions. The issue that we have to consider is the role of intent. Stalin's intention was to solidify the rule of the bureaucracy by destroying the remnants of the political opposition and instilling a fear of dissent amongst the general population, but once the purges were initiated they rapidly moved beyond these limited objectives and were also used a tool for other ends, such as the desire of individual officials to advance their political careers by accusing their rivals of disloyalty, and the resolution of personal disputes and grudges between individual citizens, and once we acknowledge the existence of these secondary ends, we must also extend responsibility to other groups within Soviet society, as members of these groups were complicit in and ultimately benefited from the purges.

By the same logic Hitler had no blood on his hands, because after all, he didn't "carry out the Final Solution by personally turning on the switch at the gas chambers."First of all, at no point in this thread have I ever asserted that Stalin has no responsibility, and so by using the phrase "no blood on his hands" you are misrepresenting my position. Secondly, there are historians who have argued exactly what you suggest - that Hitler was not solely responsible - most notably Daniel Goldhagen in 'Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust'. Does this mean that Goldhagen (who is Jewish, as you can probably guess from their name) is a Nazi, on the basis that they challenge the notion that Hitler was solely responsible for the Holocaust?

which is apologism for Stalinism
Hey, I'm not the person who said [etc]Arguing that Stalin was not solely responsible for everyone who was killed during the Great Purges is not the same as being an apologist for Stalinism - at no point have I expressed support for the Great Purges or claimed that they were necessary, which is what Stalinists do. By your logic, Goldhagen (see above) is a jewish nazi who apologizes for the Holocaust.

Led Zeppelin

20th November 2008, 21:17

No, you have failed to recognize that the struggle against Trotsky, and the Great Purges were two separate events which occurred at different points in time and so in each case different standards of responsibility apply.

What you said wasn't limited to the Great Purges, and even if it was it would be totally irrelevant because Stalin was still responsible for deaths during the Great Purges because "he initiated it".

But hey, maybe you're right, maybe Trotsky was the only person Stalin ordered to be killed. And maybe pigs can fly.

This does not detract from the fact that Stalin initiated the movement and so must recieve most of the blame, but it prevents us from asserting that Stalin was solely responsible for every single death.

This was never about Stalin being "solely responsible for every single death", you claimed that he wasn't even responsible for one!

I never said that he was solely responsible for every single death, nor would I ever say such a thing. Undoubtedly a lot of people died without direct orders from Stalin, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people did.

First of all, at no point in this thread have I ever asserted that Stalin has no responsibility, and so by using the phrase "no blood on his hands" you are misrepresenting my position.

Yes you did, actually:

Calling someone a "murderer" suggests that they are personally responsible for the deaths of others, and that their decisions to kill was deliberate and premeditated. Can you provide evidence to show that Stalin fits this definition?

I can keep reposting that over and over again until you acknowledge its existence, but I don't see what the point of it is. Other people can read it too, you know.

Secondly, there are historians who have argued exactly what you suggest - that Hitler was not solely responsible - most notably Daniel Goldhagen in 'Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust'. Does this mean that Goldhagen (who is jewish, as you can probably guess from their name) is a Nazi, on the basis that they challenge the notion that Hitler was solely responsible for the Holocaust?

No, it means that he's moron and a Hitler apologist.

Arguing that Stalin was not solely responsible for everyone who was killed during the Great Purges is not the same as aplogism for Stalin. By your logic, Goldhagen (see above) is a jewish nazi who apologizes for the Holocaust.

So basically what you are saying is that there can be no Jew who would ever think of making up bullshit to apologize for Hitler's actions, right?

That's what your whole argument is based on, right?

There goes that argument. (http://www.adolfthegreat.com/Trails-Trivia/trivia-JewsForHitler.html)

I'm not sure what the point of that was though. I never said that Stalin was solely responsible for every single death, you are basically attacking a straw man with that.

I was merely replying to your post where you said that Stalin wasn't responsible for any.

BobKKKindle$

20th November 2008, 21:38

This was never about Stalin being "solely responsible for every single death", you claimed that he wasn't even responsible for one!Except I never suggested that this was the case at all, and the quote from me that you persist in posting for everyone to see whenever you make a contribution to this thread is fully consistent with what I've been arguing for the whole of the discussion - that Stalin was responsible for large numbers of deaths but he cannot be held accountable for every single death because other individuals outside the bureaucracy took advantage of the purges to carry out their own objectives. In the quote I identify two criteria which we use to determine whether the death of someone constitutes murder - premeditation, and a deliberate action - and in the case of large numbers of individuals who were hostile to the interests of the bureaucracy and killed during the purges (Kamenev, Zionviev, etc.) Stalin meets both of these criteria, and so it would be appropriate to describe him as having murdered these individuals, despite his lack of physical involvement in their deaths. As you said yourself:

"a lot of people did [die as a result of direct orders from Stalin]"

No, it means that he's moron and a Hitler apologist.So, if arguing that Hitler was not responsible for every single person who died during the Holocaust does not make someone a Nazi (merely a "moron") on what basis do you describe me as a Stalinist?

So basically what you are saying is that there can be no Jew who would ever think of making up bullshit to apologize for Hitler's actions, right?No, I mentioned he was Jewish because if someone is Jewish you would be less likely to claim that the person is a Nazi. Thankfully you did not try to argue that Goldhagen was a Nazi, but now you have to explain why, if Goldhagen is not a Nazi, I am a Stalinist, given that we hold similar (and yet not identical) views on Hitler and Stalin respectively.

I'm not sure what the point of that was though. I never said that Stalin was solely responsible for every single death, you are basically attacking a straw man with that.

I was merely replying to your post where you said that Stalin wasn't responsible for any. I've shown that the second part is false, and if the first part is your opinion, then we hold the same position, and the only thing that remains is for you to explain why I am a Stalinist.

PostAnarchy

20th November 2008, 22:25

Yes, you're right, Trotsky never said that Stalin was responsible for anything himself. I mean, it's not like he wrote an article titled Stalin Seeks My Death (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/05/stalin.htm), or like he said:

Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/05/stalin.htm)

And I can find thousands more examples like that.

Just admit it, you wrote an idiotic defense of Stalin's actions and apologized for his crimes, and then desperately tried to defend it by claiming that Trotsky himself shared the same view when you were called out on it.

Pretty low, but I've been seeing you move towards Stalinism for some time now, so it doesn't really surprise me.

Hope you have have fun with Maoism.

he winner is Led Zeppelin!! :D

PostAnarchy

20th November 2008, 22:27

So, if arguing that Hitler was not responsible for every single person who died during the Holocaust does not make someone a Nazi (merely a "moron") on what basis do you describe me as a Stalinist?

Maybe not a Nazi but certainly denying Hitler's responsiblity during the Holocaust is highly suspect and would be representative of a view that could be reasonably labeled apologetic to Hitler.

Revy

20th November 2008, 22:32

They prefer to be called "Marxist-Leninists". As if the combination of Marxism and Leninism somehow equated to Stalinism.

Though, there are people who call themselves "Marxist-Leninists" they follow Marx and Lenin, and oppose Stalin.

Hiero

20th November 2008, 22:36

There are quite some suspicions that Che was in fact shadowed by the KGB while he was in Bolivia and Moscow had a hand in his demise.

Yeah I am sure they did. Because the creation of more socialist states would obviously be in opposition to Soviet interest.

That, and Che was a Trotskyist and Che was murdered by Fidel are they stupidest lies I have heard about Che.

PostAnarchy

20th November 2008, 22:40

Jeez, I'm surprised they haven't kicked you out of the SWP yet.

"Stalin wasn't personally responsible for the deaths of others and his decision to kill was not deliberate or pemeditated"? Seriously, what is this crap?

Tis the logic of the Stalinists. Good to see that Marxists as well as anarchists are starting to notice the bankruptcy of any association of Stalinist regimes, (state capitalist) with that of authentic workers democracy and socialism.

Nothing Human Is Alien

20th November 2008, 22:57

Some things:

Che wasn't a "Stalinist."

He based his outlook on the successes and failures of the communist movement over the years. He took what was positive and correct and shed what was negative and wrong. For example, while he was no “Trotskyist,” Che wrote “it is obvious that we can learn a series of things from Trotsky’s thinking.”

Che defended the gains which resulted from the October Revolution while criticizing its tragic degeneration. He condemned “the terrible historical crime of Stalin: to have treated communist education with contempt and instituted the unlimited cult of authority,” and wrote that Lenin “clearly affirmed the universal character of the revolution, something which was subsequently denied.” - Che Guevara and the Coming World Revolution (http://powr-prm.org/cheandtheworld.html)

"Stalinism" is defined in large part by adherence to the theory of "socialism in one country."

Che said "... we find it difficult to believe that victory can be achieved in one isolated country."

As for his "atrocities"... After the revolution, Che oversaw popular, open trials of murders, rapists, torturers and other assorted henchman of Batista. A revolution is not a bed of roses or a dinner party.

As for Homosexuality and the Cuban revolution, here are some past threads:

"What happened early on was this: Cuba was under attack. The whole country had to be mobilized to defend it. The revolution was very new and there was still a strong element of machismo among most of the men. These men rejected the idea of homosexuals serving in the military. So they, along with religious objectors and people who didn't have the education to serve in the military were sent to Unidades Militares de Ayuda a la Produccion (UMAPS) in which they aided in other ways. The UMPAS only existed about three years.

"There were some prejudices against homosexuals in the UMAPS. Fidel visited one in Camaguey and saw such things, and called for a review of the situation.

"There is still prejudice against homosexuals among sectors of Cuban society. That's a product of the history of Cuba and its development. Do you expect a revolution to immediately wipe out all prejudices and superstition?

""...I'm not going to defend myself against all that -- the part of the responsibility that I bear, I accept. I certainly had other ideas with respect to that problem. I had opinions, and for my part I instinctively opposed, and had always opposed, any abuse, any discrimination, because that society which had been based on injustice was saturated with prejudice. Homosexuals were most certainly the victims of discrimination. In other places much more than here, but they certainly were, in Cuba, victims of discrimination. Today a much more civilized, more educated population is gradually overcoming those prejudices." - Fidel

"The point is that the revolution never encouraged any such thing, and in fact actively fought against it."
- http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1242034&postcount=6

More: http://www.revleft.com/vb/behind-1980-39-t59607/index.html?p=913754
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1078356&postcount=75

PostAnarchy

20th November 2008, 23:04

Unfortunately, the state capitalists and party bureacrats did not only kill reactionaries and gangsters but anarchists and trotskyists as well. In short anyone who opposed them regardless of ideology. Of course when it is convenient to do so they "show off" how tough they were against reactionaries but that of course, is only half the story.

Good book of reference here - "Cuban Anarchism" by Frank Fernandez.

Book Review can be found here - http://www.infoshop.org/alibrarians/public_html/article.php?story=01/10/20/7736156

After independence, the anarchists
continued to build the workers' movement
and suffered repression. Anarchists were
jailed and killed, newspapers shut. Laws were
enacted against anarcho-syndicalism in
1918. This period of repression was followed
by a liberal government in 1920 and the
movement began to flourish. In 1925 the
syndicalist Confederacion Nacional Obrera
de Cuba was founded with 200,000 members.
Peace did not last however, as the dictator
Michado took over. The newly formed
Communist Party helped him repress the
anarchists. Many were jailed, tortured and
murdered. But the movement survived, as it
would the next dictator, Batista (who was
also supported by the Communist Party).

In the late 1940s to the late 1950s
anarchists were prominent in the labour
movement and anarchism had a healthy
influence generally (this was probably the
only country in the world where this was the
case at this time). When Batista seized power
again in 1952, anarchists were important in
the resistance and the subsequent Cuban
Revolution. Castro and the Stalinists stole
the Revolution from the anarchists and other
non-communist revolutionaries. Anarchism,
which had survived Machado and Batista did
not survive Castro. The movement was driven
into exile where it remains. A sad postscript.
Having learned nothing from the Bolshevik
Revolution, many European and American
anarchists betrayed their Cuban comrades by
sucking up to Castro.

Led Zeppelin

21st November 2008, 06:17

Except I never suggested that this was the case at all, and the quote from me that you persist in posting for everyone to see whenever you make a contribution to this thread is fully consistent with what I've been arguing for the whole of the discussion - that Stalin was responsible for large numbers of deaths but he cannot be held accountable for every single death because other individuals outside the bureaucracy took advantage of the purges to carry out their own objectives.

This is just not true. People can read. They know what you said means. Again, I'm not sure why you are trying to deny what you said. Look, I don't hate you or dislike you personally, but when you write stuff that is absurd I will call you out on it. When you write that Stalin never premeditated the deaths of others, or was not personally responsible for the deaths of others, you are apologizing for Stalin, and I will call you out on it whether you like it or not.

I'm sure if you had said the same thing at a SWP meeting they would've told you the same thing as I did. Now, perhaps they would have brought up the obvious example of Trotsky like I did, only to hear from you that you weren't actually wrong in asking for evidence even though you agree that he did order the death of Trotsky (and Trotsky did refer to Stalin personally being responsible for a lot of deaths), but that you never said what you actually said, and was only referring to the Great Purges, in which you later also acknowledged that Stalin was responsible for a lot of deaths....

There would be just one difference; when you say this in real life they might've believed you because they probably didn't record you saying what you said before. However, this is an internet forum, and what you said has been saved, and everyone can read it whenever they please.

It is no use to try to deny what you said or perform mental gymnastics to justify it; you have to acknowledge that you either worded what you said poorly, or was wrong in saying it because you don't actually believe it, and you got carried away by the Stalin apologism of others in this thread.

Again, what you said is literally:

Calling someone a "murderer" suggests that they are personally responsible for the deaths of others, and that their decisions to kill was deliberate and premeditated. Can you provide evidence to show that Stalin fits this definition?

Nothing about him not being "responsible for every single death" but still "being responsible for a lot", which is just a straw man that you've been fighting against.

You are saying here that he was not personally responsible or any deaths at all and asked for evidence to the contrary, and later on you said you were wrong because you believed he did actually order the death of one person (Trotsky), as if the thousands of others never happened. And right now you're also saying that he was responsible for a lot of deaths in the Great Purge.

In the quote I identify two criteria which we use to determine whether the death of someone constitutes murder - premeditation, and a deliberate action - and in the case of large numbers of individuals who were hostile to the interests of the bureaucracy and killed during the purges (Kamenev, Zionviev, etc.) Stalin meets both of these criteria, and so it would be appropriate to describe him as having murdered these individuals, despite his lack of physical involvement in their deaths. As you said yourself:

"a lot of people did [die as a result of direct orders from Stalin]"

Yes, this is exactly true.

So why did you ask for evidence for this if you already knew that this was the case, i.e., if you already knew that Stalin was personally responsible for a lot of deaths?

So, if arguing that Hitler was not responsible for every single person who died during the Holocaust does not make someone a Nazi (merely a "moron") on what basis do you describe me as a Stalinist?

Again, you are fighting a straw man, maybe it's time you put it down and let it rest in peace?

A person who argues that Hitler was not responsible for "every single death" is not a moron or a Hitler apologist, but a person who says that he was not responsible for any and then goes on to ask for evidence to prove that he was, most certainly is a Hitler apologist.

Now, let's replace the name of Stalin with Hitler in what you said and see what it looks like:

Calling someone a "murderer" suggests that they are personally responsible for the deaths of others, and that their decisions to kill was deliberate and premeditated. Can you provide evidence to show that Hitler fits this definition?

Does that not look like you're saying that Hitler was not "personally responsible" for any deaths? Is that not the literal meaning of the above?

Yes, yes it is.

Now admit you either worded it poorly or was just wrong, because this is just going around in circles now.

No, I mentioned he was Jewish because if someone is Jewish you would be less likely to claim that the person is a Nazi. Thankfully you did not try to argue that Goldhagen was a Nazi, but now you have to explain why, if Goldhagen is not a Nazi, I am a Stalinist, given that we hold similar (and yet not identical) views on Hitler and Stalin respectively.

Let's put it this way; if Goldhagen said about Hitler what you said about Stalin (like the above example quote), he would most certainly be a Hitler apologist.

But has he ever done that? I don't think so.

I've shown that the second part is false, and if the first part is your opinion, then we hold the same position, and the only thing that remains is for you to explain why I am a Stalinist.

You haven't "shown that it is false", you can't just say something which literally has a meaning, and then try to change the meaning of it by performing all kinds of tricks and mental gymnastics. That might have worked in real life, but not here, because the stuff you said is saved and everyone can still see and read it.

PRC-UTE

21st November 2008, 08:58

What relevance has Stalinism to the 21st?

BobKKKindle$

21st November 2008, 12:43

It is no use to try to deny what you said or perform mental gymnastics to justify it; you have to acknowledge that you either worded what you said poorly, or was wrong in saying it because you don't actually believe it, and you got carried away by the Stalin apologism of others in this thread.

There is no issue of "mental gymnastics" here and I am certainly not just blindly following what other people have been arguing - I have argued a consistent position for the whole of this thread and yet you have persistently accused me of being a Stalinist without any kind of explanation to back it up and have constantly tried to twist my position to make it seem as if I was guilty of claiming that Stalin was not responsible for any deaths, despite the fact that I stated my position right at the beginning of this thread in no uncertain terms:

"Stalin cannot be held personally accountable for all of the people who were unjustly killed"

If I had wanted to argue that Stalin was not responsible for any deaths, I would not have used the term "all" because this rightly implies that there were some deaths for which Stalin can be held responsible, if not every death. You are apparently unable to read this statement of my position and instead persist in posting a comment I made later in the thread:

"Calling someone a "murderer" suggests that they are personally responsible for the deaths of others, and that their decisions to kill was deliberate and premeditated. Can you provide evidence to show that Stalin fits this definition?"

For you, this comment is the same as saying that Stalin was not responsible for any deaths. You keep making this logical leap without actually explaining the reasoning behind it, for the simple reason that there is no basis for this leap - you're trying to attack a position that I never held. If you look at the actual context in which I made this comment, you'll find it was made in response to a poster who was adopting a simplistic position on what happened during the purges and evidently had not previously considered the possibility that Stalin may not have been responsible for every death due to the role of other factors which were beyond the control of the government such as personal rivalry, and by making this comment I was not in any way suggesting that Stalin was blameless, but merely intending to encourage a more nuanced understanding of the purges, which is what all communists should strive to adopt. If this was someone unclear for you, my position was perfectly clear in the first post I made as quoted above, and you could also have referred to the post I made in response to you first accusation, which further clarified my position. Instead, you asserted that I am a Stalinist (which you have still not explained or apologized for despite my repeated requests for you to do so) and accused me of trying to hide what I said from other people or pretendin that the comment you kept quoting in every single one of your posts doesn't exist. It's clear that we hold the same position and if you want to keep believing that I've suddenly changed from being a Stalin apologist to having the right position thanks to your glorious intervention that's fine, but I know that I've held a consistent and correct position and this whole discussion has been an attempt by you to twist my points out of context and to try and frame me as a Stalinist. I'm bored of this now, and I suggest we stop - although I do request that you explain how I am a Stalinist or offer an apology.

Led Zeppelin

21st November 2008, 14:31

There is no issue of "mental gymnastics" here and I am certainly not just blindly following what other people have been arguing - I have argued a consistent position for the whole of this thread and yet you have persistently accused me of being a Stalinist without any kind of explanation to back it up

You backed it up for me:

Calling someone a "murderer" suggests that they are personally responsible for the deaths of others, and that their decisions to kill was deliberate and premeditated. Can you provide evidence to show that Stalin fits this definition?

I see you decided to just stick your head in the sand and ignore that, and continue to play dumb and even go so far in it to ask me for an apology.

Too bad, I thought you were more mature than that. I thought you had the ability to acknowledge you were wrong about something without having to defend your ego, but I guess I was wrong.

and have constantly tried to twist my position to make it seem as if I was guilty of claiming that Stalin was not responsible for any deaths, despite the fact that I stated my position right at the beginning of this thread in no uncertain terms:

That quote of yours asking for evidence of Staling being personally responsible for even one death was also stated in no uncertain terms, and your consequent flip-flopping has also been stated in no uncertain terms, so that kind of nullifies the first point.

For you, this comment is the same as saying that Stalin was not responsible for any deaths. You keep making this logical leap without actually explaining the reasoning behind it

Reading and comprehending what you literally wrote is not that impressive, and it doesn't involve much of a logical leap. Perhaps for you...but for most people it's pretty easy.

for the simple reason that there is no basis for this leap - you're trying to attack a position that I never held. If you look at the actual context in which I made this comment, you'll find it was made in response to a poster who was adopting a simplistic position on what happened during the purges and evidently had not previously considered the possibility that Stalin may not have been responsible for every death due to the role of other factors which were beyond the control of the government such as personal rivalry, and by making this comment I was not in any way suggesting that Stalin was blameless, but merely intending to encourage a more nuanced understanding of the purges, which is what all communists should strive to adopt.

Oh really? Then why did you go on to defend the ridiculous notion that Stalin was only personally responsible for the death of Trotsky, while he was not personally responsible for any of the deaths during the Great Purges:

In the article you quoted, Trotsky is suggesting that Stalin is personally responsible for what happened to Trotsky after the revolution became isolated because Stalin did actually make those decisions as Trotsky's personal rival during the leadership struggle, and there is also evidence to suggest that Stalin may have personally ordered Trotsky's execution in 1940, whereas in the case of the purges which followed Trotsky's exile, although Trotsky correctly acknowledges that Stalin was responsible for initiating the purges, he did so in his capacity as the leader of the bureaucracy which had taken control, and thereafter the purges were carried out by the members of the bureaucracy, not Stalin himself.

Then, after this, you went on to say that Stalin was actually to blame for a lot of deaths which occured during the Great Purges.

Basically you flip-flopped throughout this discussion, and yes, you are right, it has become quite boring to see you jump around all over the place to justify your initial absurd quote regarding Stalin being personally resonsible for even one death, and asking evidence for it.

although I do request that you explain how I am a Stalinist or offer an apology.

You're not a Stalinist, though you're clearly moving towards Stalinism, specifically the Maoist variety. I don't really care about that, because to be honest I don't really care about you as a person, since I don't know you.

However, this is an internet forum, and the purpose is to debate. I find a person who calls himself a Trotskyist and yet says garbage like:

Calling someone a "murderer" suggests that they are personally responsible for the deaths of others, and that their decisions to kill was deliberate and premeditated. Can you provide evidence to show that Stalin fits this definition?

To be wrong, so I call them out on it. If you don't like it, then don't reply to it. The purpose of me replying to you wasn't to get you to reply anyway, it was to point out your hypocrisy to other members.

That task has been completed, so there is indeed no more point to continuing this. If you want to stop, just don't reply. I'm not sure what else new you could add anyway.

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

21st November 2008, 14:43

Stalin did nothing else then what was necessary for the survival of the USSR.

He saved the peasants from the kulak oppression, stopped famines by collectivising agriculture, forged a mighty and powerful industry, destroyed fascism, punished those who anted to ruin the country and kill its leaders.

Junius

21st November 2008, 14:53

That is so ironic considering your signature.

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

21st November 2008, 15:00

That is so ironic considering your signature.
Those who want to make mankind a subject of their exloitative intentions, such as the capitalists and imperialists have to be stopped.
If not, imperialism will continue to prevail.

PostAnarchy

21st November 2008, 19:54

Those who want to make mankind a subject of their exloitative intentions, such as the capitalists and imperialists have to be stopped.
If not, imperialism will continue to prevail.

What would you say about the imperialism of the Soviet Union in places like Afghanistan and Eastern Europe?

Sasha

21st November 2008, 20:04

Burrito

21st November 2008, 23:55

Che was indeed a Stalinist. He swore upon a picture of Stalin and along with the Castro brothers set up the Cuban state in very similar fashion to the USSR at the time. Denounced the Khurshev faction as being counter revolutionary same as the M-L would. He belong to the Castro government who persecuted and repressed other leftists (anarchists, trots) as well as homosexuals.
Read something credible. Che criticised Stalin later in life, theres even been rumours that he was a Trotskyist. Read the My Life: Fidel Castro, where he clears up that Che was in fact highly criticial of Stalin.According to this (http://www.bolpress.com/art.php?Cod=2006020122) website, Che wrote a letter to Armando Hart telling him that Stalin was one of the "greats of Marxism" whereas Trotsky was one of the "greats of revisionism":

El Che efectiva y textualmente dice: V). [En el original aparece el N° IV tachado y rectificado como V. La propia carta luego lo explica]. Se está realizando ya, pero sin orden ninguno y faltan obras fundamentales de Marx. Aquí sería necesario publicar las obras completas de Marx y Engels, Lenin, Stalin [subrayado por el Che en el original] y otros grandes marxistas. Nadie ha leído nada de Rosa Luxemburgo, por ejemplo, quien tiene errores en su crítica de Marx (tomo III) pero murió asesinada, y el instinto del imperialismo es superior al nuestro en estos aspectos. Faltan también pensadores marxistas que luego se salieron del carril, como Kautsky y Hilfering (no se escribe así) [el Che hace referencia al marxista austríaco Rudolf Hilferding] que hicieron aportes y muchos marxistas contemporáneos, no totalmente escolásticos.
VII). Aquí vendrían los grandes revisionistas (si quieren pueden poner a Jruschov), bien analizados, más profundamente que ninguno, y debía estar tu amigo Trotsky, que existió y escribió, según parece. (30)

Davie zepeda

22nd November 2008, 00:02

In all honesty You want to discredit all the left except for Trotsky im down with all theory's but so far ive seen that anarchism is the most reactionary. I mean Trotsky call Stalinist" Stalinist" but still fight to destroy capitalism in the end .But archaist from what ive seen are just trying to discredit everything your no friend to any one in me eye's.You build your own enemies And most troksties can agree with me on this An enemy to are movement is enemy for socialism .

Davie zepeda

22nd November 2008, 00:07

In my eye all revolutionaries leaders had to do what was important for the population to protect them from Nazism and capitalism. Power to the workers!

Robespierre2.0

22nd November 2008, 01:32

or the backstabbing in the ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine)? there lenin and trotsky liquidated an effective socialist proletarian workers state wich could even had functioned as an buffer against the imperialist west, only because they were more socialist than them and so an threat against the bolshevic power.

No, they did not crush Makhno because he was 'more socialist' than them.

It's because Makhno's crew was a bunch of illiterate bandits and peasants with rifles who were drunk enough to believe that a completely decentralized autonomous organization was an effective means of bringing revolution.
It's not. If the Reds had left them alone, some other, more centralized group would have annexed Ukraine, meaning more factories and arable land ends up in the hands of the capitalists. My guess would be that once the dust cleared in the rest of Russia, Poland and the baltic states would easily crush Makhno and carve up Ukraine.

gorillafuck

22nd November 2008, 01:56

Ismail

22nd November 2008, 03:09

I was going to post something, but then realized that we are witnessing a Trotskyist split on page 1 of this thread and gave up.

I will say this though: we don't hold the common view of Stalin. Our view of Stalin is completely different, and anyone who goes "RNNNGH GLORIOUS SOVIET POWER" or praises Stalin due to common views of him ("RNNGH DICTATOR WHO GOT THINGS DONE") is an idiot and tankie who doesn't belong in the socialist movement. Furthermore, anyone who upholds Stalin and the post-Stalin Soviet leaders is equally idiotic and tankie.

Davie zepeda

22nd November 2008, 04:38

Hilarious.
Even the cia admits that the soviet invade to help the Communist party in Afghanistan it wasn't imperialism.The reason they made covert war on the soviets to destabilize that goverment make sure that Communism has no grip in Mideast And no longer spread's.
Stalin's theory ok. not how he acted is what were talking about theory. Now let me explain something you all condemn ex communist but still haven't touch any bourgeois president's how about we stop fighting over theories, We all know all to well and get back into practice.
Anyone that doesn't want to understand the condition's of the past is ignorant.

Ismail

22nd November 2008, 05:41

You're an idiot who knows nothing about the events in Afghanistan and probably thinks that the Mujahidin was entirely composed of Islamic fundamentalists who upheld the Americans.

Here's a concise version:
King is unpopular, is overthrown by nationalists, nationalists are mostly overthrown by Communists loyal to the Soviet Union via military coup, not revolution, people begin to rise up because they view the government as both Soviet-dominated and completely foreign, Communists call on Soviets for help, Soviets demand that the Communists stop being so damn Communistic and slow stuff down, Hafizullah Amin talks about how Stalin wouldn't of liked reformism, Amin shot by KGB, Afghanistan becomes de facto Soviet puppet, various Mujahidin rise up, some Maoist, some ethnic based, some backed by the CIA, Maoists fail to get a mass movement, ethnic based Mujahidin are limited, and the CIA types prevail because of the sheer imperialism the Soviets were committing and their ability to do so much more due to the funds given.

Eventually this bleeds the USSR dry (see: Vietnam War for USA), sheer determination of Afghani people to be free of foreign rule prevails as Afghani government is in a total disarray, CIA-backed Mujahidin begin to distance themselves from US and civil war erupts shortly after 'Communist' Afghanistan falls, formerly CIA-backed theocrats take control, former Communist leader hanged at a lamppost, etc.

Sasha

22nd November 2008, 10:23

No, they did not crush Makhno because he was 'more socialist' than them.

It's because Makhno's crew was a bunch of illiterate bandits and peasants with rifles who were drunk enough to believe that a completely decentralized autonomous organization was an effective means of bringing revolution.
It's not. If the Reds had left them alone, some other, more centralized group would have annexed Ukraine, meaning more factories and arable land ends up in the hands of the capitalists. My guess would be that once the dust cleared in the rest of Russia, Poland and the baltic states would easily crush Makhno and carve up Ukraine.

its funny how a lot of the "socialist" talk with so much disdain about actual (poor) people. For someone who want to do away with class they can be nasty classist.
"they are all illiterate bandits and drunks and peasants", how did the word peasant becomes a swearword under revolutionarys :confused:
who the hell are you to invade and attack other peoples popular "goverments", bring down actual soviets (kronstad), assasinate popular revolutionarys, while when the revolution broke out in your own country you only had the support of sommething like 2% of the people.
Makhno's lot were damn succesfull and popular for an bunch of drunk bandits and peasants with rifles. And we will never know how succesfull they could have been without the backstabbing and the treason (same with spain).
i realy see no difrence between your way of reasoning and the people who supported the war in iraq because they wanted to "bring freedom and democracy", maybe this kind of thinking explains why a lot of the prominent neo-cons are ex-leninst/trotskyst
vanguard thinking is nothing more than a selffish knight in shining armor complex, the chosen people trying to save the poor baby seals (the proletariat).
it has nothing to do with the poeple or their will, its only about you
well fuck you, these baby seals dont want you, don need you and can fend better for themself than you can.

BobKKKindle$

22nd November 2008, 10:48

its funny how a lot of the "socialist" talk with so much disdain about actual (poor) people. For someone who want to do away with class they can be nasty classist.

Socialism is not based on the interests of the "poor people" as not everyone who is "poor" has revolutionary potential or an objective interest in overthrowing capitalism. The Bolsheviks always drew their support from the proletariat (i.e. urban residents who sold their labour power as a commodity and worked together in large units of production) and the party itself consisted of proletarian activists, which is why they were able to achieve significant majorities in all of the major urban soviets prior to the seizure of power in 1917.

Pogue

22nd November 2008, 11:09

What relevance has Stalinism to the 21st?

Thats just it. He has no relevance. Theres no point defending him. He wasn't a socialist and he did nothing positive for the socialist movement and it's pathetic to see so many tankies desparately clinging to him. I simply don't understand why you'd choose that path in socialism, of aplogising for the regimes of Mao, Stalin, etc. There were so many flaws, you'll never be able to defend these people against logical or rational opposition so its just sad. The 20th century was our experiment in authoritarian socialism and it failed, vanguards fail and states fail. Thats why I'm an Anarchist, because all of this stuff failed and I don't want my leftist life to be focused around hero worshiping murderous dead Russians such as Stalin, and authoritarian sell outs like Lenin and Trotsky, and then attempting to defend them and their theories religiously in the face of evidence and logic supporting how they'll always fail.

Led Zeppelin

22nd November 2008, 11:17

Why the hell do you have a flag of POUM as your avatar? :confused:

Pogue

22nd November 2008, 11:29

Because I respect their efforts fighting alongside the Anarchists fighting Stalinism and fascism in Spain, and I'm a George Orwell fan.

I don't believe a vanguard is a good idea at all, and it will fail, as it always has. But I would always co-operate with Trotskyists in the fight against fascism and capitalism in general, and try to influence any Trotskyist movement to the more libertarian side of communism.

My previous post had alot more danger than it was meant too. I have nothing against Trotskyists and have worked with them in the past, but I don't like some of their ideas and the man they got them from.

redguard2009

22nd November 2008, 12:01

I have troubling understanding Stalinism and authoritarian socialism in general. Point being, it didn't work!

Anarchism, on the other hand.... :rolleyes:

Childish caricatures? I called him a Mass Murderer: death toll debatable (somewhat), but he's definitely a mass murderer, regardless of whether he was responsible for the deaths of millions or hundreds of thousands.

According to whom?

This is a little bit like being asked to provide evidence for Hitlers involvement in the holocaust.

Well, not quite. Y'see, there was was thing called the Nuremberg Trials after the Second World War in which an extensive investigation was launched by the United Nations and various other organizations, public and private, during the trials of several high-ranking Nazi officials. It was that investigation which uncovered the extent of the Nazi's genocidal campaign, along with the first-person examinations of the various death camps, concentration camps and prisoner of war camps, force labour facilities and mass graves.

The Soviet Union, however, has had far less of a "fair" trial. During the 20s an investigation and trial was launched after a Soviet diplomat was assassinated in Europe. During the trial, the defense launched a viscious campaign to put the whole of the USSR on trial for the world to see to defend the "heroic" actions of the "brave, self-sacrificial freedom fighter" who "bravely stood up against communist villainy". This trial was, of course, a horrendous load of bullcrap, but the western world, particularly their governments, lapped it up, for communism had long been a condemned enemy of western bourgeois democracies, republics and right-wing dictatorships.

The rest of the "evidence" which has surfaced since then about the extend of "Soviet crimes" largely comes from completely unsubstantiated rumours, heresay and whispers by hundreds of defecters and politicians who, let's face it, had an awful lot to gain by damaging the reputation of Stalin. "Historians" have combed over these various statements, examined cloudy demographical and census data, and filled in the blanks to paint the picture that is commonly held in the eyes of the world today. No mass graves have been uncovered, no evidence obtained, no visits to the gulags with their warehouses piled to the roof with the dead bodies of millions of Russians slaughtered like pigs. Not even the released secret records of the KGB and other internal security agencies uncovered after the collapse of the USSR points to any sort of genocidal, mass murdering campaign of ultra-violence which apparently tore through the Soviet Union. And given that something like the deaths of millions of people usually goes noticed, there seems a wholesale lack of evidence.

So please don't insult your own intelligence by trying to draw conclusions about some similarity between the holocaust and Stalin's alleged crimes. If you can find me any sort of evidence about mass murders in the Soviet Union that don't amount to some historian saying "he said she said he heard she saw, and this loose collection of demographic data appears to back it up".

Even Lenin said that in 1924 it was an isolated workers' and peasants' state with a bureaucratic twist to it.

How? Lenin died in January 1924 after ~10 months restricted to a bed unable to speak.

Anyway, these things have been discussed countless times before by far greater minds than us. Sufficed to say, there has been an established campaign of anti-communist propaganda which has existed -- and we all know it has -- since the very first days of the communist movement under Karl Marx. Why so many continue to ignore this irrefutable fact is beyond me.

Sasha

22nd November 2008, 12:47

. No mass graves have been uncovered, no evidence obtained, no visits to the gulags with their warehouses piled to the roof with the dead bodies of millions of Russians slaughtered like pigs. Not even the released secret records of the KGB and other internal security agencies uncovered after the collapse of the USSR points to any sort of genocidal, mass murdering campaign of ultra-violence which apparently tore through the Soviet Union. And given that something like the deaths of millions of people usually goes noticed, there seems a wholesale lack of evidence.

Number of people executed According to the declassified Soviet archives, during 1937 and 1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,367 victims, of whom 681,692 were shot - an average of 1,000 executions a day.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#cite_note-Pipes-26) Historian Michael Ellman claims the best estimate of deaths brought about by Soviet Repression during these two years is the range 950,000 to 1.2 million, which includes deaths in detention and those who died shortly after being released from the Gulag as a result of their treatment in it. He also states that this is the estimate which should be used by historians and teachers of Russian history.[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#cite_note-27) According to Memorial society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_%28society%29)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#cite_note-OR-17)

On the cases investigated by the State Security Department of NKVD (GUGB NKVD):

At least 1,710,000 people were arrested
At least 1,440,000 people were sentenced
At least 724,000 were executed. Among them:

At least 436,000 people were sentenced to death by NKVD troikas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD_troika) as part of the Kulak operation
At least 247,000 people were sentenced to death by NKVD Dvoikas' and the Local Special Troykas as part of the Ethnic Operation
At least 41,000 people were sentenced to death by Military Courts

Among other cases in October 1936-November 1938:

At least 400,000 were sentenced to labor camps by Police Troikas as Socially Harmful Elements (социально-вредный элемент, СВЭ)
At least 200,000 were exiled or deported by Administrative procedures
At least 2 million were sentenced by courts for common crimes, among them 800,000 were sentenced to Gulag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag) camps.

Some experts believe the evidence released from the Soviet archives is understated, incomplete or unreliable.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#cite_note-28)[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#cite_note-29)[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#cite_note-Pipes-26)[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#cite_note-30) For example, Robert Conquest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Conquest) suggests that the probable figure for executions during the years of the Great Purge is not 681,692, but some two and a half times as high. He believes that the KGB was covering its tracks by falsifying the dates and causes of death of rehabilitated victims.[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#cite_note-31)
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

More than 14 million people passed through the Gulag from 1929 to 1953, with a further 6 to 7 million being deported and exiled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union#Timeline) to remote areas of the USSR.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag#cite_note-4) According to de-classified archive data released by the successor agency to the KGB after Perestroika, a total of 1,053,829 people died in the GULAG from 1934 to 1953, not counting those who died in labor colonies[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag#cite_note-GRZ-5)
It has often been asked why there has been nothing along the lines of the Nuremberg Trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials) for those guilty of atrocities at the Gulag camps. Two recent books, reviewed by Peter Rollberg in the Moscow Times,[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag#cite_note-prosecuting-46) cast some light on this. Tomasz Kizny's Gulag: Life and Death Inside the Soviet Concentration Camps 1917-1990 details the history of the labour camps over the years while Oleg Khlevniuk's The History of the Gulag: From Collectivization to the Great Terror presents records of confidential memos, official resolutions, individual testimonies and tabulated statistics. Rollberg explains how both books contribute to our understanding of why there were no post-Communism trials. "The gulag had already killed tens of thousands of its own most ardent killers. Again and again, yesterday's judges were declared today's criminals, so that Soviet society never had to own up to its millions of state-backed murders."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

some recent discovery's of massgraves in russia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2131954.stm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1010/p01s02-woeu.html

http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/071497/mass.htm

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9707/17/russia.gulag.grave/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/world/europe/08butovo.html?ex=1338955200&en=00d28b9b0511bf99&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

but by all means, keep living in state-propaganda fairy tale wonderland.

Revy

22nd November 2008, 15:03

There are many sources to point to the fact the Che was heavily inspired by Stalin, at least early on. Later, that might be iffy.

But the Cuban Communist Party was founded on Stalinism (so was its forerunner, the Popular Socialist Party, which was a member of the Comintern).

It would be fruitless to deny this. When asked about the suppression of Trotskyism in Cuba, it was Che in fact that remarked (perhaps controversially?):

"...they were taking the line that the revolutionary government is petty bourgeois, and were calling on the proletariat to exert pressure on the government, and even to carry out another revolution in which the proletariat would come to power."

Very interesting! ;)

Davie zepeda

22nd November 2008, 15:15

I had a answer write out to defend but this shit logged me out then , i copied and paste and it didn't even copy so fuck that it was way to long to rewrite ill let you have the last say. still You need to re read those books one good is how to beat a super power the soviet Afghanistan war .

Glenn Beck

22nd November 2008, 15:38

Y'all be postin' in a troll thread...

Robespierre2.0

22nd November 2008, 16:15

ts funny how a lot of the "socialist" talk with so much disdain about actual (poor) people. For someone who want to do away with class they can be nasty classist.
"they are all illiterate bandits and drunks and peasants", how did the word peasant becomes a swearword under revolutionarys
who the hell are you to invade and attack other peoples popular "goverments", bring down actual soviets (kronstad), assasinate popular revolutionarys, while when the revolution broke out in your own country you only had the support of sommething like 2% of the people.
Makhno's lot were damn succesfull and popular for an bunch of drunk bandits and peasants with rifles. And we will never know how succesfull they could have been without the backstabbing and the treason (same with spain).
i realy see no difrence between your way of reasoning and the people who supported the war in iraq because they wanted to "bring freedom and democracy", maybe this kind of thinking explains why a lot of the prominent neo-cons are ex-leninst/trotskyst
vanguard thinking is nothing more than a selffish knight in shining armor complex, the chosen people trying to save the poor baby seals (the proletariat).
it has nothing to do with the poeple or their will, its only about you
well fuck you, these baby seals dont want you, don need you and can fend better for themself than you can.

Well, I was partially aiming to troll there, but in all seriousness, I really think Makhno's crew had no grasp of theory and thus ascribed to some vague form of utopian communism- that's just the impression I get from reading about them.

As for success... how can you say Makhno was successful? Neither of us were alive during the Revolution, and information regarding your favorite peasant insurrectionary army is extremely scarce. All we know is that at first the Reds used the Anarchists as a meat-shield (clever) and later, when they had the chance, they eliminated them.

It most certainly was not some 'selfish knight in shining armor' BS- We are pragmatists. We know that in a revolutionary situation, wrong ideas will take hold of some parts of the population. We represent the class interests of the proletariat, not some vague and easily manipulated concept like the 'will of the people'- we will do what's best for the proletariat, and because strong, centralized government is inherently more efficient and more able the meet the needs of the people than decentralized entities, even the masses who were initially wary of us will warm up to socialism.

And no- baby seals cannot fend for themselves. All they have is a bunch of fucking flippers. That's no match for a good club or metal rod.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

some recent discovery's of massgraves in russia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2131954.stm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1010/p01s02-woeu.html

http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/071497/mass.htm

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9707/17/russia.gulag.grave/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/world/europe/08butovo.html?ex=1338955200&en=00d28b9b0511bf99&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

but by all means, keep living in state-propaganda fairy tale wonderland.

Oh no! Wikipedia! It's emanating rays of pure truth! I must shield my precious Stalinist eyes!

Listen, you twit,
All you are doing is appealing to the bandwagon- showing us the what the majority of people think is true.
Well guess what. The majority is not always right. In 1933, a majority of Germans thought Herr Hitler would save Germany. Well, in some respects, he did, but H-Dogg's massive boner for conquest in the long run ended up subjecting his people to war, bombings, and occupation. Also, the majority of people used to think the world was flat and you could sail off the edge of it.
So there- I don't think your information is a 'CIA conspiracy' to cover up the facts; I just think all information regarding politics needs to be treated with utmost skepticism. Don't you pay attention to bourgeois politics? Look at all the slander and scandal that occurs every election year- Now consider the fact that anti-communism is something both the liberals AND the conservatives can get behind, and all of a sudden you'll find yourself a lot more suspicious of the information you get.

Burrito

23rd November 2008, 03:20

There are many sources to point to the fact the Che was heavily inspired by Stalin, at least early on. Later, that might be iffy.

Not really. That letter to Armando Hart was written in 1965, less than two years before he died.

Ismail

23rd November 2008, 04:18

Che hated Khrushchev and viewed him as a traitor to the Communist movement. This makes him Anti-Revisionist.

Then, of course, he made Foco and went and got himself killed.

He condemned revisionist people, but embraced revisionist theories.

Burrito

23rd November 2008, 04:25

He condemned revisionist people, but embraced revisionist theories

Such as?

Ismail

23rd November 2008, 06:56

Such as?I just said what he embraced.

http://www.allianceml.com/CommunistLeague/Compass101-Cuba92.htm
http://www.allianceml.com/MLOB/GuerrilaEliteFIN.htm

I think Che was a good guy, he was genuine in his views, but had he relied on the vanguard as opposed to focoism, I think he would of fared better.

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

23rd November 2008, 16:41

What would you say about the imperialism of the Soviet Union in places like Afghanistan and Eastern Europe?
The Union liberated Eastern Europe from the nazis and brought Communism there, the Brits and Americans liberated Western Europe from the nazis and brought capitalism there.
Eastern European nations were led by their own Communist Parties, not by Moscow.

The Soviets did not attack Afghanistan, they helped Afghanistan in a war against islamist terrorists who attacked their allies of the Communst Afghans.

Tower of Bebel

23rd November 2008, 16:47

How? Lenin died in January 1924 after ~10 months restricted to a bed unable to speak.
I meant 1920: The trade unions, the present situation and Trotsky's mistakes (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)

While betraying this lack of thoughtfulness, Comrade Trotsky falls into error himself. He seems to say that in a workers’ state it is not the business of the trade unions to stand up for the material and spiritual interests of the working class. That is a mistake. Comrade Trotsky speaks of a “workers’ state”. May I say that this is an abstraction. It was natural for us to write about a workers’ state in 1917; but it is now a patent error to say: “Since this is a workers’ state without any bourgeoisie, against whom then is the working class to be protected, and for what purpose?” The whole point is that it is not quite a workers’ state. That is where Comrade Trotsky makes one of his main mistakes. We have got down from general principles to practical discussion and decrees, and here we are being dragged back and prevented from tackling the business at hand. This will not do. For one thing, ours is not actually a workers’ state but a workers’ and peasants’ state. And a lot depends on that. (Bukharin : “What kind of state? A workers’ and peasants’ state?”) Comrade Bukharin back there may well shout “What kind of state? A workers’ and peasants’ state?” I shall not stop to answer him. Anyone who has a mind to should recall the recent Congress of Soviets,[3] and that will be answer enough.

But that is not all. Our Party Programme—a document which the author of the ABC of Communism knows very well—shows that ours is a workers’ state with a bureacratic twist to it. We have had to mark it with this dismal, shall I say, tag. There you have the reality of the transition. Well, is it right to say that in a state that has taken this shape in practice the trade unions have nothing to protect, or that we can do without them in protecting the material and spiritual interests of the massively organised proletariat? No, this reasoning is theoretically quite wrong. It takes us into the sphere of abstraction or an ideal we shall achieve in 15 or 20 years’ time, and I am not so sure that we shall have achieved it even by then. What we actually have before us is a reality of which we have a good deal of knowledge, provided, that is, we keep our heads, and do not let ourselves be carried awav by intellectualist talk or abstract reasoning, or by what may appear to be “theory” but is in fact error and misapprehension of the peculiarities of transition. We now have a state under which it is the business of the massively organised proletariat to protect itself, while we, for our part, must use these workers’ organisations to protect the workers from their state, and to get them to protect our state. Both forms of protection are achieved through the peculiar interweaving of our state measures and our agreeing or “coalescing” with our trade unions.

S.O.I

23rd November 2008, 20:26

Anarchism, on the other hand.... :rolleyes:

thats the point of anarchism! its not supposed to work, its supposed to stop things from working.

The Intransigent Faction

23rd November 2008, 20:48

The Union liberated Eastern Europe from the nazis and brought Communism there, the Brits and Americans liberated Western Europe from the nazis and brought capitalism there.
Eastern European nations were led by their own Communist Parties, not by Moscow.

The Soviets did not attack Afghanistan, they helped Afghanistan in a war against islamist terrorists who attacked their allies of the Communst Afghans.

Afghanistan was originally a buffer state between the British and Russian Empires.

During WW1, Russia's involvement in the region was naturally minimal if at all existent. By the end of this war, Britain was bloodied, and the USSR had just emerged from the Bolshevik Revolution. Afghans used this chance to repel the British occupiers, and soon after, develop diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union.

Then came years of drastic changes. Afghanistan's first constitution was written, and for the first time in the region, women were allowed to be educated in schools.

Naturally, this ticked off the religious Conservatives (we are talking about the Middle East of the 1920s, after all), and a tribal revolt occurred that ended with King Amanullah and his brother in exile until their deaths.
Meanwhile, Shah Mohammed Zahir ventually ended the power struggle by taking up the mantle of kingship in 1933. He established further connections including trade with the Soviet Union.

In 1953, Zahir's cousin, Muhammed Daoud, became Prime Minister. After a decade of Daoud rapidly modernizing Afghan industry with help from the Soviet Union, King Zahir Shah gave into American pressures and removed Daoud from his position as Prime Minister in 1964 and restores a "constitutional monarchy".

Daoud retaliated with a coup against King Zahir Shah in 1973. During his short-lived leadership, he makes many enemies within both the Socialist and religious Conservative communities through opportunistic attempts to squeeze aid out of both the Soviet Union and the United States.

Soon after, in 1978, Mir Akbar Kaibar, a prominent leader of the Parcham faction of the People's Democratic party of Afghanistan was assassinated, very likely by the government itself. Either way, this sparked mass protests from the PDPA, and when Daoud attempted to arrest political dissidents who were growing suspicious of his government's opportunism and possible role in the assassination, the Party rose up in a coup which ended with the declaration of Afghanistan as a Socialist nation, with Noor Muhammad Taraki as its leader.
Taraki would introduce new land reform and literacy programs.

Officials from the Carter administration (notably Zbigniew Brzezinski, his national security advisor) and former CIA director Robert gates have admitted to covert funding of Mujaheddin six months before Soviet intervention. So, as it turns out, concerns in the Soviet Union about American activities in a bordering nation were completely justified.

As a result, the Soviet Union reluctantly intervened due to requests from the Afghan Socialist government, in accordance with Article 4 of the Soviet-Afghan Friendship treaty of 1978 which stated:

"The High Contracting Parties, acting in the spirit of the traditions
of friendship and good-neighbourliness and in the spirit of the Charter of the United
Nations, shall consult with each other and shall, by agreement, take the necessary
steps to safeguard the security, independence and territorial integrity of the two
countries.
In the interest of strengthening their defensive capacity, the High Contracting
Parties shall continue to develop their co-operation in the military field on the basis
of the relevant agreements concluded between them.".

The rest, as they say, is history. A combination of American backing of the Mujaheddin and crippling bureaucracy back home led to the withdrawal of Soviet troops. The United States essentially picked up and left. Needless to say, with the Soviets gone, America lost interest for a while as anywhere from hundreds to thousands of people perished in massacres, the most infamous of which was the massacre of the predominantly ethnic Hazara neighbourhood of Mazar-I-Sharif.

Eventually, America experienced what the CIA commonly refers to as "blowback" in the form of 9/11. Now that their own misdeeds had come back to haunt them, they figured it was time to intervene and replace their rogue puppets with new Western-friendly ones.
I'll stop here, because I seriously hope that people understand the rest of what's happened since.
------------------------

...as for eastern Europe, with respect, they brought socialism. A goal of Communism, perhaps, but Socialism.
Socialist nations will inevitably need to expand influence where possible if this is to be an internationalist movement.
Also keep in mind, when you mention the Americans, that although the American army (eventually) pitched in against Hitler, American companies like GM weren't all too happy about it (Ford was an anti-Semite and was doing business with the Nazis).
After the war both GM and Ford demanded reparations from the U.S. government for damage to their German plants caused by Allied bombing.
That's a bit off-topic though, so yes.
Without the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and beyond would be yelling "Heil Hitler!" (or shot). Enough said.

Die Neue Zeit

23rd November 2008, 22:08

I meant 1920: The trade unions, the present situation and Trotsky's mistakes (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)

Comrade, you quoted from the very same work which I claim refuted Trotsky's specific take on "permanent revolution." Do I sense an ideological drift from you here? ;) :D

PRC-UTE

23rd November 2008, 23:00

Y'all be postin' in a troll thread...

QFT

this is a big red herring

redguard2009

24th November 2008, 04:12

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2131954.stm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2131954.stm)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2131954.stm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2131954.stm)[/quote]

The BBC! The working class' very own news.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2131954.stm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2131954.stm)

The Christian Science Monitor everybody!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2131954.stm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2131954.stm)

The LA Times!

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9707/17/rus...ave/index.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9707/17/russia.gulag.grave/index.html)

CNN, our beacon of working class politics!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/wo...rssnyt&emc=rss (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/world/europe/08butovo.html?ex=1338955200&en=00d28b9b0511bf99&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

And the humble, left-wing NY Times.

I hadn't realized that such a unanymous organization of left-wing working-class news services which have absolutely no history or connection to bourgeois propaganda machines existed in the world. But here I stand, corrected, for if there is one scientific, infallable constant in this world, it is Wolf Blitzer.

but by all means, keep living in state-propaganda fairy tale wonderland.

Oh ho ho ho, aren't you clever! You managed to pull out some wonderfully accurate wikipedia articles and suppositions from the likes of the BBC, CNN, NYT, LAT and Washington Post, and them make a sly, decisively witty remark about my taste for state propaganda.

All I see in those articles is blanket statements - "many Ukranian and western historians believe Stalin's purges killed tens of millions", and "many believe the purges in the 1930s-1950s saw millions sent to gulags and executed". The discovery of a mass grave in Ukraine which appears to be from the 40s -- despite the fact that most of the Ukraine was under Nazi control for 4 years, but it couldn't have been them, because we all know Ukrainian nationalism these days is totally pro-Russia.

In the end, I choose to believe propaganda coming out of the Soviet Union, you choose to believe propaganda coming out of the United States. Neither can really be trusted, but I choose to give the benefit of the doubt to the communists rather than the imperialist bourgeoisie. So I still win, even if by a hair. ;)