What IS Stalinism - define stalinism for me

[Anarchist Freedom]

what is Stalinism really people always give me different definitions i would liek to know the true and proper meaning. or is just a more advanced totalarianism

[Ymir]

Stalinism is the continuation of Leninism.

[Anarchist Freedom]

ahh whats leninism too man i suck i here those 2 political ideas all the time its just i always get fucked up answers

[Ymir]

Do you know who Marx was?

[Anarchist Freedom]

yes i know who karl mark is if it wasnt for him were would we be today not here thats for sure


and thx for your help i dont need the definition anymore

[Organic Revolution]

lol karl mark hehe

[elijahcraig]

Stalinism is state capitalism.

[Ymir]

To learn about Marx, Lenin, and even Stalin's thoughts, go to www.marx2mao.org

-and www.marxists.org (this has alot of trotsky's works)

and www.maoism.org

(Edited by Ymir at 11:09 pm on July 24, 2003)

[Fucking Revolution]

I would argue with ymir and say that stalinism is not a continuation of leninism. Stalin changed the goverment very radically when he seized power after Lenin's death, the first people he killed wre thousands of leninist communists that participated on the october revolution. I would say that stalinism is state capitalism like elijahcraig said. Stalin and his goverment were the worst of capitalism as the had a monopoly over every industry in the whole country and therefore had the people forced to work for the benifet of the ruling elite. This is very much different from leninsm which is pretty much just a more modernized version of marxism.

[capitalistpigdog]

I agree, Stalinism is, to some extent, a perversion of Leninism. Stalin simply claimed to be a Leninist in order to gain the support of the Russian people.

It is evident in 'lenins Testament' that he did not trust Stalin, he considered Stalin to be a danger to the Soviet. It is obvious that that Stalins form of state run socialism was in direct opposition of Lenins conviction of the need for the equality of the proletariat.

Stalin was not a true Leninist and thus Stalinism cannot be defined as a continuation of Leninism.

[Cassius Clay]

How have I missed this one?

'Stalinism' doesn't exist.. To quote one Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986 'Stalinism is a ideology made up by the enemies of the USSR to smear the Soviet State'.

More over 'Stalinism' is merely a continuation of Leninism. If you want to go really into detail I suppose it is the beleive that there must be Industrialisation and having a economy and society which is sef-reliant and depedent of other nations exports. This does NOT mean that world revolution is given up, far from it infact. Socialism in One Countryis the highest form of Internationalism, incase it hasn't escaped anyones attention half the world was Red by 1953 and this was without some hair brained scheme like 'Permanent Revolution'.

Now Stalin never had any 'Leninists' (or anyone else for that matter, he didn't have the power) murdered. And Lenin's 'will' (it wasn't a testament it was a series of dicated notes) matters little, in it Lenin calls Stalin 'rude' and wonders whehter he's up to the job of GS. Given that this was entirely over a personal matter (Stalin had had a row with Lenin's wife) and that it was Lenin who originally nominated Stalin for the post in the first place it hardly reflects what happened. Even in Lenin's notes Stalin hardly comes of worse, everyone is criticsed there.

Eagerly awaiting a quote from Trotsky's biographer of what 'really' happened. Yeah right.

[capitalistpigdog]

I admit the argument that 'Lenins Testament' (I'll continue to call it that as its what it is commonly refered to as) was proof of Lenins distrust of Stalin is questionable. However, regarding Stalins perversion of Lenins convictions I believe this was very much the case. There is a vast difference between Lenins ideas on state socialism and the the actions of Stalin in administering socialist order.

Historical and political experts on the subject believe - "Leninism was ‘anti-statist’. In State and Revolution, 1916, Lenin wrote that "the proletarian state will begin to wither away immediately after its victory". Lenin’s ‘elitism’ was a revolutionary expedient. There was to be no elite in the future. He would have been opposed to the development of state power carried out under Stalin." "

Stalin did the opposite to what Lenin intended and made the state more powerful and permanent rather than less. He did not continue Leninism but rather perveted one, if not many more, of Lenins beliefs.


(Edited by capitalistpigdog at 12:23 am on July 26, 2003)

[Cassius Clay]

I take it you haven't read any of what Joseph Stalin wrote and said regarding the state. Or what Stalin and lots of others put into practice in the USSR.

Now if anything while Lenin was alive the State in the USSR and everything else for that matter was very much a tool of oppression. Words like 'Soviet power' and 'Socialist Democracy' were just that during Lenin's time, words. It was under Stalin that they became reality. If it hadn't been for the Nazi invasion and subsequent need to rebuild then the USSR would of got rid of the inequalities that still existed in society.

Long story short Stalin fought against the state and did NOT fight to preserve or make it stronger.

[Totalitarian]

Stalin was a mass murderer who killed millions of Russians, Ukrainians and others. What a bastard!

[YKTMX]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 10:52 am on July 25, 2003
How have I missed this one?

This does NOT mean that world revolution is given up, far from it infact. Socialism in One Countryis the highest form of Internationalism, incase it hasn't escaped anyones attention half the world was Red by 1953




No, half the world was under dictatorship by 1953. The problem with your argument is that these countries that were "red", there had been no working class revolution. What happened to self emancipation? Are we saying that socialism can be created by the red army storming in and declaring a country socialist? Or by signing treaties with the west?

Stalin parodied Marxism, taking the elements he liked (dictatorship of the prol, opium of the masses) and discarding or distorting the rest.

[Anarchist Freedom]

ive noticed something lateley from everyone i have talked to they have this fear of communism thinking theyll be slaughterd and totured. Then i Sigh then laugh and explain that what happend in russia was not ture communism nor socialism but it is stalinism. which is basiclly a more advanced version of leninism then they ask me what are they both then i say:they arent communist stalinism is like a totalerian goverment and leninism is just a more controlled communism to some extent. well yah we gotta change communisms name for all our sakes

[MikeyBoy]

Stalin parodied Marxism, taking the elements he liked (dictatorship of the prol, opium of the masses) and discarding or distorting the rest.

Much like Trotsky?

[YKTMX]

Quote: from MikeyBoy on 8:07 pm on July 25, 2003

Stalin parodied Marxism, taking the elements he liked (dictatorship of the prol, opium of the masses) and discarding or distorting the rest.

Much like Trotsky?

How do you mean?

[sc4r]

If by Stalinism you mean what Stalin wrote then without doubt he was Leninist.

Obviously he extended Leninist thinking and modified it to suit circumstances, bnut thats all.

In fact if you were to judge him by his writings he was pretty admirabale indeed (maybe not 100% right in every judgement but who is).

If you mean what he did then it depends who you talk to. The facts (as near as I can estimate them) are :

Perhaps 1m-2m people were executed during his leadership.
The USSR became a world power and an advocate of Socialism.
The USSR fought off a determined enemy (and incidentally contributed at least as much, maybe more to the destruction of Fascism as the US, thiugh the uS always claims all th credit of course);
The Soviet people became considerably freer from poverty than they had been.
Democracy was not instituted in th USSR (or not very fully anyway).

Now basically whether you judge him evil more or less hinges on whether you believe that that he was forced into unpleasant exigencies in order to defend the USSR from enemies without and subversives within.

And really on whether you believe Kruschev (who seemed to have no great problem working for Stalin while Stalin was alive; which kinda reveals Kruschev to have been at best a moral coward.

Under Stalin the USSR prospered (even if some within it did not) 40 years after Stalins death it ceased to exist.

Frankly the more I learn about Stalin the less convinced I become that he was truly the monster he has always been painted. Ruthless and practical and driven for sure; but evil ? hmmmm maybe not.

I used to wish Stalin should burn in hell for eternity. Right now I'd put him in a warm part of purgatory pending further investigation.

If Stalin had not had the spat with Lenin about a purely personal matter would us Socialist be quite so sure about condemning him? I think not.

The 'peace and love' communists among us always would of course; but I suspect some of them believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.


(Edited by sc4r at 9:14 pm on July 25, 2003)

[MikeyBoy]

All Russian revolutionaries had to ignore certain teachings of Marx to continue the revolution. A "communist" revolution in Russia was not supposed to happen.

Stalinism, was state capitalism. I do agree with that.

[elijahcraig]

It's pretty sickening that anyone would actually defend this man anymore.

Here's three articles on Stalin and his state capitalism:

http://www.marxists.de/statecap/binns/statecap.htm

http://www.marxists.de/statecap/harman/revlost.htm

http://www.isreview.org/issues/10/fall_of_...stalinism.shtml (http://www.isreview.org/issues/10/fall_of_stalinism.shtml)

[capitalistpigdog]

State capitalism?

I assume you mean state communism. Unless your refering to Stalin's NEP. That was somewhat capitalist. Nevertheless it was neccessary in boosting the Russian economy before bringing in the five year plans.

Anyway, I'm not communist. I consider the atrosities Stalin commited (the great purge, forced mass starvation, the murder of any political opposition etc. etc.) proof that communism doesn't work.

[elijahcraig]

Did you read the articles I posted, they'll explain what I mean by state capitalism.

[capitalistpigdog]

Im sorry, i posted without reading your latest post in the thread. Yes, I suppose stalinist Russia was closer to state capitilalism.

[Vinny Rafarino]

CPD,

If you want information on State Capitalism or Stalin Elijah is not a good source. I suggest browsing the internet or hitting a marxist site for this infomation. Elijah here is a poorly informed and undereducated new-left member that blatantly ignores historical fact and tries to play his lies as fact hopng no one will call him on it. Do not listen to him for his a merely a childish fool.

[elijahcraig]

RAF supports mass slaughter and purging thousands in executions. He is a historical revisionist and comparable to the nazi claiming the holocaust didn't happen. He's useless as far as Stalin goes.

Search Marxist sites, there's about TWO or so that take up for Stalin, the rest are pro-Trotsky or like Trotsky better. Marxists.org for example. Or In Defence of Marxism.

New Left? No. I'm not really a trot. I think he had great ideas, but that name has been hijacked by utopianists.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Quote: from elijahcraig on 4:29 am on July 27, 2003
RAF supports mass slaughter and purging thousands in executions. He is a historical revisionist and comparable to the nazi claiming the holocaust didn't happen. He's useless as far as Stalin goes.



Search Marxist sites, there's about TWO or so that take up for Stalin, the rest are pro-Trotsky or like Trotsky better. Marxists.org for example. Or In Defence of Marxism.

New Left? No. I'm not really a trot. I think he had great ideas, but that name has been hijacked by utopianists.



Proof Elijah. You still have yet to provide proof.

Please now provide proof that I have revised factual history.

You know absolutely nothing about socialism or communism. What does the new-left have to do with Trotsky? Some new-leftists may support him but the majority of them support lies and fallacies and are simple tools of capitalism.

[elijahcraig]

Proof Elijah. You still have yet to provide proof.

I have provided multiple sources, yet you have denounced them all as "western propaganda". Just as nazis deem anti-hitler sources "jewish propaganda".

Please now provide proof that I have revised factual history.

You assert that Stalin was not a murderous tyrant, which I have posted several links to showing his tyranny. Yet you have shouted "western propaganda". Your denials don't take the blood from the truth.

You know absolutely nothing about socialism or communism. What does the new-left have to do with Trotsky? Some new-leftists may support him but the majority of them support lies and fallacies and are simple tools of capitalism.

I'm not New Left. They are utopianists, so I agree. Trotsky was a true communist.

I know nothing of communism? Now you are assuming based on nothing more than a disagreement about Stalin. I've read most every text I can find. Including Stalin (of which I would have to say is very intelligent, though I don't stand behind it because of what he did in real life. I don't agree with his Trotsky propaganda obviously.). I'm reading "Capitalists and Revolution in Nicaragua: Opposition and Accomodation (1979-1993)" right now. Studies the place of the economic elite in Latin American revolutions. RAF, please don't assume these nonsensical things based on Stalin vs. Trotsky.

[Vinny Rafarino]

That was a very weak attempt looking smart in this thread. This fool here has accused ME of being a nazi. That's right folks ME. What a fucking idiot.

Once again, another dodge at providing empiricle proof.

How long are you going to dodge before you simply stop posting you silly child?

New-left, Trot....whatever. They are all traitors of the people and revolution.

[elijahcraig]

I've already explained I didn't mean that you were a nazi, I was comparing nazi revisionists to stalinist revisionists. They both deny mass murder occured.

Stop with the rhetoric RAF, "enemies of the people and revolution" blah blah blah.

Do you think ANYONE is going to want a communist revolution if you are carrying the tyrant (99% of everyone believes him to be) on your back? You will look like a nazi then.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Please provide empiricle proof that Stalin commited "mass murder"

[elijahcraig]

Let's move this to the "greatest man ever" thread. We're talking about the same thing in both places.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Three threads actually. Provide proof that Stalin murdered millions of people and it will all be over boy.

[elijahcraig]

Please explain to me what you feel Stalin did wrong.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Right. Another dodge.

[elijahcraig]

I'm not dodging, I've given you several links. You say "western propaganda". That doesn't change the facts: Stalin was a tyrannical murderer.