Off-topic, discussion on the nature of Stalinism [Archive]

Led Zeppelin

1st January 2009, 17:28

Yes the story condemns the way soviets tried to reach communism through marxist-leninist socialism.

No, Stalinism, not "marxist-leninist socialism".

I never said that life in the USSR was 'awesome' I said it was better than in czarist Russia, which even the most trotskyist agree too.

No Trotskyist would blame the working-class for waste problems inherent in the economic system and say that the workers were not exploited or oppressed by the Stalinist state-machinery like you have.

Orwell's criticism of Stalinism is very similar, if not exactly the same, as Trotsky's. You attacked Orwell's criticism and referred to it as "soviet bashing", "anti-communist" and so on, yet you try to argue as if Trotskyists would agree with you on that. No, that's absurd. Just come out and say openly that you disagree with the Trotskyist criticism of Stalinism, that you do not believe that the revolution was betrayed or degenerated (like Orwell and Trotsky) and that therefore you hate the story.

Guess what though; Orwell's entire point in writing that story was to piss people like you off, so I'm glad it does the job as good now as it did when it was written.

I am not a damn Stalinist. I have my own critique on the USSR in the Stalin era including the paranoid show trials, but you dont know that cause I have never discussed it here. The rest of your thread exist purely out of speculations which you assume that I have certain standpoints, which I don't. I just find that whole 'holier than thou' standpoint poor and simplistic.

My attitude is based on the fact that I am not a Stalinist like you are, so it makes sense for my attitude to be different than yours on that subject. If you want to consider that to be "holier than thou" you may do so, but then, I could do the same with yours since you display the same behavior, just from the opposite side.

And clearly you are a Stalinist, it's just that you prefer calling it "marxist-leninist socialism". That doesn't change the fact that you believe that the working-class was actually in power in the USSR, which is a joke, and which makes you a Stalinist, whether you like it or not. You may have your limited criticisms of the Stalinist model, but that doesn't change your support for the model in essence.

Das war einmal

1st January 2009, 18:35

Led Zeppelin

1st January 2009, 19:10

Dude you are a joke,

You're the guy saying that the USSR under Stalin was "marxist-leninist", not me.

marxism-leninism follows the works of Marx and Lenin, Stalin didnt add anything, nor do I give a shit about your or Orwells view on the entire matter cause it plays no role for todays struggle against capitalism.

Marxism-Leninism, if you want to understand it in the proper sense of the term, is based on the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, while of course also taking into the account the theoretical contributions of the Bolsheviks in general.

It has nothing to do with "socialism in one country", nor with a bureaucracy in power as opposed to a workers' democracy.

I find it funny though how you tried to pretend you weren't a Stalinist. I guess it is embarrassing, but still, it's better to be open about your views instead of trying to hide them in such a pathetic manner.

Instead of pissing me of, you are just making things more difficult for yourself.

Oh no, I didn't say I pissed you off (even though I'm sure I have), I was saying that Orwell pissed people like you (i.e., Stalinists) off with his story.

Obviously he succeeded given your attempts at slander and falsification of his story.

You are frustated and I am not impressed by your hollow arguments nor by your false attempts to brand me as a Stalinist. Whats the idea? Want to blame me and others for the mistakes that Stalin or his followers did? Go ahead, I dont care, I dont feel guilty at all. Know why, because I am proud of what marxist-leninist achieved against all odds. Stalin is just a thing of the past.

I don't brand you a Stalinist, you do so yourself, and it's becoming more and more obvious with every post you make.

Orwells work did not help the trots if you think he only served as another fine example of anticommunist propaganda, despite what he had hoped for. But go on with your simple view of what is good and evil and call people stalinist if they dont agree with your smiting. Easy as that

A person who says that the USSR was not Stalinist but "marxist-leninist" because Stalin "didn't add anything to marxism-leninism", i.e., who believes that marxism-leninism, i.e., the "theory of Marx and Lenin", was actually in power in the USSR under Stalin's rule, is a Stalinist.

Get real with everyone and yourself and just accept it. I know you don't like the term, but don't pretend that you actually share the same Marxist criticisms of Stalinism as we (i.e., Marxists) do, because no one's buying it.

You've derailed this thread though. I don't care about you being a Stalinist, you're irrelevant, and this thread isn't about you. Nor do I care about having a discussion on the nature of Stalinism, that's irrelevant, and this thread isn't about that.

So stop further derailing it.

Das war einmal

1st January 2009, 19:25

So now I am derailing the discussion? I am not falsely accusing someone of being something he is clearly not. I dont accept that term because its made up by frustrated and bitter persons like yourself annoyed that Stalin came to power and not Trotsky.

Stalin didnt make up new theories, so stalinism is fake. People like you call marxist-leninist stalinist because they simply dont agree with you or dont take part enough in the shamefull soviet bashing, so you just call them Stalinist and you dont need to make up any other arguments. Just ignore the fact that whites and fascist killed every attempt to export the revolution.

Let me just quote Michael Parenti on this one, its about anticommunist and their lackeys:

Communism

Many on the left continue to deliver impassioned and blanket condemnations of deceased communist countries, Parenti states. “Those of us who refused to join in the Soviet bashing were branded by left anti-communists as ‘Soviet apologists’ and ‘Stalinists,’ even if we disliked Stalin and his autocratic system of rule and believed there were things seriously wrong with existing Soviet society.” [19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Parenti#cite_note-blackshirts-18)
Parenti did in fact make a number of criticisms of the Soviet Union. In 1986 he wrote: "In the USSR there exist serious problems of labor productivity, industrialization, urbanization, bureaucracy, corruption, and alcoholism. There are production and distribution bottlenecks, plan failures, consumer scarcities, criminal abuses of power, suppression of dissidents, and expressions of alienation among some of the population."[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Parenti#cite_note-35)
More recently he wrote that the state-owned economies of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union suffered “fatal distortions in their development” because of the years of “embargo, invasion, devastating wars, and costly arms buildup; excessive bureaucratization and poor incentive systems; lack of administrative initiative and technological innovation; and a repressive political rule that allowed little critical expression and feedback while fostering stagnation and elitism.”[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Parenti#cite_note-contrary-5)
Parenti argues that “despite the well-publicized deficiencies, crimes, and injustices, there were positive features about existing communist systems that were worth preserving, such as the free medical care and human services; affordable food, fuel, transportation, and housing; universal literacy; gains in women’s rights; free education to the highest level of one’s ability; a guaranteed right to a job; free cultural and sporting events, and the like.”[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Parenti#cite_note-contrary-5) He supported Gorbachev’s campaign of perestroika and glasnost until 1990 when it became evident to him that the Gorbachev reforms were leading to the implantation of free-market capitalism and were, as he saw it, bringing hardships to the common people

Led Zeppelin

1st January 2009, 19:44

As you can see I split the thread to prevent the other one from becoming further derailed.

That is not to say that I am going to pursue this discussion. I'll probably just leave this as my last reply. If you want to go on arguing about how awesome Stalin was and how great those "peoples' republics" were you can do that with someone who actually cares enough.

So now I am derailing the discussion? I am not falsely accusing someone of being something he is clearly not. I dont accept that term because its made up by frustrated and bitter persons like yourself annoyed that Stalin came to power and not Trotsky.

Basically the entire anti-Stalinist movement is "frustrated and bitter" and "made up the term Stalinism"...and you wonder why no one takes people like you seriously.

No, the term Stalinism has a meaning, and I have explained that meaning several times now. You haven't bothered to reply to that because you can't, either because you lack the knowledge to do so or because you're unable to do so.

That's not a problem, but if your argument is that I invented that term and it doesn't really exist or mean anything, it's a rather poor one. Most Stalinists go beyond that and actually address the issues related to what the term means, that is, the definition of the term. Only the most backward ones stick with the "lol it doesn't exist you made it up lol" argument like you have.

Stalin didnt make up new theories, so stalinism is fake. People like you call marxist-leninist stalinist because they simply dont agree with you or dont take part enough in the shamefull soviet bashing, so you just call them Stalinist and you dont need to make up any other arguments.

So "Stalin didn't make up any new theories" (whatever that's supposed to mean), and "people like me call people Stalinists because we don't agree with them"....you never bothered to consider that we don't agree with them because of their theory, did you?

And to say that the theory and practice of the Communist/Bolshevik Party was the same under Lenin's leadership as it was under Stalin's shows that you don't know anything about the former period.

Just ignore the fact that whites and fascist killed every attempt to export the revolution.

Initially, yes. Then Stalinists "killed every attempt" to export the revolution, as is shown in the Comintern policy on Germany, Spain, China etc. etc.

Let me just quote Michael Parenti on this one, its about anticommunist and their lackeys:

I don't really care what Michael Parenti has to say about this subject, sorry.

Name-dropping doesn't work with me.

Das war einmal

1st January 2009, 21:07

This is getting ridiculous, maybe I havent made myself clear but there are a lot of factors in which I dont support Stalin, but I guess thats not enough for you.

I never said you invented the term, cause obviously, I heard this shit before. However you dont get the point. Stalin policies is not a new theory, he did not develop a new way of marxism or any political thought. Calling someone a stalinist is just a curse out of a frustrated people who think they know that they are better and everyone else is just wrong.

Marxist-leninists is the correct term, the majority of communist movements exist out of Marxist-leninists or marxist-leninists-maoists. They have connections with the workers and peasants and people like you dont. You cant see that your perfect ideology doesnt fit with reality and you cant relate discisions made in Stalins USSR to the conditions of that time. Thats your shortsightetness. I did not want to make it personal but you gave me no other choice. You're probably in some sectarian group who upholds these perfect ideals of what real marxism should look like. The problem is that you are so far away from every day live that you'll never be able to practice what you preach. Just simply wait for the world revolution that will never come and in the meantime critize everyone and every movement who really puts effort in realizing socialism

Das war einmal

1st January 2009, 21:09

and
I don't really care what Michael Parenti has to say about this subject, sorry.

Name-dropping doesn't work with me.

Yeah suppose you listen to a true scientist for once instead of someone who writes fables, you cant have that now can you?

Kassad

1st January 2009, 21:15

Dude you are a joke, marxism-leninism follows the works of Marx and Lenin, Stalin didnt add anything, nor do I give a shit about your or Orwells view on the entire matter cause it plays no role for todays struggle against capitalism.

Instead of pissing me of, you are just making things more difficult for yourself. You are frustated and I am not impressed by your hollow arguments nor by your false attempts to brand me as a Stalinist. Whats the idea? Want to blame me and others for the mistakes that Stalin or his followers did? Go ahead, I dont care, I dont feel guilty at all. Know why, because I am proud of what marxist-leninist achieved against all odds. Stalin is just a thing of the past.

Orwells work did not help the trots if you think he only served as another fine example of anticommunist propaganda, despite what he had hoped for. But go on with your simple view of what is good and evil and call people stalinist if they dont agree with your smiting. Easy as that

Um, what? Stalin didn't add anything... except he was the ruler of the first Marxist-Leninist experiment (subsequent to the title's development). Stalin contributed significantly to issues like the national question and he contributed greatly to the development of the vanguard party ideology. Whether or not you agree, he contributed. You're ignoring history by claiming to the contrary.

Well, let's make this simple for everyone. Do you think Stalin's killings were justified? Do you object to the 'cult of personality' created around him through propaganda? Do you object to his Five Year Plan and its results? Let's stop jumping around and just answer some questions.

Panda Tse Tung

1st January 2009, 21:18

Stalin contributed significantly to issues like the national question and he contributed greatly to the development of the vanguard party ideology. Whether or not you agree, he contributed. You're ignoring history by claiming to the contrary.

So you are claiming that these contributions are so significant that it composes a wholly new ideology?

Kassad

1st January 2009, 21:21

So you are claiming that these contributions are so significant that it composes a wholly new ideology?

No. His contributions advanced Marxism-Leninism.

Das war einmal

1st January 2009, 21:24

Um, what? Stalin didn't add anything... except he was the ruler of the first Marxist-Leninist experiment (subsequent to the title's development). Stalin contributed significantly to issues like the national question and he contributed greatly to the development of the vanguard party ideology. Whether or not you agree, he contributed. You're ignoring history by claiming to the contrary.

Well, let's make this simple for everyone. Do you think Stalin's killings were justified? Do you object to the 'cult of personality' created around him through propaganda? Do you object to his Five Year Plan and its results? Let's stop jumping around and just answer some questions.

He did not really add something to the marxist-leninist theory. He kept on to the learning of that, but much of his policies where the results of internal and external problems, which if I had not made clear enough, arent all justified.

Under the Stalin era lots of innocents where killed. So they are not justified.

I object the cult of personality, I can understand that it worked in such way, but it was far out of proportion.

I do believe in the planned economy and I think it was necessary and provided the Soviet Union with the conditions to destroy the fascist forces.

Kassad

1st January 2009, 21:27

He did not really add something to the marxist-leninist theory. He kept on to the learning of that, but much of his policies where the results of internal and external problems, which if I had not made clear enough, arent all justified.

Under the Stalin era lots of innocents where killed. So they are not justified.

I object the cult of personality, I can understand that it worked in such way, but it was far out of proportion.

I do believe in the planned economy and I think it was necessary and provided the Soviet Union with the conditions to destroy the fascist forces.

Okay, well, you just sound like a Marxist-Leninist to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Das war einmal

1st January 2009, 21:31

To Ledzeps opinion we are clearly Stalinist, because we dont take part enough in condemning the soviet union even if it was way better than Russia nowadays and a stong blow to the communist movement and progressive nations all over the world when it fell

Panda Tse Tung

1st January 2009, 21:31

No. His contributions advanced Marxism-Leninism.

Well you can say that about a lot of people. Even non-Marxist Leninists.

The problem was that LZ labelled him a Stalinist, which only purpose is to try and discredit the other person and push him in a certain corner. It's similar to the way American politicans label anyone they dont like a Communist or how Wilders labels Morrocon street-youth 'street-terrorists'.

Kassad

1st January 2009, 21:36

Would we have rather had Stalin not industrialize the nation and watch Hitler's armies march across the entire Soviet Union? Frankly, if it hadn't been for pressing Western colonialism and threats, Stalin would not have had to industrialize in such a manner. Either way, that's just playing the 'what if' game, but I don't see why people insist on calling Marxist-Leninists Stalinists. Most of us are critical of Stalin's mistreatment of the working class and his paranoid delusions which caused him to ruthlessly murder a vast amount of citizens of the Soviet Union. I mean, what else do you expect from us? Maybe if I said Stalin was a swell guy and his killings were totally justified, then you could call me a Stalinist, but until then, you've got little ground to stand on.

Sasha

1st January 2009, 21:38

Marxist-leninists is the correct term, the majority of communist movements exist out of Marxist-leninists or marxist-leninists-maoists. They have connections with the workers and peasants and people like you dont. You cant see that your perfect ideology doesnt fit with reality and you cant relate discisions made in Stalins USSR to the conditions of that time. Thats your shortsightetness. I did not want to make it personal but you gave me no other choice. You're probably in some sectarian group who upholds these perfect ideals of what real marxism should look like. The problem is that you are so far away from every day live that you'll never be able to practice what you preach. Just simply wait for the world revolution that will never come and in the meantime critize everyone and every movement who really puts effort in realizing socialism

oooh, the i'm more prol than you atack..... and you acuse others of lame tactics?
redtool:laugh: (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tool) what a fitting name you have chosen for yourself.

but then again, i'm of the opinion that given the chance lev bronstein would probily have been only a litle bit less of an utter bastard than loseb jughashvili so maybe i just should stay out of this one.

Panda Tse Tung

1st January 2009, 21:55

oooh, the i'm more prol than you atack..... and you acuse others of lame tactics?

Actually, he did not state such a thing anywhere in his post. He merely stated that the Trotskyite movement is insignificant (as it is, with perhaps the exception of France since the CPF is eurocommunist that is not so odd). Whereas Marxist-Leninist and Maoist movements have been succesfull, and have factually build socialism and building support for it. Whilst Trotskyite movements we're merely *****ing on how these forms of progress weren't perfect. Well fuck 'em, we dont need them.
Thats not being more prole, but factually standing a chance. Irrelevant of the fact if someone is even factually a prole or not.

Led Zeppelin

1st January 2009, 22:12

Marxist-leninists is the correct term, the majority of communist movements exist out of Marxist-leninists or marxist-leninists-maoists.

Prove this claim with facts rather than delusions that exist in your head.

They have connections with the workers and peasants and people like you dont.

I'm sure you have a lot of connections with workers and peasants at your Uni gatherings.

You cant see that your perfect ideology doesnt fit with reality and you cant relate discisions made in Stalins USSR to the conditions of that time. Thats your shortsightetness.

The critique of Stalinism has nothing to do with having a "perfect theory", it has to do with having a Marxist theory, something that you are unable to comprehend.

I did not want to make it personal but you gave me no other choice.

If you want to make it even more personal than this you are free to do so, but I promise you that you'll come out at the losing end.

You're probably in some sectarian group who upholds these perfect ideals of what real marxism should look like.

I'm not in any organization at the moment.

You were in the main Communist party if I'm not mistaken, which is connected to the Workers' Party of Belgium, who's former "leader" wrote the book "Another View of Stalin", which is a defense of Stalinism comparable to the works of Holocaust deniers.

There you go.

The problem is that you are so far away from every day live that you'll never be able to practice what you preach.

How can a person be "far away from every day live", exactly? Or is that meant to be a classist attack? Because if that's the case, I would like to know how a middle-class/upper middle-class person like yourself is somehow "closer to evey day life" than someone who's living on the bare minimum financially?

Or was just the typical load of hot air coming from Uni students who play at being rrrrrrevolutionary?

Just simply wait for the world revolution that will never come and in the meantime critize everyone and every movement who really puts effort in realizing socialism

I'm a Marxist because I believe a world revolution will come. If you don't because you're not, that's fine, but I don't really care to be honest.

Now if you want to talk about serious political activity, let's talk about it. What have you done personally in terms of political activity in the past year, and I'll let you know what I have done, and we'll compare and see who's done more, because obviously that's the type of pissing-contest that you want to play.

You'll lose it, no doubt, and that's why I'll play along with it.

EDIT: Just thought I'd reply to this gem as well:

Yeah suppose you listen to a true scientist for once instead of someone who writes fables, you cant have that now can you?

This is such an idiotic argument that I can't even believe you made it while seriously believing it to be good.

I can quote "a true scientist" saying the exact opposite of what you quoted, and then go on to say that because it is written "by a true scientist" it is correct, thereby using your own logic to refute your argument.

Of course I know better than that.

Whereas Marxist-Leninist and Maoist movements have been succesfull, and have factually build socialism

[...]

Thats not being more prole, but factually standing a chance. Irrelevant of the fact if someone is even factually a prole or not.

You don't really know what "factually" means, do you?

Don't use terms you don't know the meaning of, especially not so often in a single post.

I mean, what else do you expect from us? Maybe if I said Stalin was a swell guy and his killings were totally justified, then you could call me a Stalinist, but until then, you've got little ground to stand on.

You're being a bit ridiculous here, while I don't believe you don't intend to be.

You seem to be a smart critical thinking person, so tell me, how do you think those killings, the cult of personality, etc. happened if the system wasn't flawed? If you want to look at the matter in a Marxist method, you would see the underlying factors which caused those things. To blame it all on one person, that is, Stalin, or perhaps blame it all on one aspect of one person, his "paranoia" or whatever, is not scientific.

So if the system was flawed, while having some positive aspects (yes, the industralization was good, yes, the fundamentals of the economic system was good though lacking workers' democracy, etc.) you have to oppose that system itself, while not opposing those positive aspects (which were the result of the initial revolution).

To ignore all the flaws and focus on the positives, and consider those positives to be the main part of the system, is wrong, and history has proven this with the further degeneration of the system and its eventual collapse.

Panda Tse Tung

2nd January 2009, 12:31

You don't really know what "factually" means, do you?

Don't use terms you don't know the meaning of, especially not so often in a single post.

Thats really a horrible strawmen. I could have even done better, and i seldomly set any up (contrary to you).

fac·tu·aladj.1. Of the nature of fact; real.
2. Of or containing facts.

fachttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.giftu·alhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifi·ty n.
fachttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.giftu·al·ly adv.
fachttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.giftu·al·ness n.

Now this problem seems to be settled you can response.

Led Zeppelin

2nd January 2009, 13:49

Thats really a horrible strawmen. I could have even done better, and i seldomly set any up (contrary to you).

The only reason you don't set up any strawmen is because you're too stupid to collect enough straw for the purpose.

I'll let you figure out how that analogy works.

Now this problem seems to be settled you can response.

The "problem" isn't settled, nor do I have any interest in responding to someone who believes that "the USSR factually build [sic] socialism". Only the worst of the worst Stalinists actually believe that, and by worst I mean the most backward and uneducated ones.

Arguing with people like you, which I have done in the past by the way, is the most effective way of losing brain-cells, and I'd rather like to keep mine, or lose them drinking alcohol; at least then I'd get a buzz out of it.

Das war einmal

2nd January 2009, 14:02

Prove this claim with facts rather than delusions that exist in your head.

Well thats not so hard, just check the list of communist parties worldwide and you'll see that the majority exist out of marxist-leninist rather than trotskyist movements

I'm sure you have a lot of connections with workers and peasants at your Uni gatherings.I'm glad you think so.

The critique of Stalinism has nothing to do with having a "perfect theory", it has to do with having a Marxist theory, something that you are unable to comprehend.But Stalinism isnt a theory at all, you just cant comprehend the fact that you're dealing with legitimate marxists.

If you want to make it even more personal than this you are free to do so, but I promise you that you'll come out at the losing end.I didnt, you're the one who is branding everyone in this forum without any background to base this upon.

I'm not in any organization at the moment.

You were in the main Communist party if I'm not mistaken, which is connected to the Workers' Party of Belgium, who's former "leader" wrote the book "Another View of Stalin", which is a defense of Stalinism comparable to the works of Holocaust deniers.

There you go.Riiiiiight...so that was really an argument? I'm in a party that is connected to another party who's former leader wrote a book, which I havent even read, that, to your opinion (for what its worth) is some sort of 'stalinist holocaust denial', your point being? The intellectual property of one who I have no direct relation to makes me a 'stalinist holocaust denier"?

How can a person be "far away from every day live", exactly? Or is that meant to be a classist attack? Because if that's the case, I would like to know how a middle-class/upper middle-class person like yourself is somehow "closer to evey day life" than someone who's living on the bare minimum financially?I guess you dont understand that point either, its my critism towards something that I view as a utopean version of marxism. You take it personal. I don't even know what your social status was untill know, nor does it make any difference.

Or was just the typical load of hot air coming from Uni students who play at being rrrrrrevolutionary? Whats make you think I am a student? Maybe I work at a factory, who knows? In fact I work and study at the same time, but does it matter? Is the opinion of a student worthless? What do you have against students anyway?

I'm a Marxist because I believe a world revolution will come. If you don't because you're not, that's fine, but I don't really care to be honest.I dont because its not realistic, not its supposed to be 'true to the learnings of Marx', maybe you're new to this but the teachings of Marx aren't a dogma.

Now if you want to talk about serious political activity, let's talk about it. What have you done personally in terms of political activity in the past year, and I'll let you know what I have done, and we'll compare and see who's done more, because obviously that's the type of pissing-contest that you want to play.

You'll lose it, no doubt, and that's why I'll play along with it.Well there you go again, with your assumptions. I don't want no silly ego contest, but you just start branding people at random. Next to that you do nothing but assuming and judging people with no knowledge of what their ideas are or anything. Ironically enough you yourself look more like a 'stalinist', with your false accusations and your egotripping. Why dont you just start by judging yourself, for starters, ask yourself the question why you're not in an organisation at the moment, is it because you couldnt find one that fits your discription of a genuine 'marxist' movement? Just curious. Instead of giving examples of what should make me a 'stalinist', you only giving examples how shortsighted you are.

EDIT: Just thought I'd reply to this gem as well:

This is such an idiotic argument that I can't even believe you made it while seriously believing it to be good.

I can quote "a true scientist" saying the exact opposite of what you quoted, and then go on to say that because it is written "by a true scientist" it is correct, thereby using your own logic to refute your argument.

Of course I know better than that.Parenti is a political scientist, who in contrary to Orwell, used the marxist method to look at socialist society's and gave it a fair trial. His conclusions are based on facts and therefore his word weighs a lot more than that of Orwell.

Das war einmal

2nd January 2009, 14:17

oooh, the i'm more prol than you atack..... and you acuse others of lame tactics?
redtool:laugh: (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tool) what a fitting name you have chosen for yourself.

That is great fun, actually the description you link to is #5, one of my favorite bands and the red, well, guess you can sort that out yourself, but seeing as you dont understand what my post was about, I'll just tell you, its the color of the communist movement. Now you know where my name is based upon, still you're free to interpretate the way you want to.

Panda Tse Tung

2nd January 2009, 14:31

The only reason you don't set up any strawmen is because you're too stupid to collect enough straw for the purpose.Your really trying to be a stereotypical Trotskyite on purpose dont you?
I mean seriously, you do weak attempts at insulting people (rather then arguing them), call other people stupid because obviously you are so intellectually superior. This all blended with some pseudo-intellectual nonsense makes, indeed: the stereotypical Trot.

PS. There's a reason the only people i've seen this far who've disabled reputation we're Trots.

2nd January 2009, 14:35

Well thats not so hard, just check the list of communist parties worldwide and you'll see that the majority exist out of marxist-leninist rather than trotskyist movements

If you want to play this game then we could say that bourgeois democracy is the most correct because bourgeois democratic parties are the largest and "most effective".

This whole "we're right because there's more of us" argument is completely pointless to who is actually right. So please, stay on topic and stop straying off to meaningless absurdities such as this.

But Stalinism isnt a theory at all, you just cant comprehend the fact that you're dealing with legitimate marxists.

Stalinism contains a completely different world view (ideology) than Marxism or "Leninism". Stalin in his writings and the CPSU in their analysis and practice departed in many ways from Marxism.

Here's an interesting one for you to ponder: If Stalinism isn't a distinct ideology, and that you are going to argue that stalinism doesn't exist on this basis, then how can you rail against Trotskyism as a politically distinct ideology without becoming a hypocrite?:rolleyes:

Riiiiiight...so that was really an argument? I'm in a party that is connected to another party who's former leader wrote a book, which I havent even read, that, to your opinion (for what its worth) is some sort of 'stalinist holocaust denial', your point being? The intellectual property of one who I have no direct relation to makes me a 'stalinist holocaust denier"?

You're spouting basically the same crap that he is, so yes, you are directly related through your approach and your fundamental outlook.

Panda Tse Tung

2nd January 2009, 14:43

I feel like srsly getting involved now, cause some points just ticked my auto-response brain-trigger.

Here's an interesting one for you to ponder: If Stalinism isn't a distinct ideology, and that you are going to argue that stalinism doesn't exist on this basis, then how can you rail against Trotskyism as a politically distinct ideology without becoming a hypocrite?Because Trotsky has fundamentally neglected and added things to the 'Leninist' ideology which do contribute to a wholly new ideology. For example the principle of Permanent Revolution, the militarization of the working place and other points.

You were in the main Communist party if I'm not mistaken, which is connected to the Workers' Party of Belgium, who's former "leader" wrote the book "Another View of Stalin", which is a defense of Stalinism comparable to the works of Holocaust deniers.First of all, that is extremely indirect and not all party's in the ICS are pro-Stalin (neither are all individuals).
Second of all, you can not compare another view of Stalin to holocaust denial. That way you might as well link any form of historical revisionism to holocaust denial. It's (again) an extremely weak strawmen. You have read the book, so you know what sources are used. They are mostly capitalist and fascist sources, and on the amount of victims and that kind off stuff you can rely on the soviet-archives. Or are you going to deny that the archives are correct and that the MI5 agent Robert Conquest is correct?

This whole "we're right because there's more of us" argument is completely pointless to who is actually right. So please, stay on topic and stop straying off to meaningless absurdities such as this.

Well, lets see basically 95% of the discussion if we get past the whole 'Leninism VS left-communism' and 'Trotskyism VS Stalinism' crap, is about gaining as much support as possible in support of Socialism. So you might as well agree that the ones who have been the most succesfull at gaining support this far are t3h 3v1l Slatinists. So there must be something we're doing right, and your doing wrong.

Led Zeppelin

2nd January 2009, 14:54

Well thats not so hard, just check the list of communist parties worldwide and you'll see that the majority exist out of marxist-leninist rather than trotskyist movements

Provide a source saying that the majority of communists are "Marxist-Leninist" of the pro-Stalin type.

If you can't do that, which I know you can't, you may continue to believe in your delusion, but we'll ignore it.

I'm glad you think so.

Sarcasm is a good concept to grasp.

But Stalinism isnt a theory at all, you just cant comprehend the fact that you're dealing with legitimate marxists.

Not really.

Wow, cool, I can just say say something without backing it up too. It's so easy and time-saving to do that instead of actually thinking of arguments and backing them up with facts!

No wonder you do it so often.

I didnt, you're the one who is branding everyone in this forum without any background to base this upon.

You didn't make this personal, even after saying that you did?

Here, I'll quote you; "I did not want to make it personal but you gave me no other choice."

If you can't even remember what you wrote yourself this is pretty much a lost cause for you, so I'd give it up.

Riiiiiight...so that was really an argument? I'm in a party that is connected to another party who's former leader wrote a book, which I havent even read, that, to your opinion (for what its worth) is some sort of 'stalinist holocaust denial', your point being? The intellectual property of one who I have no direct relation to makes me a 'stalinist holocaust denier"?

Oh, so you're still in that party which is officially pro-Stalin, then?

I did not know that, but thank you for providing more evidence of you being a Stalinist.

By the way, Mao Chi X is also a member of that party, which is why he's thrown himself into this thread. You can tell from him "Trotskyite", "USSR rulez!! lol" comments that he's a typical Stalinist, so that's a sample of what kind of members that party consists of.

I guess you dont understand that point either, its my critism towards something that I view as a utopean version of marxism. You take it personal. I don't even know what your social status was untill know, nor does it make any difference.

I can't read your mind and even if I could I wouldn't want to. So next time you write something make it so that it is understandable and clear, it would prevent a lot of misconceptions.

I wasn't sure exactly what you meant by what you wrote, which is why I said "if you did mean that...", but I'm glad you didn't mean it in the way that I thought you did, because that would be pretty absurd and petty.

Whats make you think I am a student? Maybe I work at a factory, who knows? In fact I work and study at the same time, but does it matter? Is the opinion of a student worthless? What do you have against students anyway?

I'm a student myself, so your trying to turn the personality politics back on me fails once again.

I was just pointing out that if you did want to use personality politics of the classist type, you'd lose out compared to me and my situation. Not any other students. Not Uni students in general.

Just you, because you'd be the one trying to use that as an attack on me while not being in the position to do so.

I dont because its not realistic, not its supposed to be 'true to the learnings of Marx', maybe you're new to this but the teachings of Marx aren't a dogma.

Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, all believed that eventually a world revolution would prevail.

The fact that you do not even know or agree with this basic aspect of Marxist theory proves not only that you don't know anything about communist theory in general, but don't even know anything about "Marxist-Leninist" theory, which is what you are attempting to defend.

That's poor form.

Well there you go again, with your assumptions. I don't want no silly ego contest, but you just start branding people at random. Next to that you do nothing but assuming and judging people with no knowledge of what their ideas are or anything. Ironically enough you yourself look more like a 'stalinist', with your false accusations and your egotripping.

I didn't brand you a Stalinist, you did by your posts.

Sorry you can't accept that.

Why dont you just start by judging yourself, for starters, ask yourself the question why you're not in an organisation at the moment, is it because you couldnt find one that fits your discription of a genuine 'marxist' movement?

Unlike you I don't join parties or organizations because they have the word "communist" in their name, though I have in the past.

I am actually in an organization which is far from being "a genuine Marxist movement", but it actually gets shit done on a local level. The fact that I am in that organization is because of that. Again, so ironically, your attack on me is exactly the opposite of what is actually the case.

You really shouldn't try to insult me with such lame attempts because it keeps coming back at you.

Just curious. Instead of giving examples of what should make me a 'stalinist', you only giving examples how shortsighted you are.

Again, you gave the examples, not me. And you keep giving them with every post you make.

Parenti is a political scientist, who in contrary to Orwell, used the marxist method to look at socialist society's and gave it a fair trial. His conclusions are based on facts and therefore his word weighs a lot more than that of Orwell.

Yeah? Really? What about Trotsky then?

Did he "use the Marxist method to look at socialist societies and give it a fair trial"? Or is he also one of those people who you don't consider to be "political scientists" because they don't happen to agree with your particular delusions?

Because if that's the case, as I suspect it to be, you're a hypocrite and quite a ridiculous one at that.

Das war einmal

2nd January 2009, 14:57

If you want to play this game then we could say that bourgeois democracy is the most correct because bourgeois democratic parties are the largest and "most effective".

This whole "we're right because there's more of us" argument is completely pointless to who is actually right. So please, stay on topic and stop straying off to meaningless absurdities such as this.

I forgot to mention that every serious attempt for actually practicing an alternative for capitalism is done by marxist- leninist

Stalinism contains a completely different world view (ideology) than Marxism or "Leninism". Stalin in his writings and the CPSU in their analysis and practice departed in many ways from Marxism.

Stalin was referring in his writings constantly to the teachings of Marx and Lenin. Much of the actions taken under the rule of Stalin where planned by Lenin.

Here's an interesting one for you to ponder: If Stalinism isn't a distinct ideology, and that you are going to argue that stalinism doesn't exist on this basis, then how can you rail against Trotskyism as a politically distinct ideology without becoming a hypocrite?:rolleyes:

You call yourself a Trotskyist. Trotsky organised the fourth international, Stalin didn't but the actions taken by that government where ideologicallly based upon the third international.

You're spouting basically the same crap that he is, so yes, you are directly related through your approach and your fundamental outlook.

This is so out of place, I cant believe what I'm reading. Thats the same lame-ass argument as telling vegetarians they are nazi's because hitler was a vegetarian aswell.

Led Zeppelin

2nd January 2009, 15:07

You call yourself a Trotskyist.

Oh, I see, so it's based on what you call yourself.

Your arguments are becoming more and more pathetic with every post.

I suppose then when the Left-Opposition called themselves Bolshevik-Leninists they were "good" but turned bad when their followers switched to "Trotskyists", huh? I'm sure that doesn't apply to Maoists though, right? Because you like them too.

You're a joke.

Trotsky organised the fourth international, Stalin didn't but the actions taken by that government where ideologicallly based upon the third international.

Stalin abolished the third international, and to say that the policy of the Comintern was the same in the Stalin period as it was under the Lenin period betrays an ignorance of that period on your part.

You're not even well-informed enough to make good arguments from your side. I have no idea why you still go on posting here. It's probably a form of masochism.

2nd January 2009, 15:23

Because Trotsky has fundamentally neglected and added things to the 'Leninist' ideology which do contribute to a wholly new ideology. For example the principle of Permanent Revolution, the militarization of the working place and other points.

So the fundamental disagreement here is about who has moved away from Marxism to a distinct ideology in itself. Perhaps you can explain, then, how Stalin's view on the national question is similar/identical to Lenin's and Marx's, for example.

Well, lets see basically 95% of the discussion if we get past the whole 'Leninism VS left-communism' and 'Trotskyism VS Stalinism' crap, is about gaining as much support as possible in support of Socialism. So you might as well agree that the ones who have been the most succesfull at gaining support this far are t3h 3v1l Slatinists. So there must be something we're doing right, and your doing wrong.

You respond to what I say by basically repeating what I've already responded to. It is much easier to gain support if you are a bourgeois democratic party; perhaps we should start spouting bourgeois democracy? Opportunism is easier to gain people, so why should we even have an ideology if it limits our ability to gain support?:rolleyes:

So you're basically saying here "so what if we're opportunist?"

I forgot to mention that every serious attempt for actually practicing an alternative for capitalism is done by marxist- leninist

See above.

This is so out of place, I cant believe what I'm reading. Thats the same lame-ass argument as telling vegetarians they are nazi's because hitler was a vegetarian aswell.

No, it's the same as telling vegetarians that they are vegetarians because they are vegetarians.

Sound stupid? Then maybe you shouldn't argue such crap.

Panda Tse Tung

2nd January 2009, 15:47

So the fundamental disagreement here is about who has moved away from Marxism to a distinct ideology in itself. Perhaps you can explain, then, how Stalin's view on the national question is similar/identical to Lenin's and Marx's, for example.

Uhm, he wrote 'Marxism and the national question' with the direct approval of Lenin perhaps?
And Marx i dont know, but thats not relevant. Throw away the old, and gain the new. But this is not what Stalin did, in his time i can understand there was no extremely relevant 'old' so thus also no 'new'.

You respond to what I say by basically repeating what I've already responded to. It is much easier to gain support if you are a bourgeois democratic party; perhaps we should start spouting bourgeois democracy? Opportunism is easier to gain people, so why should we even have an ideology if it limits our ability to gain support?

No, i'm talking about strategies of gaining power. For example you Trots have been trying out 'entryism', you dont do it for the lulzz i assume?
Everybody who is serious about his politics will try and figure out methods to gain more support, that has absolutely nothing to do with opportunism but with common sense.
And even irrelevant of this whole in my opinion the 'brutal Stalinists' have always been far more principles then the vast majority of the Trotskyite movement.

Kassad

2nd January 2009, 15:50

You're being a bit ridiculous here, while I don't believe you don't intend to be.

You seem to be a smart critical thinking person, so tell me, how do you think those killings, the cult of personality, etc. happened if the system wasn't flawed? If you want to look at the matter in a Marxist method, you would see the underlying factors which caused those things. To blame it all on one person, that is, Stalin, or perhaps blame it all on one aspect of one person, his "paranoia" or whatever, is not scientific.

So if the system was flawed, while having some positive aspects (yes, the industralization was good, yes, the fundamentals of the economic system was good though lacking workers' democracy, etc.) you have to oppose that system itself, while not opposing those positive aspects (which were the result of the initial revolution).

To ignore all the flaws and focus on the positives, and consider those positives to be the main part of the system, is wrong, and history has proven this with the further degeneration of the system and its eventual collapse.

Again, you're putting words into my mouth that fit your convenience. I didn't say there were not problems. Stalin's cult of personality was totally contrary to Lenin's transitional phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which Stalin never even attempted to promote. Stalin was also severely mentally ill, due to early trauma in his childhood. I don't give him a 'get out of jail free' card just because of that, but it was a significant contributor to his killings. Though his killings were sadistic and terrible, it is still plausible to say that without Stalin's hyper-industrialization, the Soviet Union would have been completely decimated by Hitler's army. Instead, thanks to Stalin's military strategy and industrialization, the Union was able to fight Hitler back.

You're not going to see me advocate a Stalin-style system. I said this before. Stalin did multiple good things for the Soviet Union, while also causing many negative things. He advanced Marxism-Leninism with many of his ideas and was involved in the first true experiment of Marxism-Leninism; bearing that title, at least. Is this saying I adore that system or that Stalin is clean? No. Stalin was, often times, an enemy of the working class and an enemy of the revolution and that is shown by his failure to pass down power to the workers in the form of radical workers democracy, which would eventually dissolve the state. Unless you associate the term Marxism-Leninism 100% with Stalin's reign, which it isn't, then I don't see where your arguments are coming from.

2nd January 2009, 16:00

Uhm, he wrote 'Marxism and the national question' with the direct approval of Lenin perhaps?

Which isn't what I was talking about at all. Stalin's later works directly contradict what he wrote in this work, and what Lenin's position on the matter was.

No, i'm talking about strategies of gaining power. For example you Trots have been trying out 'entryism', you dont do it for the lulzz i assume?
Everybody who is serious about his politics will try and figure out methods to gain more support, that has absolutely nothing to do with opportunism but with common sense.
And even irrelevant of this whole in my opinion the 'brutal Stalinists' have always been far more principles then the vast majority of the Trotskyite movement.

I don't know what you're talking about here, but what I'm saying is that this isn't a cockshow, so stop swinging around your ideological junk, because nobody wants to see it and it's pointless. The "more popular than thou" argument is pointless, which is what I was pointing out.

Panda Tse Tung

2nd January 2009, 16:23

Which isn't what I was talking about at all. Stalin's later works directly contradict what he wrote in this work, and what Lenin's position on the matter was.In what ways did he? And in what way would these things constitute a wholly new ideology?

I don't know what you're talking about here, but what I'm saying is that this isn't a cockshow, so stop swinging around your ideological junk, because nobody wants to see it and it's pointless. The "more popular than thou" argument is pointless, which is what I was pointing out.It's simple: someone starts bragging about his cock, i tag along.
And the 'more popular then thou' argument does have a point. For the inherent difference between Trotskyites and 'Stalinists' is ideological (as in: both strive for Socialism, at the very least theoretically), but either of these two ideologies is more popular then the other. Since the former Socialist states are easy to smear you would suspect that the Trotskyite movement would be more popular. Still it is not, so would that not mean there is some sort of a problem/error within the Trotskyite movement which causes this shit?
(That one sentence is far more fundamental then a cock-show is all i'm trying to say.)

Revolutionary-Socialist

5th January 2009, 09:38

Led Zeppelin and KC are entirely in the right.

Stalinism is not revolutionary in any sense.

Panda Tse Tung

5th January 2009, 13:31

Led Zeppelin and KC are entirely in the right.

Stalinism is not revolutionary in any sense.

Thank you for your brilliant contribution.

StalinFanboy

6th January 2009, 01:27

Your really trying to be a stereotypical Trotskyite on purpose dont you?
I mean seriously, you do weak attempts at insulting people (rather then arguing them), call other people stupid because obviously you are so intellectually superior. This all blended with some pseudo-intellectual nonsense makes, indeed: the stereotypical Trot.

The irony in this post makes me laugh. So hard.

Die Neue Zeit

10th January 2009, 07:17

Panda Tse Tung

11th January 2009, 16:39

At its heart, the nature of "anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism" (and the key to its rapid "TINA" economic growth - "TINA" in reference to the supposed Trotskyist "alternative") is one of "socialist primitive accumulation." Whatever came afterwards was plain old "bureaucratic socialism."

If you would not be making up your own words then i might just be able to understand WTH your talking about, and you might actually get people to agree with you. For the articles of you i did understand i often found pretty good.
But this is nonsensical.

Die Neue Zeit

12th January 2009, 01:41

If you would not be making up your own words then i might just be able to understand WTH your talking about, and you might actually get people to agree with you. For the articles of you i did understand i often found pretty good.
But this is nonsensical.

My apologies. "Socialist primitive accumulation" was conceived as a response to the Scissors Crisis, and was the economic regime in place until key reforms by Khrushchev at the time of the "Secret Speech" (minimum wage laws, housing construction, etc.):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scissor_crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Preobrazhensky

JimmyJazz

12th January 2009, 02:13

Would we have rather had Stalin not industrialize the nation and watch Hitler's armies march across the entire Soviet Union?

How you answer this question has no bearing on whether the Stalin-era USSR was socialist. Trots and Stalinists (I maintain fairness by calling both groups by their non-preferred name) are always talking at each other but rarely ever having the same debate.

redguard2009

12th January 2009, 08:08

Really, if you want to use their non-preferred names, you'd use tankies for Stalinists and Trotskyites for Trots.

Anyway, I'll chime in with my ill-timed opinion. I believe socialism existed to a degree in the Soviet Union under Stalin. I also believe that Stalin played a large part in setting the foundation for the eventual degredation of the Soviet Union into a beauraucracy.

For socialism, I'll give the following examples. Factories in the Soviet Union were largely co-operative between workers and the state. The state owned all factories, while workers largely managed themselves, deciding on managerial and overseeing positions, determining work hours (to a degree), production figures (to a degree), and so on, though the state sometimes maintained the influence to make "authoritative suggestions" -- going so far as penalizing factories for inefficient or slow work but not so far as sending in government officials to directly oversee production and floor management. Despite this, individual factories had a lot of autonomy from the state, designing and producing their own commodities to sell. During the Second World War, many factories developed their own wartime design teams to design, experiment, and produce new designs or improve on old ones. However, final approval for starting production rested with the state.

During the siege of Leningrad, many factories -- those that weren't destroyed -- remained fully operational under complete autonomy with absolutely no interference from the state. Although during the siege their access to vital materials and resources were limited, they played an important role in producing interim fighting tools and machines and helping keep local Red Army units supplied with essential war material. Because of the conditions of the siege, pay for these workers was essentially non-existent so that most of the work of these proletarians was on a completely voluntary basis, as they refused to evacuate and instead chose to stay.

In the Red Army itself, there were efforts to maintain some of the socialist virtues established in the Soviet Union's early days. Pay grades between different ranks varied only slightly, and many officer and NCO positions were decided upon by each unit. This changed during the war, with the Red Army adopting a more western-like structure, with the officer corps becoming more detached from the soldiers, increased in pay bonuses and benefits for officers who began being selected from a top-down approach (these reforms were an effort to increase the efficiency of the army by offering benefits to those with outstanding leadership qualities).

Peasants, too, had some semblence of socialist autonomy, though Stalin has been criticized (by the "peasant-minded Mao", for one) for his less-than-kind treatment of the peasant issue.

But there did exist faults. In the upper echelons of the party and army, the development of "career" officers and politicians was developed. This invariably birthed the "bureaucratic" class as the top spots in the party and army became more and more restrictive.

Overall, it's impossible to say whether Stalin was a positive or negative influence on the development of the USSR. In essence, things could have been a lot better, but also a lot worse.

Cumannach

13th January 2009, 23:15

Overall, it's impossible to say whether Stalin was a positive or negative influence on the development of the USSR. In essence, things could have been a lot better, but also a lot worse.

I think Stalin quite clearly had an enormous positive influence.

You just have to look at the state of the Soviet Union when Stalin came to the leadership, and look again at the state of it when Stalin died.

The only question then is, if it hadn't been for Stalin would the Soviet Union and the world revolution have progressed even further than it did.

Well perhaps or perhaps not. You can just as validly ask; if it hadn't been for Marx and Engels, would someone else have done a better job of developing socialist thought and theory and so on.

As to the question of Stalin creating the corrupt bureaucracy, you can just as easily look at it in a different way- was Stalin the cause of the opportunist bureaucracy that set in after his death or was he the one who had held it at bay and purged it from all positions of infuence while he lived?

davidasearles

14th January 2009, 01:34

From the thread title: The Nature of Stalinism.

Can an "ism" have a nature?

apathy maybe

14th January 2009, 09:57

Really, if you want to use their non-preferred names, you'd use tankies for Stalinists and Trotskyites for Trots.
To call Stalinists "tankies" is just damn silly. Stalin was dead when the tanks were sent into Eastern Europe.

Anyway, I'll chime in with my ill-timed opinion. I believe socialism existed to a degree in the Soviet Union under Stalin. I also believe that Stalin played a large part in setting the foundation for the eventual degredation of the Soviet Union into a beauraucracy.
Define "socialism". Socialism is about equality, not hierarchy. Where people in the Communist Party have a much better chance of getting positions in the government, and where their children go to better schools, I would argue that you have a hard time say it is "socialist".

You do give examples, but using equally valid examples, I could argue that Sweden is socialist... (During WW2, the highest paid person in society, was not paid more than four times the lowest paid worker.)

Overall, it's impossible to say whether Stalin was a positive or negative influence on the development of the USSR. In essence, things could have been a lot better, but also a lot worse.
It is impossible to prove that Stalin was positive or negative, however, we can guess. Based on what happened during the time he was number one, the USSR did certain things. If he wasn't number one, the direction would have been different. I would guess, that Stalin wasn't the worst person that could have happened to the USSR, but he certainly wasn't the best. Who would have been worse? We can't know. Overall though, I would guess that Stalin was a negative influence on socialism actually developing in the USSR. (The worship of the father figure didn't help at all.)

Black Sheep

16th January 2009, 19:10

Apathy Maybe:

If he wasn't number one, the direction would have been different
according to marxism, individuals play a little role in the development of material change.

But since this sounds like a gospel, did the CPSU vote for the general secretary?

rararoadrunner

30th January 2009, 09:03

Comrades:

I have a take on "Leninism" which begins by noting that, just as Marx abjured the term "Marxism" (I prefer the term "Scientific Socialism"), Lenin abhorred any "Leninism:" the first usage was in Stalin's "Foundations of Leninism," published on the occasion of the "Lenin Enrolement" which was a defining moment in Stalin's seizure of the CPSU.

I did a report on "Foundations of Leninism" in an undergraduate course I took in the late 1970s (yeah, I've really been at it that long): in it, I noted that, while Lenin's work always emphasised the continuity between his work and that of Marx and Engels, "Foundations of Leninism" begins by differentiating Lenin from Marx and Engels, hence reversing the direction of Lenin's theses.

This is why, despite a great appreciation of Lenin, I am very wary of "Leninism," which usually proves to be repackaged Stalinism: once again, I prefer the usage "scientific socialism," of which I've been a student all my adult life.

Let me conclude this by setting off the firecracker here I did over at the "Stalinism as State Capitalism" discussion, wielding Occam's Razor on the concepts "Moribund Socialism" (Trotsky), "Socialism in One Country" (Stalin), "State Capitalism" (help me out here on its original author)...leaving the concept Fascism as that which best captures Stalinism...again, far from minimising the heroic struggles of the Soviet peoples against Nazism, this puts those struggles in an extremely tragic light: yes, I mean to draw the fire of the Stalinists, and you shall know them by their characteristic responses; yes, I stand ready for them. Once again, I'm always open to criticism (I'm actually trying to provoke it), never to misrepresentation, and, having lain a few traps here, I eagerly await my prey...honest critics, fear not! Crypto-fascists, be very afraid indeed: I intend to draw your Fascism right out of the crypt for one all to see and know...let there be light!

Rousedruminations

9th February 2009, 19:36

This is my view on Stalin. His paranoid delusions and fettered behavior with party magnets who gained further acclaim within the party led to his purges of his own party members, thus, indicating a need to cling on to power and a possible subversion by other party members. Any opposition within his own party was handled by forced and persecution. The same can be said with Mao. I am adamant here, that it is incorrect to use such measures within the communist party of old Russia, the Soviet Union.

So a radical shift in democratizing the party was needed at that time which he of course, thwarted. This brought utmost veneration and praise for him by the people called Stalinism. After all it is the proletariat, the state that governs the country, not personal power, which runs contrary to the beliefs of Marxism.

Anyway, we should however admire the revolutionary ideals, of marxism and Leninism that he stood for, which of course i also advocate. I am also convinced that.the threat of Nazi germany and hitler provided an impetus for him to drastically industrialize the country funded by and through the collectivisation of farming and agriculture. So he on this part cannot be the scapegoat, for the circumstances at the time, required him to react like a ' Mad dog' as his succesor put it.