no damn point in talking about stalinism

[Black Sheep]

having spend some time reading this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/off-topic-discussion-t98314/index.html

i have reached the conclusion that there is no damn point in talking about 'stalinism'.
In USSR there was a revolution, and there are different opinions regarding HISTORY, on what actually happened there.

The truth is one,objective.Either it was a workers' democracy or it was not.
I do not know,because personally, it eventually comes down to believing if it was or it wasn't, both sides provide sources

supporting their claims,and i do not know what the fuck i am supposed to believe.

The POINT is that no communist supports a 'stalinist' sytem of organization and governance,meaning a dictatorship of the communist

party, a ruling bureaucratic clique, etc.If someone does that,then he/she should be Fing banned from here, and be ashamed calling

himself a communist.

No need for hatred,fights and sectarianism, because we are talking about history.

[Pogue]

having spend some time reading this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/off-topic-discussion-t98314/index.html

i have reached the conclusion that there is no damn point in talking about 'stalinism'.
In USSR there was a revolution, and there are different opinions regarding HISTORY, on what actually happened there.

The truth is one,objective.Either it was a workers' democracy or it was not.
I do not know,because personally, it eventually comes down to believing if it was or it wasn't, both sides provide sources

supporting their claims,and i do not know what the fuck i am supposed to believe.

The POINT is that no communist supports a 'stalinist' sytem of organization and governance,meaning a dictatorship of the communist

party, a ruling bureaucratic clique, etc.If someone does that,then he/she should be Fing banned from here, and be ashamed calling

himself a communist.

No need for hatred,fights and sectarianism, because we are talking about history.

I agree Stalinists should not be on this forum because they don't support a socialist society and their ideas of revolution are very different from those of genuine society. However, using a staunch denial of history and distortion and twisitng of facts they somehow manage to defend their slavish hero-worshipping of the 'strong man' that was Uncle Joe and the big tough system he implemented. In 50 years or so they'll be forgotten.

[Black Sheep]

Completely missed my point.
When i say stalinists i mean it in the sense of supporters of what the anti-stalinists accuse them of.

The people you call stalinists do not support that,they do not support a ruling clique and they are not against workers' democracy.
They say that it didnt happened that way.they have a different view on the historical events.

Of course, the historical events cannot be subjective, or we are all idealist kindergarten attendants.One group is right, and the other group is wrong.

But we all are pro-working class, with just a dispute of what actually happened in Stalin's era in the USSR.

[Pogue]

Your point wasn't made very clearly, you didn't structure it well with poor grammar throughout but regardless, the I think anyone who defends the USSR once Stalin took over (and indeed against Kronstadt) is a muppet and a bit of a confused 'revolutionary socialist'.

[Cumannach]

I agree Stalinists should not be on this forum because they don't support a socialist society and their ideas of revolution are very different from those of genuine society. However, using a staunch denial of history and distortion and twisitng of facts they somehow manage to defend their slavish hero-worshipping of the 'strong man' that was Uncle Joe and the big tough system he implemented. In 50 years or so they'll be forgotten.

I think anti-Stalininists shouldn't be on this forum because they're unable to distinguish between capitalist propaganda and historical facts. Their ideas of revolution are very different from those that have been shown to work all throughout the 20th century and are also very different from those of 'genuine society'.

By simply ignoring and making up facts they always manage to walk hand in hand with their bourgeois companions, mindlessly and loudly demonising Stalin.

[Yehuda Stern]

Sure, ignoring terrible mistakes made in history is the best way to not repeat them.

[Pogue]

I think anti-Stalininists shouldn't be on this forum because they're unable to distinguish between capitalist propaganda and historical facts. Their ideas of revolution are very different from those that have been shown to work all throughout the 20th century and are also very different from those of 'genuine society'.

By simply ignoring and making up facts they always manage to walk hand in hand with their bourgeois companions, mindlessly and loudly demonising Stalin.

LMAO, ok, the revolutionary left forum will ban Trotskyists, Left Communists, Anarchists, etc so only people who support Stalin are allowed to post, because being critical of a dictator who killed many communists workers and carried out ethnic cleansing is the same as walking side by side with the bourgeoisie. :lol: You have to love people who buy into the shit of worshipping dictators because they're too dense to see that if you kill communists and workers and implement anti-semitic policies, you're probably not a communist.

Do I even have to go on to mention the crushing of the revolutionary movement in Spain and working alongside fascists?

You're a doghnut my tankie friend.

[Kassad]

For an advocate of freedom of speech, you sure seem to be pretty opposed to letting people speak their mind. If a Stalinist came onto these forums and could partake in a civilized discussion with proper respect paid to those opposing them, I see no reason to ban them. Now, in all honesty, most of the ones we see come on here act immature and they should be restricted/banned, but let's judge this on a case-by-case basis.

[Pogue]

For an advocate of freedom of speech, you sure seem to be pretty opposed to letting people speak their mind. If a Stalinist came onto these forums and could partake in a civilized discussion with proper respect paid to those opposing them, I see no reason to ban them. Now, in all honesty, most of the ones we see come on here act immature and they should be restricted/banned, but let's judge this on a case-by-case basis.

My ideas on freedom of speech are in line with the boards policy on restricting members with opposing ideologies. I consider supporters of Stalin and the USSR to be opposed to the revolutionary left and working class.

[Kassad]

My ideas on freedom of speech are in line with the boards policy on restricting members with opposing ideologies. I consider supporters of Stalin and the USSR to be opposed to the revolutionary left and working class.

I agree completely, but where do some people draw the line? Some people could say Maoists are under the same category, along with Hoxhaists. I don't see anything wrong with showing respect and seeing that respect is returned in kind.

[JimmyJazz]

Your point wasn't made very clearly

It was clear to me, and clear that you missed it.

I agree with the OP that studying history should not mean dividing ourselves primarily up on the basis of it. Much of the debate over the tactics of Lenin and Stalin seems to come down to a disgreement over whether what they did was necessary or not. I think we can come to a lot of agreement today over what we would ideally like to build: let's argue over what is necessary when we get there.


For an advocate of freedom of speech, you sure seem to be pretty opposed to letting people speak their mind.

That's a recurring theme with some "libertarian" leftists on this board (I use quotes to indicate that the word doesn't really refer to them, not that the word is meaningless).

There was another thread in which some supposed anarchist was calling for the banning or otherwise silencing of DPRK defenders.

[rednordman]

Completely missed my point.
When i say stalinists i mean it in the sense of supporters of what the anti-stalinists accuse them of.

The people you call stalinists do not support that,they do not support a ruling clique and they are not against workers' democracy.
They say that it didnt happened that way.they have a different view on the historical events.

Of course, the historical events cannot be subjective, or we are all idealist kindergarten attendants.One group is right, and the other group is wrong.

But we all are pro-working class, with just a dispute of what actually happened in Stalin's era in the USSR. Its not really as simple as that though. Don't get me wrong here, if they actually think that his great terror was a good thing, then they are totally wrong, but sometimes it good to hear what these people have to say, if only to try and come to conclusions as to why they see things the way the do.
The problem with history is that it has been twisted and turned so much to suit different nations that it actually is hard to know what is fact and what is fiction nowadays. I mean if you look at things, a British person is generally taught to believe that they had the most influence in WW2, whereas some Americans have claimed that they (USA) had the most influence, yet both play down the USSR,s role in it (how i dont know), yet i'm very sure that in Russia nowadays they probably believe that they had the most important role. How do you determine the truth? they all played a very big role. This is biggest example i can think of and the same thing applies to alot of other events in history.
The problem with Stalin is that there are a lot of things that he did that you cannot justify, but there will always be people who will contest this history or take a different viewpoint. It happens at every end of the political spectrum.

[Decolonize The Left]

Its not really as simple as that though. Don't get me wrong here, if they actually think that his great terror was a good thing, then they are totally wrong, but sometimes it good to hear what these people have to say, if only to try and come to conclusions as to why they see things the way the do.
The problem with history is that it has been twisted and turned so much to suit different nations that it actually is hard to know what is fact and what is fiction nowadays. I mean if you look at things, a British person is generally taught to believe that they had the most influence in WW2, whereas some Americans have claimed that they (USA) had the most influence, yet both play down the USSR,s role in it (how i dont know), yet i'm very sure that in Russia nowadays they probably believe that they had the most important role. How do you determine the truth? they all played a very big role. This is biggest example i can think of and the same thing applies to alot of other events in history.
The problem with Stalin is that there are a lot of things that he did that you cannot justify, but there will always be people who will contest this history or take a different viewpoint. It happens at every end of the political spectrum.

This is true, but the underlying point is that Stalin was a mass murderer of working class people. Even if we leave the antisemitism and other highly questionable aspects of his rule aside, we simply cannot attempt to logically associate the two together (i.e. to be a Stalinist).

- August

[Black Sheep]

the underlying point is that Stalin was a mass murderer of working class people.
But again,such a claim is debatable by stalinist's sources.


The problem with history is that it has been twisted and turned so much to suit different nations that it actually is hard to know what is fact and what is fiction nowadays.
Exactly.Since you cannot find out the objective truth, you keep on trying to find it,but in the meantime you do not fight with others who have reached a different conclusion, because you are both subjective.

YS

Sure, ignoring terrible mistakes made in history is the best way to not repeat them.
Those terrible mistakes are your (not personally your, you understand what i mean) own subjective conclusion over a fact that is controversial of how,why,if it happened.

HLVS

Your point wasn't made very clearly, you didn't structure it well with poor grammar throughout but regardless, the I think anyone who defends the USSR once Stalin took over (and indeed against Kronstadt) is a muppet and a bit of a confused 'revolutionary socialist'.Jesus, ok dont bite. I am not really talking about stalinism and antistalinism, i am talking about history.Stalinism is an example.
Regarding controversial views of history,you cannot go ahead and punch teeth down the throats of people who disagree with you.They may be wrong,and you may be wrong.Both sides have brought forth evidence and sources, the one side rejects them as bourgeoisie propaganda, the other side rejects them as party propaganda.

0 progress.

but AGAIN,the fighting is pointless,because anti-revisionists today, do believe that USSR under Stalin was a workers' democray, AND the important thing is that since they believe that, they aim for a workers democracy too,not a dictatorship of the party (which is what anti-stalinists believe was happening THEN).

And HLVS, that is why a stalinist is your COMRADE.

[Skin_HeadBanger]

I think anti-Stalininists shouldn't be on this forum because they're unable to distinguish between capitalist propaganda and historical facts. Their ideas of revolution are very different from those that have been shown to work all throughout the 20th century and are also very different from those of 'genuine society'.

By simply ignoring and making up facts they always manage to walk hand in hand with their bourgeois companions, mindlessly and loudly demonising Stalin.


Stalin was just as bad as any right wing dictator. Not everything is a vast and intricate right-wing conspiracy to cover shit up.

Dictator=Dictator in my book.

That said, Bulk Sheep, I agree 100% with the original post.

[Tower of Bebel]

There's no damn point in talking about anarchism either.

For an advocate of freedom of speech, you sure seem to be pretty opposed to letting people speak their mind. If a Stalinist came onto these forums and could partake in a civilized discussion with proper respect paid to those opposing them, I see no reason to ban them. Now, in all honesty, most of the ones we see come on here act immature and they should be restricted/banned, but let's judge this on a case-by-case basis.
There is no freedom of speech on this forum. That's a fact. Certain people are allowed to post freely while others are removed or restricted. In the past Stalinists were restricted.

[Black Sheep]

In the past Stalinists were restricted.
Define Stalinists.If someone thought that all the stuff according to "stalin's crimes" was bourgeoisie propaganda he was to be restricted?

[apathy maybe]

What was meant by "Stalinists are restricted", was something like, if you think that Stalin was the man, and that he did good by gutting the army, signing up with Germany to split Poland, crushing all opposition to him, the whole "Stalin is a our father", and the other imperialism (Finland, and other parts of Eastern Europe), then you aren't a comrade of ours, so fuck you.

People who say, Stalin was a man of his times, and there wasn't really and crushing of opposition, because everyone loved him, and the bureaucracy didn't have anything to do with the whole father thing, and people spontaneously set up statues to Stalin in the occupied countries, and they weren't really occupied, because the people wanted the USSR there, etc. Well those people are fucking deluded in my opinion, but they don't think that Stalin was an evil monster, as opposed to the first sort which support the evil monster.

[Black Sheep]

AM:

What was meant by "Stalinists are restricted", was something like, if you think that Stalin was the man, and that he did good by gutting the army, signing up with Germany to split Poland, crushing all opposition to him, the whole "Stalin is a our father", and the other imperialism (Finland, and other parts of Eastern Europe), then you aren't a comrade of ours, so fuck you.

People who say, Stalin was a man of his times, and there wasn't really and crushing of opposition, because everyone loved him, and the bureaucracy didn't have anything to do with the whole father thing, and people spontaneously set up statues to Stalin in the occupied countries, and they weren't really occupied, because the people wanted the USSR there, etc. Well those people are fucking deluded in my opinion, but they don't think that Stalin was an evil monster, as opposed to the first sort which support the evil monster.
Yeah, i think the 1sts should be restricted, for undermining the whole point of workers' democracy.
The 2nds just have a different view of history.Either you are wrong or they are.

[Kassad]

There's no damn point in talking about anarchism either.

There is no freedom of speech on this forum. That's a fact. Certain people are allowed to post freely while others are removed or restricted. In the past Stalinists were restricted.

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? We're massive advocates of free speech and liberty, yet we'd repress the speech of someone trying to have a friendly discussion? Do you not see the irony and the flaw in this argument? Err, or maybe you're being sarcastic and agreeing with me. Hard to tell.

And do tell me what constitutes a Stalinist because I have been called that on here on multiple occasions and multiple times in real life, due to the fact that I subscribe to Marxism-Leninism. Who's going to decide what Stalinism means?

We should practice what we preach. If a Stalinist can come in here and be civil, I don't see a problem with him. Still, not my decision.

[Woland]

And? I'm a Marxist-Leninist with a different view on some parts of history, mainly because I study a lot of history and I have different sources to look at besides the usual ones. Whatever you might think of me, its your opinion, but this is who I am. Have I ever been called a stalinist? No, but I somehow have been called not a communist by those who know nothing of my ideology, those who somehow manage to get it into their heads that I would somehow want a dictator and a bureucracy and whatnot.

I completely agree with bulk sheep.

[Kassad]

And? I'm a Marxist-Leninist with a different view on some parts of history, mainly because I study a lot of history and I have different sources to look at besides the usual ones. Whatever you might think of me, its your opinion, but this is who I am. Have I ever been called a stalinist? No, but I somehow have been called not a communist by those who know nothing of my ideology, those who somehow manage to get it into their heads that I would somehow want a dictator and a bureucracy and whatnot.

I completely agree with bulk sheep.

Well, I don't sympathize too much with Stalin, but I do like to poke people's buttons by saying "If Stalin hadn't prepared the military and industrialized, Hitler's forces would have easily conquered the Soviet Union, thus causing many more deaths than Stalin did." It's always fun to watch people scrable to react to that one.

Still, I can't believe you've never been called a Stalinist before. I've been called 'not a true communist' before as well. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

[Yehuda Stern]

Those terrible mistakes are your (not personally your, you understand what i mean) own subjective conclusion over a fact that is controversial of how,why,if it happened.

Neo-Nazis say the same about the holocaust. I say that denying horrors so clearly proven true by historical record is monstrous - there's nothing subjective about my judgement of Stalin (although my judgement of why it happened is more unique).

[apathy maybe]

Well, I don't sympathize too much with Stalin, but I do like to poke people's buttons by saying "If Stalin hadn't prepared the military and industrialized, Hitler's forces would have easily conquered the Soviet Union, thus causing many more deaths than Stalin did." It's always fun to watch people scrable to react to that one.

Still, I can't believe you've never been called a Stalinist before. I've been called 'not a true communist' before as well. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
Responded with, if Stalin hadn't had most of the military top brass killed off, there wouldn't have needed to be so much military preparation...

Most of the industrialisation was well under way by 1927 when Stalin become the effective "sole leader", and he can't be credited for it all. Indeed, the ground work for this was laid from at least 1918, and I'm sure it would have continued regardless of who was in power...

[Cumannach]

Most of the industrialisation was well under way by 1927 when Stalin become the effective "sole leader", and he can't be credited for it all. Indeed, the ground work for this was laid from at least 1918, and I'm sure it would have continued regardless of who was in power...

Can you provide any evidence with sources to support that unusual claim?

[Pogue]

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? We're massive advocates of free speech and liberty, yet we'd repress the speech of someone trying to have a friendly discussion? Do you not see the irony and the flaw in this argument? Err, or maybe you're being sarcastic and agreeing with me. Hard to tell.

And do tell me what constitutes a Stalinist because I have been called that on here on multiple occasions and multiple times in real life, due to the fact that I subscribe to Marxism-Leninism. Who's going to decide what Stalinism means?

We should practice what we preach. If a Stalinist can come in here and be civil, I don't see a problem with him. Still, not my decision.

This is a forum for revolutionary leftists, on the internet. If you're not revolutionary leftist you're not welcome here, we don't want your stuff on this board and so we'll restrict or ban you. There snothing wrong with that - theres plenty of places for non-revolutionary leftists to go, they don't have to come here, this is our space.

The board doesn't consider 'Hoxhaists' or 'anti-revisionist Marxist Leninists' not to be revolutionary socialists, but I do. They supported regimes which were not socialist but actively anti-socialist, and their society isn't socialism.

[Woland]

The board doesn't consider 'Hoxhaists' or 'anti-revisionist Marxist Leninists' not to be revolutionary socialists, but I do.

You do! This is your personal opinion, one which I personally couldnt care less about! I consider you to be a complete anti-communist and this is my personal opinion, but I'm not saying it all the time because if one claims to be a communist, you cannot just tell that person that he isnt one based on that his views somehow differ from yours, if one is an anarchist and the other one a leninist current of Marxism, in non-historical discussion! Its just petty name-calling! Do you deny that the revolution happened in these countries, and that they were made by the proletariat? I consider myself a Marxist and I 'follow the doctrine of Marxism', and you do not know me better than I know myself.

Someone please lock this already, this thread just proved that the title is completely correct.

[Pogue]

You do! This is your personal opinion, one which I personally couldnt care less about! I consider you to be a complete anti-communist and this is my personal opinion, but I'm not saying it all the time because if one claims to be a communist, you cannot just tell that person that he isnt one based on that his views somehow differ from yours, if one is an anarchist and the other one a leninist current of Marxism, in non-historical discussion! Its just petty name-calling! I consider myself a Marxist and I 'follow the doctrine of Marxism', and you do not know me better than I know myself.

Someone please lock this already, this thread just proved that the title is completely correct.

Thanks for hilighting the obvious. I clearly stated its my opinion, which is equal in importance to yours. Hence why I distinguished between my opinion and board policy.

Were you saying I was anti-communist just as an example, or do you genuinely believe that? I'd be interested to know why.

In fact, if you genuinely believe that, would you be willing to have a formal debate with me in the debate section of the forum, comrade?

[Wanted Man]

This is a forum for revolutionary leftists, on the internet. If you're not revolutionary leftist you're not welcome here, we don't want your stuff on this board and so we'll restrict or ban you. There snothing wrong with that - theres plenty of places for non-revolutionary leftists to go, they don't have to come here, this is our space.

The board doesn't consider 'Hoxhaists' or 'anti-revisionist Marxist Leninists' not to be revolutionary socialists, but I do. They supported regimes which were not socialist but actively anti-socialist, and their society isn't socialism.
Lol, "we", "our space"? Who do you think you are? Some "stalinists" are mods or CC members on this board. Whereas you can't get into the CC because of your gross liberalism.

So speak for yourself.

[Woland]

Were you saying I was anti-communist just as an example, or do you genuinely believe that? I'd be interested to know why.

In fact, if you genuinely believe that, would you be willing to have a formal debate with me in the debate section of the forum, comrade?

Look, I wouldnt be surprised, at all, if most Anarchists considered Marxist-Leninists not to be real communists, just as most Marxist-Leninists probably consider the anarchists not to be real communists. But as I said, if one describes his/her ideology as Marxism, you just have to respect that. History is based on opinions too, but as long as there are facts, points can be admitted or refuted and the point brought further to truth. So yes, I would like a debate with you about some -historic achievement-.

[Black Sheep]

Again,the point missed.Let's make up some vocabulary:

Stalinist = someone who considers the USSR at stalin's time to be a workers' democracy, considering the killings etc as bourgeoisie/revisionist/trotskyist propaganda.
Thus,I consider Stalinists as comrades,because they aim for socialism.

Now,the matter of whether they are right and whether a state-socialism transitional period can ensure democratic worker control is different.

Stalintard (aka leader-worshiping /power mongering fuck) = someone who accepts the negative stuff said about Stalin,supports them and propagandizes them.
I consider Stalintards as worthy as pig shit.Obviously not comrades, and restrict-worthy.

[Cumannach]

Again,the point missed.Let's make up some vocabulary:

Stalinist = someone who considers the USSR at stalin's time to be a workers' democracy, considering the killings etc as bourgeoisie/revisionist/trotskyist propaganda.
Thus,I consider Stalinists as comrades,because they aim for socialism.

Now,the matter of whether they are right and whether a state-socialism transitional period can ensure democratic worker control is different.

Stalintard (aka leader-worshiping /power mongering fuck) = someone who accepts the negative stuff said about Stalin,supports them and propagandizes them.
I consider Stalintards as worthy as pig shit.Obviously not comrades, and restrict-worthy.

I agree with you on all this comrade- but I can't say I've ever met a 'Stalintard'. But that doesn't matter.

[Black Sheep]

The problem is that so many times anti-Stalintards consider Stalinists to be Stalintards.

Even Stalinists are anti-Stalintards, and all leftists should be.But to be an anti-Stalinist it's like being anti-anarchist or anti-trotskyist or anti-maoist, which doesnt make much sense.

(see? with that new vocabulary points are being made easily:D)

[Woland]

Again,the point missed.Let's make up some vocabulary:

Stalinist = someone who considers the USSR at stalin's time to be a workers' democracy, considering the killings etc as bourgeoisie/revisionist/trotskyist propaganda.
Thus,I consider Stalinists as comrades,because they aim for socialism.

Now,the matter of whether they are right and whether a state-socialism transitional period can ensure democratic worker control is different.

Stalintard (aka leader-worshiping /power mongering fuck) = someone who accepts the negative stuff said about Stalin,supports them and propagandizes them.
I consider Stalintards as worthy as pig shit.Obviously not comrades, and restrict-worthy.

Stalinists admit that mistakes were made.

Anyway, ''Stalintards'' usually are banned, mostly because most of them are kind of insane, fascist types.

[Pogue]

Lol, "we", "our space"? Who do you think you are? Some "stalinists" are mods or CC members on this board. Whereas you can't get into the CC because of your gross liberalism.

So speak for yourself.

You misunderstand the first part of my post, because when I said 'you' I referred to capitalists, the fash, etc.

In regards to the second part, if you think I am a liberal, please propose a debate in the debate suggestions forums and we can let everyone else deicide that. If you don't want to start the debate I will and you can accept it. I see no reaosn why you'd not accept this debate if you're so certain. If you can prove I am a liberal, then I will request to be restricted by the board. No one has taken me up on this debate to date though, even though many people have called me a liberal or a follow of liberalism.

Talk the talk, walk the walk, etc.

[revolution inaction]

The problem is that so many times anti-Stalintards consider Stalinists to be Stalintards.

Even Stalinists are anti-Stalintards, and all leftists should be.But to be an anti-Stalinist it's like being anti-anarchist or anti-trotskyist or anti-maoist, which doesnt make much sense.

(see? with that new vocabulary points are being made easily:D)

I'm anti maoist, trotskyist, stalinist and a lot of what gets called anarchism, because what ever they claim to be aiming for there methods are not compatible with achieving communism.

[Tower of Bebel]

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? We're massive advocates of free speech and liberty, yet we'd repress the speech of someone trying to have a friendly discussion? Do you not see the irony and the flaw in this argument? Err, or maybe you're being sarcastic and agreeing with me. Hard to tell.

And do tell me what constitutes a Stalinist because I have been called that on here on multiple occasions and multiple times in real life, due to the fact that I subscribe to Marxism-Leninism. Who's going to decide what Stalinism means?

We should practice what we preach. If a Stalinist can come in here and be civil, I don't see a problem with him. Still, not my decision.
I'll make it clear, but I don't want to derail this thread.

1. Those who question the (revolutionary) emancipation of the working class without distinction of sex and race are restricted (which means that for example those who oppose abortion are also restricted). Fascists, trolls and all sorts of spies are automatically banned.

There is no free speech on this forum. There is however almost complete free speech on the internet.

2. Stalinists are/were restricted (in the past) according to certain criteria as described by apathy maybe.

3. The CC decides who's an "evil stalinist" and who's not. This is done through a discussion of 10 days of which at least 7 are devoted to a poll.

To some this may seem dictatorial, authoritarian or even fascist, but this is one of the few boards that allows hundreds of members to debate on policies and the administrative side of board. Moderators and admins are elected (except for the owner). Definitions (such like stalinism) and arguments are tested and debated in such a way that for most of the time a reasonable and accepted policy is agreed on. Those who disagree can always start new threads to counter early decisions.

[rednordman]

Again,the point missed.Let's make up some vocabulary:

Stalinist = someone who considers the USSR at stalin's time to be a workers' democracy, considering the killings etc as bourgeoisie/revisionist/trotskyist propaganda.
Thus,I consider Stalinists as comrades,because they aim for socialism.

Now,the matter of whether they are right and whether a state-socialism transitional period can ensure democratic worker control is different.

Stalintard (aka leader-worshiping /power mongering fuck) = someone who accepts the negative stuff said about Stalin,supports them and propagandizes them.
I consider Stalintards as worthy as pig shit.Obviously not comrades, and restrict-worthy.
mmm..this i agree with totally. As said by other posters in response, i have also never really come across a stalintard, but am sure they exist somewhere.
I know that it can be tiring when stalinists accuss alot of the accusations against stalin as being 'trotskyist lies, and Bourgouis properganda', but i am also sure that some of the things that people in the west have been told about the old soviet union, especially during the cold war, were indeed fabrications. Mind you are the people who support some aspects (not the hostile stuff) of the old soviet union still considered stalinist?

[Kassad]

I'll make it clear, but I don't want to derail this thread.

1. Those who question the (revolutionary) emancipation of the working class without distinction of sex and race are restricted (which means that for example those who oppose abortion are also restricted). Fascists, trolls and all sorts of spies are automatically banned.

There is no free speech on this forum. There is however almost complete free speech on the internet.

2. Stalinists are/were restricted (in the past) according to certain criteria as described by apathy maybe.

3. The CC decides who's an "evil stalinist" and who's not. This is done through a discussion of 10 days of which at least 7 are devoted to a poll.

To some this may seem dictatorial, authoritarian or even fascist, but this is one of the few boards that allows hundreds of members to debate on policies and the administrative side of board. Moderators and admins are elected (except for the owner). Definitions (such like stalinism) and arguments are tested and debated in such a way that for most of the time a reasonable and accepted policy is agreed on. Those who disagree can always start new threads to counter early decisions.

Okay, thank you. I wasn't aware of some of that. All I will say is that I hope the Commie Club take into account the respectul nature of some of our dissenters, like Stalinists. It appears they do, so it's a non-issue in my eyes.

[Prairie Fire]

Someone must have missed me to make this thread.

Very well; you have incurred the red goddess of wrath.

Bulk sheep:


i have reached the conclusion that there is no damn point in talking about 'stalinism'.



Well, I appreciate that you put 'Stalinism' in quotations, and I would appreciate a lull in the amount of trollish "Stalin= Evil" threads, but for different reasons than are motivating your decision here.

I would disagree that there is no point in talking about it; there is a lot of merit to discussing the ideology, but not repetative parroting of flimsy anti-Stalin one liners that origniated with the Third Reich/CIA/Kruschev secret speech.


The truth is one,objective.Either it was a workers' democracy or it was not.
I do not know,because personally, it eventually comes down to believing if it was or it wasn't, both sides provide sources

True, but outlooks on the nature of the Stalin USSR are not simply a matter of "agree to disagree". There are objective facts and evidence, and denying them is not a valid point of view, just willful ignorance.

Also, in my experience, the anti-Stalin ideologues rarely provide sources; instead, they provide emotional one-liners, liberally peppered with catch phrases like "Bureacracy", "degenerated workers state", "state capitalist", or even the occasional "fascist" :rolleyes:.


i do not know what the fuck i am supposed to believe

At least that is a good start.


The POINT is that no communist supports a 'stalinist' sytem of organization and governance,

Um, actually millions of workers on all continents (except antarctica) have supported this system, even before Stalin in the time of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

If these people are not communists in your eyes, I think that perhaps the problem is on your end, comrade.



meaning a dictatorship of the communist party, a ruling bureaucratic clique, etc.


I'm gonna disregard the obligatory use of of the word 'bureaucratic' ( I have yet to hear a naive idealist explain to me a practicle program of combatting bureaucracy, or suggest measures thate were not taken in the USSR ,circa 1924-1954),
and I'm going to ask you some questions:

1. How do you plan to carry on the suppression of the bourgeoisie post revolution, without the Dictatorship of the Proletariat as a class?

2. Why do you make a distinction between the communist party and the workers and oppressed peoples?

3. How do you hope to even get to revolution, without a strong vanguard party?

Now, I'm not saying that what you're talking about didn't happen in the USSR, but not during the period of J.V. Stalin as general secretary.


If someone does that,then he/she should be Fing banned from here,

How about you try debating us instead of purging elements that you can't beat in an argument. You might learn a few things in the process. ;)


and be ashamed calling himself a communist.

:lol:Sanctamonious, much?
I know, I know, every new commie is thinks that they are the new Lenin, the judge and jury of what is and is not "genuine" socialism, based on what they learned in social studies.

But, what's this?...



No need for hatred,fights and sectarianism,


:lol:.

Anyone who is a student of J.V. Stalin should be banned from revleft and ashamed of themselves, but no need for sectarianism! :rolleyes:


because we are talking about history

Forming sentence compounds that revolve around the term "Bureacracy", and quoting death tolls and alleged attrocities like a mantra are not really historical discussion, and that is (unfortunately) usually the extend of discussions of the CPSU and the USSR during Stalins time as Gensek.


Completely missed my point.
When i say stalinists i mean it in the sense of supporters of what the anti-stalinists accuse them of.


So, your point is that Brezhnevites/"Tankies" should be restricted from the board?

Even that, I don't agree with. They are erroneous, but they should be able to struggle ideologically with the rest of us.


The people you call stalinists do not support that,they do not support a ruling clique and they are not against workers' democracy.

At least you recognize that much.


They say that it didnt happened that way.they have a different view on the historical events.

Yes, in contradiction to the official (bourgeois) version of events.


Of course, the historical events cannot be subjective, or we are all idealist kindergarten attendants

Well actually, they are subjective, but from a class perspective.
If you are a worker, working twelve hour days is fatiguing and harsh; if you are a boss, making your workers work twelve hours a day is profitable and lucrative.

History is subjective, when viewed through the lenses of contradictory, antagonistic class interests. For this reason, J.V. Stalin is a "butcher", but
JFK, Teddy Roosevelt, Churchill and Reagan were "heros of freedom and democracy".


One group is right, and the other group is wrong.

True, but you should re-evaluate which side of that divide you are on :lol:.


But we all are pro-working class, with just a dispute of what actually happened in Stalin's era in the USSR.

That's fair.


But again,such a claim is debatable by stalinist's sources.


Debatable, and easily debunked. Also, quoting death tolls is devoid of class analysis. If you think the proletariat can wrest political power away from the ruling class, without leaving some bodies in their wake, good luck with that.


Exactly.Since you cannot find out the objective truth, you keep on trying to find it,but in the meantime you do not fight with others who have reached a different conclusion, because you are both subjective.

At least that would be a much needed rest for me and my comrades.


Those terrible mistakes are your (not personally your, you understand what i mean) own subjective conclusion over a fact that is controversial of how,why,if it happened.


Regarding controversial views of history,you cannot go ahead and punch teeth down the throats of people who disagree with you.They may be wrong,and you may be wrong.Both sides have brought forth evidence and sources, the one side rejects them as bourgeoisie propaganda, the other side rejects them as party propaganda.

0 progress.

but AGAIN,the fighting is pointless,because anti-revisionists today, do believe that USSR under Stalin was a workers' democray, AND the important thing is that since they believe that, they aim for a workers democracy too,not a dictatorship of the party (which is what anti-stalinists believe was happening THEN).

And HLVS, that is why a stalinist is your COMRADE.

I applaud your attempts at maintaining objectivity, comrade.


Define Stalinists.If someone thought that all the stuff according to "stalin's crimes" was bourgeoisie propaganda he was to be restricted?

If you are in the CC, look up the threads concerning the restriction of Krommando33. It is an excellent case-study on the subject.



Again,the point missed.Let's make up some vocabulary:

No need. This is unnecesary, and while well meaning, it is derogatory.


Stalinist = someone who considers the USSR at stalin's time to be a workers' democracy, considering the killings etc as bourgeoisie/revisionist/trotskyist propaganda.
Thus,I consider Stalinists as comrades,because they aim for socialism.


Actually, we usually go by "Marxist-Leninist" or "Anti-Revisionist".


Now,the matter of whether they are right and whether a state-socialism transitional period can ensure democratic worker control is different.

So, you're hoping that the bourgeosie of all countries can be wiped out decisively in one shot, and all classes, reactionary traditions and modes of production, and "watermarks of capitalism" can be phased out immediately? Good luck building rome in a day.


Stalintard (aka leader-worshiping /power mongering fuck) = someone who accepts the negative stuff said about Stalin,supports them and propagandizes them.
I consider Stalintards as worthy as pig shit.Obviously not comrades, and restrict-worthy.

The term is "Tankie" or " Brezhnevite". Your term is degrading to people who need some ideological guidance (and is discrimantory against the mentally challenged, to boot).


The problem is that so many times anti-Stalintards consider Stalinists to be Stalintards.

On the other hand, that is much more appropriate :D.
I know, I'm a horrible persyn.

H-L-V-S


I agree Stalinists should not be on this forum because they don't support a socialist society and their ideas of revolution are very different from those of genuine society.

This is kind of what I mean, when I was talking about anti-stalin "one-liners". They all revolve around "Stalin is bad because I say so", and when pressed, they dig up their grade 7 social studies text book, and quote death tolls and "holodomer" fairy tales.:rolleyes:


However, using a staunch denial of history

So, are you putting forward the notion that "history" is neutral, and not subjective to class interests and outlooks?

I seem to recall Lenin said something along the lines (I'm paraphrasing) of
' the dominant ideas of every society are the ideas of the ruling class'.

Here's another way of putting it: When I was a little girl, me and my brother fought a lot. Now, when my parents intervened to find out what happened, of course they got two different accounts of the same historical event.

History is the exact same way; if you were a Cuban peasant, the Cuban revolution was beneficial; if you were a United Fruit company big-wig, it was detrimental. Get it?



and distortion and twisitng of facts

Listen, I've been posting here since late 2006. In that time, I have posted and re-posted meticulous sources, and detailed papers on history, politics, etc. Now I would actually appreciate it if someone made a concrete criticism of my "twisted" historical data (let alone read my sources at all),
but in the couple of years I have been here, that has never been the case.

You say that we "twist" history, but niether you, nor anyone else has debunked my sources, nor my comrades. Esentially, you have fabricated this point of view of yours to help yourself sleep at night, and to invalidate my sources without so much as making a glance at them.

Me, I don't post sources to look wordy and learned; I actually intend for them to be read. Make criticisms if you must, but read the material.


they somehow manage to defend their slavish hero-worshipping of the 'strong man' that was Uncle Joe and the big tough system he implemented.

No...

There may be the odd Tankie out there who holds these views, but by and large you are boxing with a strawman of tired cliches. You have attributed a point of view to me and my comrades, based on attributes that have been falsely given to J.V. Stalin.



In 50 years or so they'll be forgotten.


:lol:.

Gratuitious, Nostradamus.



the I think anyone who defends the USSR once Stalin took over (and indeed against Kronstadt) is a muppet and a bit of a confused 'revolutionary socialist'.


So... someone who defends the USSR circa 1917-1954 is a naive puppet, unlike someone who bases their current world outlook on an intact bourgeois view of history?


being critical of a dictator who killed many communists workers

Who? If you would like meticulous sources on the purge trials, they can be provided on request (if I know that you will actually read them).

Kalinin, Buhkarin, Zinoviev... their mistakes and subversions are documented.


and carried out ethnic cleansing

:lol:
As I said, one liners. By all means, don't worry about "sources", just spit out whatever comes to your head.



is the same as walking side by side with the bourgeoisie.


It is, because you are parroting lines that benefit and strengthen their view of history, and their ideological hegemony.


You have to love people who buy into the shit of worshipping dictators

When you're done debating weak characters that you have created yourself, we can continue this like adults.


because they're too dense to see that if you kill communists and workers

Who were the "communists" that were killed during the Stalin era?
Who were the workers, and why were they killed?


and implement anti-semitic policies,

This allegation is common, but holds no water. The USSR was the first state to pass laws against anti-semitism (during the Stalin period), and for a time, a Jewish republic was created within the USSR (the name escapes me right now.).

Good try.


Do I even have to go on to mention the crushing of the revolutionary movement in Spain and working alongside fascists?

I'm getting a really good idea of where you are coming from now. In the last two or three posts, you have touched on most of the common anti-stalin viewpoints in circulation, all complete nonsense.

A few questions:

1. How did Stalin "crush" the revolutionary movement in Spain?:lol:
At the time, with the USSR's own economic problems and during their own development, they were the only state to aid the anti-fascist forces.

Franco and the Spanish/German/Italian fascists defeated your beloved utopians, because they were too busy trying to carry out a social revolution, in the middle of a war.

2. As for "working with fascists", I can only guess which particular propaganda you have latched onto for this one.

Wether you are refering to the non-agrression pact, bullhsit about 'dividing up Poland', or whatever, I would reccomend this very informative work by mister Hardial Bains:

http://www.shunpiking.com/ol0207/0207-HB-causesofWW2.htm

Unfortunately the print form has a second part, but I can't find an online link.




You're a doghnut my tankie friend.



Um... what?


I consider supporters of Stalin and the USSR to be opposed to the revolutionary left and working class.

Because you are receptive to bourgeois propaganda.


The board doesn't consider 'Hoxhaists' or 'anti-revisionist Marxist Leninists' not to be revolutionary socialists, but I do. They supported regimes which were not socialist but actively anti-socialist, and their society isn't socialism.

Are you going to post any sources, or just rant all day about your persynal preferences, and how we don't fit them? Stop with the emotional one-liners, and actually back up some of your Libel.

Anyways, here are some more of my sources (some better than others). I have printed and re-printred these sources several times.

Bill Bland, The 'Cult of the individual' http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm

Ludo Martens, Another View of Stalin
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

Ella Rule, The Katyn Massacre
http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/katyn.html

John Puntis, The Ukranian Famine Genocide Myth
http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/ukrainian.html

Mario Sousa, Lies concerning the History of the Soviet union
http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/lies.html

Progressive Labour Party, Hoax of the man made famine in the Ukraine
http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam1.html

C. Allen, Stalin: Slander and Truth
http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/stalincr.htm

Anna Louise Strong, Womyn in the Stalin Era (extract from book)
http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9903/women.htm

Communist Party Alliance, Stalin and Kruschev: A dialectical contrast
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html?http%3A//www.oneparty.co.uk/html/kmkhrush.html


Now... I would like to reply more, but it's late ,and I have to go. If I get a spare moment, I'll return and finish this reply.

Continued...

[Black Sheep]

Prairie Fire
I think you didn't get my point (due to the really bad organization of my posts,true)

Anyway to address some points u made:

True, but outlooks on the nature of the Stalin USSR are not simply a matter of "agree to disagree". There objective facts and evidence, and denying them is not a valid point of view, just willful ignorance.
Also, in my experience, the anti-Stalin ideologues rarely provide sources; instead, they provide emotional one-liners, liberally peppered with catch phrases like "Bureacracy", "degenerated workers state", "state capitalist", or even the occasional "fascist"
Oh come on.Even from my own limited 'reasearch' i have been forwarded to many from both sides.
From the stalinists' side (not stalintards, i mean stalinists, like yourself :)) to mention some, it is Nazi records (i.e. the Katyn forest etc), statements from a US representative to the trial of Bukharin, etc. I ll check out the ones u provided as well.


Um, actually millions of workers on all continents (except antarctica) have supported this system, even before Stalin in the time of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
If these people are not communists in your eyes, I think that perhaps the problem is on your end, comrade.
No, i meant stalinTARDS, (it was stalinist on quotations), so let's ignore these stuff in your post,because they were just misunderstandings.


Yes, in contradiction to the official (bourgeois) version of events.
Labelling 'bourgeoisie' the version of events that contradicts your views? So why dont you start a thread providing sources supporting your views? (or link me )


History is subjective, when viewed through the lenses of contradictory, antagonistic class interests. For this reason, J.V. Stalin is a "butcher", but
JFK, Teddy Roosevelt, Churchill and Reagan were "heros of freedom and democracy".
I was talking about historical events, not about criticism on them.The question of whether Stalin had 4 heads or whether he restricted democracy from below,etc is not a subjective one.


I applaud your attempts at maintaining objectivity, comrade.
Irony or not?If yes, why? :confused:


So, you're hoping that the bourgeosie of all countries can be wiped out decisively in one shot, and all classes, reactionary traditions and modes of production, and "watermarks of capitalism" can be phased out immediately? Good luck building rome in a day.
Yeah,yeah.Please,that is not the subject of this thread,and it has been discussed a billion times.Here's a thread i made about it.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/we-working-class-t98588/index.html

Anyway,the point is that abuses of power by CP members in 'socialism in one country' countries, a considerable amount of suppression of freedom and democratic control of the workers,bureaucracy , etc ALL occured on some extent.The question is, 'is that a direct result from M-L mode of post-revolution organization of society, or is the M-L organization a 'must' and the only way,so we have to mjinimize-nullify those negative results?

more later :)

[revolution inaction]

Since the USSR was state capitalist with the roll of the bourgeois being taken by the state, then wouldn't pro soviet union sources be bourgeois propaganda?

[Kassad]

Since the USSR was state capitalist with the roll of the bourgeois being taken by the state, then wouldn't pro soviet union sources be bourgeois propaganda?

You can say that about any media-related source in the industrialized world. It's a matter of reading into sources, checking them for accuracy and proving them either correct or incorrect. Any rational thinker should be able to study a source, but every rational thinker knows to take any article or media piece with a grain of salt, as most media pieces are written with a purpose, whether it be good or bad.

[Cumannach]

Since the USSR was state capitalist with the roll of the bourgeois being taken by the state, then wouldn't pro soviet union sources be bourgeois propaganda?

A state can't be a class anymore than a bus can be a bus-driver.

[gauchisme]

stalin saved the world -- we shouldn't forget that. had the soviets not intervened in WWII, we'd be wearing swastikas right now. (not that this excuses his crimes, of course.)

[Black Sheep]

stalin saved the world -- we shouldn't forget that. had the soviets not intervened in WWII, we'd be wearing swastikas right now. (not that this excuses his crimes, of course.)

Congrats,you win the ' Point Missed 2009 award '


You can say that about any media-related source in the industrialized world. It's a matter of reading into sources, checking them for accuracy and proving them either correct or incorrect. Any rational thinker should be able to study a source, but every rational thinker knows to take any article or media piece with a grain of salt, as most media pieces are written with a purpose, whether it be good or bad.
Yeah but you check sources, comparing with other sources (older,maybe).
Step by step,you can only be sure about something if you witnessed it.
That's why you can never be sure about a historical event, your views will be subjective to a certain degree.I do not mean to be philosophical and an idealist, i m just saying it because the revolutionary left community is so much divided by this (stalinism)