Anti stalinism

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

I dont know about you guys but apart of my philosophy is anti stalinist partly because my philosophy is losely based on trotsky.But I was wondering if anybody had any disputes about this.Some of Stalins theorys were good and I dont believe he started with bad intentions but he became closer rightwing during his power.

[Pogue]

I dont know about you guys but apart of my philosophy is anti stalinist partly because my philosophy is losely based on trotsky.But I was wondering if anybody had any disputes about this.Some of Stalins theorys were good and I dont believe he started with bad intentions but he became closer rightwing during his power.

When he was a young revolutionary he was admirable. But you know, power corrupts and stuff.

[SocialRealist]

Stalin was indeed an evil man, some say that power corrupted Stalin. But I mostly disagree with that statement, I think Stalin started out wanting to absorb the power of the state even before he had the opportunity to be corrupted by the power he had achieved.

Stalin had created a nationalist state unchallenged by all and killing more than one could even begin to imagine, he had pushed for expansions of Soviet internal security programs and had also pushed for several expansions of the Gulag system.

Stalin can also be dubbed as an untrustworthy person as well. During World War 2 Stalin offered to expunge criminal records for fighting in the Red Army. It was after this though, he had generally turned his back on everyone he promised a cleaned record to and threw the people back in the brutality of the Soviet prison system. This shows how untrustworthy of a man Stalin was.

On that the death of Stalin proved a good event for the world, almost as good as the death of Adolf Hitler.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I dont know about you guys but apart of my philosophy is anti stalinist partly because my philosophy is losely based on trotsky.But I was wondering if anybody had any disputes about this.Some of Stalins theorys were good and I dont believe he started with bad intentions but he became closer rightwing during his power.

Stalin pretty much fits perfectly with the quote "absolute power corrupts absolutely", but he was still evil. He's pretty much the reason why Communism nowadays has a bad reputation. Also, his belief in "Socialism in one country" is badly flawed. In order to survive, the revolution has to be international(this is where Trotsky's criticism comes in). Of course for this to happen there needs to be active vanguard parties that will spread their ideas to encourage the working class. If a revolution happens in one country, other countries will get motivated and start their own revolutions. We saw this happen in such countries as Germany, but unfortunately all these attempts were crushed. It may have been a result of the Comitern shifting towards Stalin's ideals. Another problem with Stalin was his "totalitarian dictator" status. He basically took the power away from the proletariat and gave it to his inner circle of supporters. The transition from Socialism to Communism can't happen unless power is in the hands of the proletariat. Also doesn't help that Stalin killed millions.

[JohnnyC]

I dont know about you guys but apart of my philosophy is anti stalinist partly because my philosophy is losely based on trotsky.But I was wondering if anybody had any disputes about this.Some of Stalins theorys were good and I dont believe he started with bad intentions but he became closer rightwing during his power.
It's strange that you are anti-Stalinist considering your support for Che Guevara.

Here is a great ICC article that explains connection between Che Guevara and Stalinism.

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/che-guevara

[Killfacer]

It's strange that you are anti-Stalinist considering your support for Che Guevara.

Here is a great ICC article that explains connection between Che Guevara and Stalinism.

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/che-guevara


Che didn't kill thousands in show trials, send people to Gulags and is cool.

[punisa]

I'd suggest reading a biography about Stalin. There you can find some information as to why he became a paranoid power hungry guy that he was. It won't be underlined, but read between the lines.

Despite all, there were some positive ideas he had.
Well, I guess its right - there was no leader in human history that was solely good (think about it, its actually true).

[punisa]

It's strange that you are anti-Stalinist considering your support for Che Guevara.

Here is a great ICC article that explains connection between Che Guevara and Stalinism.

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/che-guevara


I've read your source and wouldn't completely agree. Yes, Che was influenced by many things, just as any young man is. But to call him Stalin Junior?
I remember reading about when he came to Yugoslavia on the summit in Belgrade. He was very very interested in all partisan militant activities and tactics during the WW2, he even had a small notebook to document it all :lol:

His intentions were good, but still we can't call him a "peaceful" revolutionary. Once Castro figured it was time to take the break and focus on the new found society, Che was eager for a "fight".
If he stayed in Cuba, he might be the president now :thumbup:

[JohnnyC]

Che didn't kill thousands in show trials, send people to Gulags and is cool.
Maybe he didn't, but that doesn't change the fact that his and Cuba politics were Stalinist(state capitalist).IMO, only "true" version of socialist state (as envisioned by Marx and Engels) can be the one where workers are in control of means of production and where everyone democratically decide things that concern them, not where government made by party members will make all the decisions (like Cuba did during Che was alive).
Do you, as an Anarchist, consider Cuba to be Stalinist(State Capitalist) state?If you do, than I expect from you to consider Che a Stalinist too.




I've read your source and wouldn't completely agree.
Where exactly do you disagree.Please explain.



Yes, Che was influenced by many things, just as any young man is. But to call him Stalin Junior?

I didn't call him Stalin Junior, just an ordinary Stalinist like Mao, Castro, Pot, or any other "socialist" (ex) leader in the world.He may not have killed as many people as Pol Pot, for example, but his political ideology, and actions he did were downright Stalinist.



If he stayed in Cuba, he might be the president now :thumbup:

Hehe, is it so hard to ask for a socialist state in which there will be no president and which workers collectively run?:)

[Holden Caulfield]

Stalin was not an evil man, people don't exist in black and white , ill post more when im not hungover on this issue

[JohnnyC]

Stalin was not an evil man, people don't exist in black and white , ill post more when im not hungover on this issue
I consider that "evil" and "good" are subjective impressions and because of that, I don't use them.I'm only saying that Stalin was a dictator and therefore enemy of the working class.

[Killfacer]

Maybe he didn't, but that doesn't change the fact that his and Cuba politics were Stalinist(state capitalist).IMO, only "true" version of socialist state (as envisioned by Marx and Engels) can be the one where workers are in control of means of production and where everyone democratically decide things that concern them, not where government made by party members will make all the decisions (like Cuba did during Che was alive).
Do you, as an Anarchist, consider Cuba to be Stalinist(State Capitalist) state?If you do, than I expect from you to consider Che a Stalinist too.



It is irrelevant whether Che was a stalinist, the fact is that Stalin is unpopular because he killed thousands.

[sanpal]

I consider that "evil" and "good" are subjective impressions and because of that, I don't use them.I'm only saying that Stalin was a dictator and therefore enemy of the working class.

Yes, of course. Stalin was not a good man or an evil man, he was leader of the country, of the 'soviet' nation - the society which has been organized on the principles of nonscientific utopian socialist theory born in mr. E. Duhring's brain (read "Anti-Duhring"). The basic wrong part was combination of two things: capitalist mode of production and obtrusion of communist (production) relations between members of society ideologically. This synthetical society (organized instead of Lenin's NEP) must inevitably fall down and so as to retain this regime, Stalin was forced to accomplish repressions (state apparatus of violence). All another countries of former socialist block (including Cuba of course) are clones of the former USSR.

Note: "capitalist mode of production" is only "mode of production" which could be used in socialist period of "multi-economy" and which not says that society must be "capitalist".

[manic expression]

Maybe he didn't, but that doesn't change the fact that his and Cuba politics were Stalinist(state capitalist).IMO, only "true" version of socialist state (as envisioned by Marx and Engels) can be the one where workers are in control of means of production and where everyone democratically decide things that concern them, not where government made by party members will make all the decisions (like Cuba did during Che was alive).

I've posted this many times:
http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

Click the link on the left: "Democracy in Cuba". It explains, with sources, how the Cuban political process works. Contrary to what the US imperialists would have you believe, the PCC does not direct the electoral system in Cuba. Your point about "party members" is as vague as it is unhelpful and you would do well to read about the actual political setup of Cuba.

In short, the Cuban workers DO control the means of production and the Cuban workers DO democratically control their society and state.


I didn't call him Stalin Junior, just an ordinary Stalinist like Mao, Castro, Pot, or any other "socialist" (ex) leader in the world.He may not have killed as many people as Pol Pot, for example, but his political ideology, and actions he did were downright Stalinist.

The fact that you don't get that Pol Pot cannot seriously be called a "Stalinist" shows me that you apply the label without scrutiny or reason. In fact, it shows me that your attempt to portray Che as a "Stalinist" is the rhetoric of someone who probably can't adequately define what "Stalinism" is.

By the way, the only real points of similarity between Pol Pot and Stalin is that they killed, either directly and indirectly, a lot of people. That doesn't exactly qualify as an ideological or practical (or any type of) connection.


Hehe, is it so hard to ask for a socialist state in which there will be no president and which workers collectively run?:)

The workers can collectively run a society which has a president. There is absolutely nothing contradictory in this.

[Cumannach]

When did killing fascists and imperialists become a bad thing?

[Killfacer]

When did killing fascists and imperialists become a bad thing?

Ever heard of the "purges", even some stalinists admit he may have gone overboard...

[Cumannach]

If he had gone underboard we'd be living in the Third Reich.

[Killfacer]

If he had gone underboard we'd be living in the Third Reich.

You misunderstand. No one is complaining about the tactics used in world war 2, people are complaining about his treatement of political dissenters prior to and proceeding world war 2.

[Brother No. 1]

Stalin does fit perfectly with the quote " Power corrupts and absolute Power corrupts absolutely"

[LOLseph Stalin]

I consider that "evil" and "good" are subjective impressions and because of that, I don't use them.I'm only saying that Stalin was a dictator and therefore enemy of the working class.

Agreed. Two thumbs up.


Stalin does fit perfectly with the quote " Power corrupts and absolute Power corrupts absolutely"

I'm pretty sure it was me who used that quote. :)
It fits the man perfectly!

[Brother No. 1]

it does doesnt it plus I wonder is it true he killed his own wife then he went insane this man is horrible to the bone then.

[LOLseph Stalin]

it does doesnt it plus I wonder is it true he killed his own wife then he went insane this man is horrible to the bone then.

It's Stalin we're talking about. Of course he's horrible. ;)

[Brother No. 1]

true but he did have "some" moments didnt he?

[LOLseph Stalin]

true but he did have "some" moments didnt he?

Well he did beat the crap out of Nazi Germany. Shows them not to mess with Russia, especially in winter...

[Brother No. 1]

thats true and he libirated eastern europe form the Nazis correct.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yes, I believe so. Only eastern European countries he didn't liberate were Yugoslavia and Albania if I remember correctly.

[StalinFanboy]

Yes, they were "liberated."



They went from one dictatorship, to another.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yes, they were "liberated."



They went from one dictatorship, to another.


Yes they did. They were all controlled by Stalin so they had puppet governments controlled by him. Even after his death this continued.

[manic expression]

Yes, they were "liberated."



They went from one dictatorship, to another.

Yep, no difference between reactionary pro-Nazi governments and socialist pro-Soviet governments. None. :rolleyes:

If you believe what you wrote above, you need to think things through with critical reasoning and historical evidence.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yep, no difference between reactionary pro-Nazi governments and socialist pro-Soviet governments. None. http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-stalinism-p1337335/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

Fully agreed. The Soviet Union was wrong in so many ways.

[manic expression]

Fully agreed. The Soviet Union was wrong in so many ways.

I was being sarcastic. Anyone who actually thinks the USSR was significantly similar to Nazi Germany obviously doesn't understand either one of them, and further doesn't understand history one single bit. To compare the two is simply absurd; they were completely different in just about every meaningful way.

[Killfacer]

Comparing the soviet union, no matter how much i dislike it, with Nazi germany just isn't correct. That doesn't take away from the Soviet Unions brutality, but the comparison is silly.

[Brother No. 1]

the CCCP comaprison to the National Socialist germany is wrong and The CCCP has done right and Wrong things.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I was being sarcastic. Anyone who actually thinks the USSR was significantly similar to Nazi Germany obviously doesn't understand either one of them, and further doesn't understand history one single bit. To compare the two is simply absurd; they were completely different in just about every meaningful way.

Wow! Sarcasm never works online. I'm surprised people even still bother... xD

[StalinFanboy]

Yep, no difference between reactionary pro-Nazi governments and socialist pro-Soviet governments. None. :rolleyes:

If you believe what you wrote above, you need to think things through with critical reasoning and historical evidence.
Of course there's a difference, but they were hardly liberated.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Of course there's a difference, but they were hardly liberated.

Yes. As a Trotskyist I naturally disagree with Stalin's methods so these nations were far from liberated...

[Reclaimed Dasein]

it does doesnt it plus I wonder is it true he killed his own wife then he went insane this man is horrible to the bone then.
One should understand the Russian context for suicide. Usually, it stands as a big "fuck you" to whomever "caused" one to do it. There are strong reasons to believe that Nadezhda Alliluyeva committed suicide over the horrors of collectivization, ultimately severing Stalin's link with society. Also, Stalin didn't have the status of "totalitarian dictator", whatever that means, until the late purges in the 30s. Generally speaking, Stalin ruled by the central committe's consent by plotting a generally moderate path that allied itself with whomever was the strongest faction.

Also, anyone who claimes Stalin was "pure evil" or any other such garbage has no idea what they're talking about. The Soviet Union represents one of the most complex political, economic, and military situations that any leader has faced at any time. Stalin was a poor Georgian streetfighter who adapted the ideas of men better than him. What the fuck do you expect from him? His father was a serf for Christsake. Given the resources at hand, the task set before him, and where he came from, I think he did an exceptional job. Did he usher in an era of universal freedom and world wide communism? Obviously not, but you have to admit, Stalin was the best Tsar Russia ever had.

[Red Robespierre]

I dont know about you guys but apart of my philosophy is anti stalinist partly because my philosophy is losely based on trotsky.But I was wondering if anybody had any disputes about this.Some of Stalins theorys were good and I dont believe he started with bad intentions but he became closer rightwing during his power.

So you are anti-Stalinist because you've been influenced by Trotsky? Why don't you bother to read some of Stalin's works, get an understanding of them (comprehend them) and come to your own conclusions?

[Red Robespierre]

You misunderstand. No one is complaining about the tactics used in world war 2, people are complaining about his treatement of political dissenters prior to and proceeding world war 2.

So you disagree with the notion that the class struggle intensifies under socialism? Idealism has plagued communist movements before and that's largely why such movements have had little success. Pluralism and tolerance for anything and everything is based on bourgeois liberal metaphysics. A Marxist materialist analysis would leave to one and only one conclusion - the one reached by Stalin and his comrades.

[ZeroNowhere]

So you disagree with the notion that the class struggle intensifies under socialism?
Yes, mainly due to the absence of classes which are to struggle.

[Red Robespierre]

Yes, mainly due to the absence of classes which are to struggle.

Such views are inconsistent with Marxism and wholly liberal in their composition, and outright counter-revolutionary in their practical outcomes. Marx himself wrote that the state itself is an organ of repressions for which the struggle against the former exploiting class would ensue until classes cease to exist. What Marx termed the "first phase" in a post-capitalist society was later expounded by Lenin, in which class distinctions most definitely still exist (hence class struggle persists as well).

As for the need to struggle - the remnants of the bourgeoisie can only be anticipated to increase and intensify their efforts to fight the progress of socialism, and as such, their reaction against progress ought to be met with equally forceful and acute measures of political repression. As for the particular aggravation of the struggle in the USSR - this was even more important as it was faced with hostile imperialist encirclement.

[Red Dreadnought]

You don't need to be an 100% evil man, to be a reactionary or enemy or working class; you could be completly mistified. But, in the case of Stalin, it seems to be that was very close to this definition. At his youth he was a delinquent. And he's devil purgues and mass killing were very close to complete human moral degeneration. That is very close to Hitler.

The case of Che is an example, probably he has a part of idealism and altruist; but OBJECTIVALLY was in the Stalinist Field: support to URSS and China an to all the imperialist "socialist" field (maybe "critical" but "inconditional"), appealing to the "opressed peoples" and workers of the world to support it. We have to denounce that, because there was no "such" "socialist field"; objectivelly there was a "soviet imperialism" based on State Capitalism, explotation and oppression; and perhaps the worst thing doing that "in the name of socialism".

But, two details of Che's biography that are morally awful.

First, the "revolutionary courts of justice" conducted by him, condemned to death penalty hundreds or even thousand of people. Probably there were a lot of reactionary, but there were probably also honest people and dissidents. Experiencie of intervention of URSS in Spanish Civil War, probes that "stalinist checas" not only killed reactionary; they killed a lot of anarchist, POUMists, and even socialists independents of Moscu's policies. Particularly, he made a great represion of homosexual people.

Other awful position is his suport to the nuclear weapons, as a supossed way of fight of the "Socialist Field" against "imperialism. At missils crisis in 1962 he critisized Kruchev whithdrawal. An I have heard, but doesn't have bibliography, that he rejoiced with the idea of nuclear bombing of USA cities.

[Killfacer]

Such views are inconsistent with Marxism and wholly liberal in their composition, and outright counter-revolutionary in their practical outcomes. Marx himself wrote that the state itself is an organ of repressions for which the struggle against the former exploiting class would ensue until classes cease to exist. What Marx termed the "first phase" in a post-capitalist society was later expounded by Lenin, in which class distinctions most definitely still exist (hence class struggle persists as well).

As for the need to struggle - the remnants of the bourgeoisie can only be anticipated to increase and intensify their efforts to fight the progress of socialism, and as such, their reaction against progress ought to be met with equally forceful and acute measures of political repression. As for the particular aggravation of the struggle in the USSR - this was even more important as it was faced with hostile imperialist encirclement.

Well if communism needs Stalin like figures and purges then i fail to see how it is an improvement on capitalism. I would rather live in a liberal democracy than a stalin's russia.

[Cumannach]

You should take a look at what your 'liberal democracies' have been doing to Africa for the past century.

[Killfacer]

You should take a look at what your 'liberal democracies' have been doing to Africa for the past century.

Want a hand building that strawman? Classic response, when did i claim to condone anything that liberal democracies have done? More to the point, when did they become "my" liberal democracies. Grow up.

[Cumannach]

Want a hand building that strawman? Classic response, when did i claim to condone anything that liberal democracies have done? More to the point, when did they become "my" liberal democracies. Grow up.

Well, you said you would rather live in a 'liberal democracy' than in Stalin's SU. Well to live in a 'liberal democracy', that 'liberal democracy' must exist, and so must all the consequences of that existence. Now, whatever Stalin did, no one claims that his Soviet Union destroyed, impoverished and starved a whole continent.

Even allowing for all the 'crimes' of Stalin, can you seriously pretend that, all and all, that part of humanity outside of Stalin's rule was better off than that within?

[Hiero]

Want a hand building that strawman? Classic response, when did i claim to condone anything that liberal democracies have done? More to the point, when did they become "my" liberal democracies. Grow up.

I think tthat it was actually a good point. You made a anti-materialist/anti-historical comment and he called you up on it.

The liberal democracy you talk about is probally found in a powefull imperialist nation, maybe even the centre of imperialism the USA. For the people living in the area of pre-Soviet sphere they didn't have the liberty of living in one of the most powerfull imperialist nation. For them it was better to live in Stalin's Socialism by the time after WW2. There was no option for the liberal democracy you talk about, inbetween WW1 the impeiralist nations had firmly set up the line between imperialist exploiters and exploited. And for the majority of the people of Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America they do not have the liberty nor the large imperialist structure to have a liberal-democracy.

Really there is no comparison to be made between Stalin's socialism, which was no exploitative and liberal democracy which is founded on imperialist exploitation. Due to the qualatitive differences you can't not make a real comparison about which on was better to live in.

[BobKKKindle$]

The lack of materialism in this thread is shocking - Stalin did not carry out purges against the upper reaches of the military apparatus because he was evil as an individual, but rather because he was the leader of a bureaucratic class which had seized control of the state and the Bolshevik party, and his actions simply reflected the objective interests of this class, such that, if another leader such as Trotsky had managed to defeat Stalin during the struggle for party leadership following Lenin's death, they would have been forced to act in the same way or at least make similar decisions, in the absence of international revolution and the restoration of Soviet democracy. Trotsky recognized this because he approached the situation from a materialist viewpoint, unlike most of the people who have posted in this thread. In addition, and as Hiero has already pointed out, regardless of whether we see Russia under Stalin as an example of socialism, or a state-capitalist regime, the fact remains that certain institutions and structures which had been won through the revolution remained in place during this period and allowed for rapid industrialization in an international context of prolonged economic depression, and protected the working class from many of the social ills associated with a market capitalist society, such as unemployment, and a lack of basic services. This is why socialists don't issue idealistic demands for "liberal democracy" - we acknowledge that "liberal democracy" is the class rule of the bourgeoisie obscured by the rhetoric of democracy and freedom, and is incapable of securing freedom for the working population, whereas even a degenerated revolution such as that in Russia signifies a step forward from the viewpoint of the international proletariat.

On the subject of Che, he was a fantastic anti-imperialist, in the same way as Hamas, and the NLF, and Hezbollah, but his vision of socialism was based on a guerilla struggle conducted primarily in the countryside by means of small bands which, at least in the case of Cuba, were comprised almost solely of intellectuals, thereby ignoring the importance of the working class becoming the subject of history and taking power through collective struggle.

[BPSocialist]

Absolute power corrupts everyone unfit to weild it

[Revolutionary Youth]

Two thumbs up for you, comrade Bobkindles!:thumbup:

[Brother No. 1]

Stalin was corrputed by power and made the CCCP into Lenins nightmare

[Red Robespierre]

Hearing people recite the same bourgeois lines about "power corrupts absolutely" and other garbage in reference to Stalin, yet still have the audacity to call themselves communists, demonstrates how far the petty-bourgeoisie has dominated the thoughts and outlooks of Western leftists.

Secondly, the thought that Stalin was somehow some "evil" pariah destined to destroy all that was good and holy is unrealistic, idealist and borderline retarded.

Thirdly, Marxism does not concern itself with value judgments. Neither Stalin,Hitler, or the capitalist are "evil." Marxist materialism is incompatible with notions of moral value.

Fourthly, attributing the faults of a particular individual as having deformed or degenerated an entire state apparatus is rotten idealism. Just as it would be idiotic to say Stalin built socialism in the USSR by himself Furthermore it's absolutely false considering the proletariat of Russia and the other constituent republics, by and large, experienced dramatic increases in its productivity, life expectancy, overall well-being and inclusion into the body politics throughout Stalin's leadership.

[Brother No. 1]

he did do good things during his leadership from 1924-1953 and you make good points of this thread.

[RedScare]

I think "socialism in one country" was his downfall, and led to pretty much the rest of his troubles. Perhaps if the German and Finnish Revolutions had succeeded....

But history is full of what-ifs. No matter.

[Brother No. 1]

yeah all of history has "what ifs"

[Cumannach]

I think "socialism in one country" was his downfall, and led to pretty much the rest of his troubles. Perhaps if the German and Finnish Revolutions had succeeded....

But history is full of what-ifs. No matter.

You're right, when Stalin saw that revolution had failed to break out in every other corner of the globe he should have called the whole thing off, apologised to Czar Nicholas and the factory owners for any inconvenience caused, explained to the peasants and the workers that the conditions just weren't right, and everything hadn't happened according to the plan, canceled the scheduled expropriation of the expropriators and settled back into to a few more years of reactionary capitalism, waiting for the simultaneous world revolution to break out, an event which was sure to be just around the corner!

[Red Robespierre]

I think "socialism in one country" was his downfall, and led to pretty much the rest of his troubles. Perhaps if the German and Finnish Revolutions had succeeded....

But history is full of what-ifs. No matter.
This is the most redundant (and stupid) criticism against Stalin. This reeks of quasi-nihilistic defeatism so inherent within ultra-left whining about "socialism in one country."

Secondly- which perspective against "socialism in one country" are you adopting? The SD argument that denied the possibility that the proletariat can seize power in one country w/o simultaneous revolutions across the globe (History has proven this false)? Or the Trotskyite argument that socialism in one country could not sustain itself against hostile, imperialist encirclement?