Discussion on Stalin.

Brother No. 1 - 10th April 2009, 00:02

Nazism and Anti-Revisionism have NOTHING in common.

Idealism - 10th April 2009, 00:34

Nazism and Anti-Revisionism have NOTHING in common.

I didnt mean it that way, sorry for the vagueness. Just the justification or denial of the deaths of what could be millions, saying that pointing this out is only "bourgeoisis propaganda" of the nazis ive talked to (yelled at) they tend dismiss all claims of 6 million jews dying as "Zionist propaganda" Last, the idea that your either one our side or theirs; the nazis said alot of things like that with "if you disagree with us, you must be on the side of the jews" And you guys must realize that to the vast majority of the (U.S.) population Stalin was a dictator, and so was Hitler, and that youre defending the actions of a dictator. So when i say that the logic reminds me of nazism, i dont mean to say your beliefs are somehow like the nazis; i just mean to say be careful with such logic. I must though say that i dont have a problem with the anti-revisionist people; as they (to my understanding) also believe in a classless, stateless, and free society.

Brother No. 1 - 10th April 2009, 00:41

Yes we do. We are all leftists are we not. We all seek the same thing but we have different ways and ideas how to make this Classless,statless,Democratic soviety.

Dust Bunnies - 10th April 2009, 01:04

Yes we do. We are all leftists are we not. We all seek the same thing but we have different ways and ideas how to make this Classless,statless,Democratic soviety.

Democratic? Soviet Union, China, Vietname, North Korea, all undemocratic. As far as I could tell they were anti-revisionists.

Brother No. 1 - 10th April 2009, 01:07

So now Anti-Revisionist is un-democratic? Yes they WERE Anti-Revisionist but CCCP Anti-Revisionism fell when Nika came. Maoism in China died when Deng appiled Capitalist reforms. NK I'm still researching on. Vietnam is a un-known factor to me for it was after Anti-Revisionism.

Woland - 10th April 2009, 08:50

I didnt mean it that way, sorry for the vagueness. Just the justification or denial of the deaths of what could be millions, saying that pointing this out is only "bourgeoisis propaganda" of the nazis ive talked to (yelled at) they tend dismiss all claims of 6 million jews dying as "Zionist propaganda" Last, the idea that your either one our side or theirs; the nazis said alot of things like that with "if you disagree with us, you must be on the side of the jews" And you guys must realize that to the vast majority of the (U.S.) population Stalin was a dictator, and so was Hitler, and that youre defending the actions of a dictator. So when i say that the logic reminds me of nazism, i dont mean to say your beliefs are somehow like the nazis; i just mean to say be careful with such logic. I must though say that i dont have a problem with the anti-revisionist people; as they (to my understanding) also believe in a classless, stateless, and free society.

First of all, I'm sure you, as a communist, and a marxist (if you are one, that is), realize that class war is something very real, something that has affected history more than anything for thousands of years, so why wouldn't it affect this decisive part of history aswell? Now, I am sure, that you, as a sane person, would be sure to also think nothing of Nazis and their conspiracy theories.

If we are going to go as far as to compare the two, it is certainly ridiculous, but if you insist, there are many points to make;

The crimes of the Nazis are all well documented, probably one of the most complete and thorough investigations in history- concentration camps, gas chambers, testimonies of the purpotrators, survivor accounts, the official policy of extermination, jewish population count, photos, etc. etc. All historians state this happened, socialist or bourgeois. Nazis themselves state this happened, and that it is their goal to do the same again. The 6 million figure has been proved so many times, enough to have it written into German law and to be something completely undeniable, rightly so. Anyone trying to say it wasn't so have been completely refuted, as their evidence is absolutely lacking or faulty, people with no interest in history, lack of basic historic knowledge and denial of solid evidence, and Nazi claims which are all based on tinfoil-hat material such as ZOG or other stuff they can come up with, but there is no one to deny that it is the nazi goal and it is something they propagandize.

The very opposite now is the completely anti-communist and completely Western account of any part of Soviet history. There is no solid evidence and no statement that hasn't been decisively refuted by communists, Soviet/Russian non-communist historians, or even Western anti-communist historians themselves. In fact, anyone in the USSR at the time have said some very different things, anti-communist or not. That is because these things are a simple product of anti-communism and the Red Scare, be it 20 years or 50 years after the actual event. Have you seen ''Why We Fight'' by Frank Capra? The Soviet Union it shows is radically different from all the anti-communism of the Red Scare. Its not a conspiracy theory, any ordinary Russian wouldn't even think of accepting most of the things said about Stalin, WW2 and USSR, anti-communist or not.

Now, who should be compared to Nazis here, those who have no evidence, no interest in history, refuted by most historians, driven only by rabid anti-communism or hate of Stalin, or those who actually try to convince these people to drop their ways and nonsense?

By the way, make sure you read this http://www.trussel.com/hf/treason.htm absolutely brilliant stuff, as it shows very well the type of people and the agencies involved in anti-communism in the US.

Idealism - 10th April 2009, 18:28

First of all, I'm sure you, as a communist, and a marxist (if you are one, that is), realize that class war is something very real, something that has affected history more than anything for thousands of years, so why wouldn't it affect this decisive part of history aswell? Now, I am sure, that you, as a sane person, would be sure to also think nothing of Nazis and their conspiracy theories.

If we are going to go as far as to compare the two, it is certainly ridiculous, but if you insist, there are many points to make;

The crimes of the Nazis are all well documented, probably one of the most complete and thorough investigations in history- concentration camps, gas chambers, testimonies of the purpotrators, survivor accounts, the official policy of extermination, jewish population count, photos, etc. etc. All historians state this happened, socialist or bourgeois. Nazis themselves state this happened, and that it is their goal to do the same again. The 6 million figure has been proved so many times, enough to have it written into German law and to be something completely undeniable, rightly so. Anyone trying to say it wasn't so have been completely refuted, as their evidence is absolutely lacking or faulty, people with no interest in history, lack of basic historic knowledge and denial of solid evidence, and Nazi claims which are all based on tinfoil-hat material such as ZOG or other stuff they can come up with, but there is no one to deny that it is the nazi goal and it is something they propagandize.

The very opposite now is the completely anti-communist and completely Western account of any part of Soviet history. There is no solid evidence and no statement that hasn't been decisively refuted by communists, Soviet/Russian non-communist historians, or even Western anti-communist historians themselves. In fact, anyone in the USSR at the time have said some very different things, anti-communist or not. That is because these things are a simple product of anti-communism and the Red Scare, be it 20 years or 50 years after the actual event. Have you seen ''Why We Fight'' by Frank Capra? The Soviet Union it shows is radically different from all the anti-communism of the Red Scare. Its not a conspiracy theory, any ordinary Russian wouldn't even think of accepting most of the things said about Stalin, WW2 and USSR, anti-communist or not.

Now, who should be compared to Nazis here, those who have no evidence, no interest in history, refuted by most historians, driven only by rabid anti-communism or hate of Stalin, or those who actually try to convince these people to drop their ways and nonsense?

By the way, make sure you read this http://www.trussel.com/hf/treason.htm absolutely brilliant stuff, as it shows very well the type of people and the agencies involved in anti-communism in the US.

My take on it is that if all things against the Soviet union are bourgeoisie propaganda, could you find me non-pro-communist sources that offer a positive account of the soviet union. otherwise i would dismiss it as stalinist propaganda

Soviet - 11th April 2009, 06:18

Dust Bannies

Why is it worse for me? Obviously he failed to bring a lasting Socialist world.

Of corse it is worse for you not for Stalin if you don't want to understand simple things.What do you call "lasting"?The USSR proved to be able to withstand to all outdoors during 73 years.Is it "not lasating"?Can you imagine the USA alone surrouning by socialist countries and being able to hold out during 70 years?Use yor own head,think a little.By the way,the USSR was ruined by antistalinists.
Then about your quote:

"Through political maneuvering, Stalin was able to discount and suppress Lenin s testament, as well as join with Kamenev and Zinoviev to gain control of the party. Stalin s main reason for the collaborating with Kamenev and Zinoviev was to form a strong opposition against Trotsky, who was Stalin s long time rival and a candidate to succeed Lenin as head of the Bolshevik party."

You could have understood that stalinists and oppositioneers used in struggle against each other identical methods.And wone those who was supported by the majority of the party and of the people - Stalin fnd stalinists.Therefore everything is open and aboveboard.

Anyone can be a Class Enemy, but when you purge hundreds of Generals the chance that all of them are Class Enemies are ridiculous. Anyone can be a class enemy, but when you purge hundreds of Party Officials, Civilians, and Generals the argument of them all being Class Enemy is ridiculous.

So great numbars of repressed is presntly a fact that explains that the purge was not somebodies caprise but the necessity.Do you deny class struggle?

Dust Bunnies rot about WW2 I'll comment later.

Better read this:
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node139.html

Democratic? Soviet Union, China, Vietname, North Korea, all undemocratic.

Oh dear!And were is democrasy?In the USA?In Russia?Were?By the way,the state power can be the dictatorship in form and the democracy in content.And vice versa,of course.The only criterium of democracy is the state policy:if it is in the interests of the people majority then the state realizing it is democratic.The Soviet power was the top form of democracy in history.
Idealism

Why does your logic remind me so much of Nazism?

Yes,why?Explain yourself.

Dust Bunnies - 11th April 2009, 20:56

Dust Bannies
Of corse it is worse for you not for Stalin if you don't want to understand simple things.What do you call "lasting"?The USSR proved to be able to withstand to all outdoors during 73 years.Is it "not lasating"?Can you imagine the USA alone surrouning by socialist countries and being able to hold out during 70 years?Use yor own head,think a little.By the way,the USSR was ruined by antistalinists.

But I thought the glorious hand of the workers united in democratic control could never fall! I guess thats what happens when you give up internationalism for nationalism. Socialism in one country is a failed doctrine.

Then about your quote:
You could have understood that stalinists and oppositioneers used in struggle against each other identical methods.And wone those who was supported by the majority of the party and of the people - Stalin fnd stalinists.Therefore everything is open and aboveboard.

I trust people who keep their word. Stalin sided with one side, then backstabbed them, then backstabbed the side he went to, what stops a massive backstabber from doing the same to the proleteriat?

So great numbars of repressed is presntly a fact that explains that the purge was not somebodies caprise but the necessity.Do you deny class struggle?

Class struggle exists. The assassination of the founder of the Red Army and many other loyal people to the 1917 revolution shows nothing?

Better read this:
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node139.html

Just from the first page alone "He displayed his ability as Commander-in-Chief beginning with Stalingrad." That implies in 1941 he was not a good commander in chief? Stalingrad started in 1942 I believe since Operation Blue was in the summer of 1942. Does that document have the answers to my points?

Oh dear!And were is democrasy?In the USA?In Russia?Were?By the way,the state power can be the dictatorship in form and the democracy in content.And vice versa,of course.The only criterium of democracy is the state policy:if it is in the interests of the people majority then the state realizing it is democratic.The Soviet power was the top form of democracy in history.

Interests of the many? So building military infrastructure and such instead of producing enough boots is doing things in the worker's interests? The US is not a democracy, neither is any other modern country at this moment. A democracy is when people run things with the right to talk freely. I think the NKVD arrests all through out the Soviet times show that people did not have the chance to talk freely. Not only that, Stalin expanded the state and bureaucracy. In the words of Lenin, "As long as there is the state there is no freedom. As long as there is freedom there is no state."

Yes,why?Explain yourself.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Idealism was talking about you, not me. He quoted your text and has been arguing against Stalinism I believe. So, please explain yourself "Comrade".

Responses are in red.

Soviet - 13th April 2009, 14:25

But I thought the glorious hand of the workers united in democratic control could never fall! I guess thats what happens when you give up internationalism for nationalism. Socialism in one country is a failed doctrine.

There was no such doctrine:"socialism in one country".There was "socialism firstly in one country".What nationalism do you talk about?Didnt' you ever heard that international communist and workers movements were ever supported by the USSR?Don't you know that after the WW2 appeard new 11 socialist countries due to the USSR?Of course they were the dictatorships in form but the democracies in content too.And I'm sure that it is inevitible so far as capitalism would remain it's forse superiority in the world.And it is not somebody's evil will but the normal defense reaction.

Class struggle exists. The assassination of the founder of the Red Army and many other loyal people to the 1917 revolution shows nothing?

The were loyal at 1917 and unloyal 10 years later.What is there strange in that?Trotsky,for example,was very unloyal to Lenin up to 1917.
Sorry,I'll finish my post later.

PCommie - 13th April 2009, 17:53

Let me put this in perspective. The world is overpopulated. You give me enough guns and bullets, and I can solve that problem right now. Does this make it right? Hell no. In the same way, you can't deny what Stalin did to further the Soviet economy and whatnot. Does this make his methods right? Hell no.

-PC

Dust Bunnies - 13th April 2009, 18:52

There was no such doctrine:"socialism in one country".There was "socialism firstly in one country".What nationalism do you talk about?Didnt' you ever heard that international communist and workers movements were ever supported by the USSR?Don't you know that after the WW2 appeard new 11 socialist countries due to the USSR?Of course they were the dictatorships in form but the democracies in content too.And I'm sure that it is inevitible so far as capitalism would remain it's forse superiority in the world.And it is not somebody's evil will but the normal defense reaction.

I have a counter-example. In Spain during the 1930's the workers fought Fascism and enemies of the proletariat. What did the Soviet backed groups do though? They gutted the revolution because Anarchists and anti-Soviets were doing well. So not only did they gut a revolution but Spain became Fascist...

The were loyal at 1917 and unloyal 10 years later.What is there strange in that?Trotsky,for example,was very unloyal to Lenin up to 1917.

Proof?

Sorry,I'll finish my post later.

In red as always.

Hoxhaist - 13th April 2009, 19:07

Democratic? Soviet Union, China, Vietname, North Korea, all undemocratic. As far as I could tell they were anti-revisionists.

USSR after revisionism set it was no longer Anti-Revisionist, PRC after Mao opened up to the West was revisionist, Vietnam opened up to the West: revisionist, and NK is democratic but so brainwashed that they consider Kim Jong Il a living God so it has all of the appearance of an undemocratic state

Soviet - 15th April 2009, 07:24

I have a counter-example. In Spain during the 1930's the workers fought Fascism and enemies of the proletariat. What did the Soviet backed groups do though? They gutted the revolution because Anarchists and anti-Soviets were doing well. So not only did they gut a revolution but Spain became Fascist...

At first,it's not true:the USSR at 1936-1939 sent to Spain pilots,tankists,military personnel and weapon,it organaised the forming of interbrigades.By the way,at the same time your favorite trots exited munity in republician rear in Barselone at 1937.It was a great help for fascists!
At second,what do you want to prove by your counter-example?The USSR always supported communist movements in the world-it's the fact that nobody can't cancel.

Interests of the many? So building military infrastructure and such instead of producing enough boots is doing things in the worker's interests?

Due to military infrastructure we had 50 years without wars - the longest peace respite in our history!Isn't it in the worker interests?And what would you choose,the boots or the peace?

A democracy is when people run things with the right to talk freely. I think the NKVD arrests all through out the Soviet times show that people did not have the chance to talk freely.

At first,you've answered yourself:

n the words of Lenin, "As long as there is the state there is no freedom. As long as there is freedom there is no state."

At second, you don't understand Lenin's words.Lenin ment that there is no complete freedom even in a democratic state.
Then how is Stalin to blame?

The assassination of the founder of the Red Army and many other loyal people to the 1917 revolution shows nothing?

It's easy to understand that there were mamy different people who took part in the revolution, they had different ideas about the socialism and different aims.No wonder if some of them became unloyal .

Cumannach - 15th April 2009, 13:53

edity

PCommie - 17th April 2009, 23:12

Unfortunately, I cannot find any place to read about Stalin's actions in the CCCP. Would anyone care to give me a website where I can read some stuff, so I can actually have an opinion on him? Thanks.

-PC

Woland - 18th April 2009, 14:20

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

PCommie - 20th April 2009, 02:14

Well I read Stalin's bio on the MIA, and that sealed it. He's a son-of-a-*****, wrecked the CCCP, and hurt socialism forever. Murderer, fascist, that type thing.

-PC

Brother No. 1 - 20th April 2009, 02:21

He's a son-of-a-*****, wrecked the CCCP, and hurt socialism forever. Murderer, fascist, that type thing.

Facist? theres been a thread that wanted to see if people thought he was a Facist and he is 100% not a Facist. your confusing his Socialism with Facism. Its like saying Stalin=Hitler.

PCommie - 21st April 2009, 01:49

Like? Let me say it plainly: Stalin=Hitler. Let's look:

-Both rose to power through politics and were "legally" elected.

-Both raised their countries to greatness quickly.

-Both used evil methods to accomplish their goals.

Anyone else care to contribute a few points?

-PC

Brother No. 1 - 21st April 2009, 02:04

Stalin=Hitler. Let's look:

theres been a thread outside of here that asked that question. Stalin doesnt = Hitler.

Hitler was a Racist,Nationalist Socialist, almost killed an entire race, gave no mercy to any other "race",believed that the "ayran race" as superior to all other "races, and made his Facist state into a tightly controled and operated state.

-Both rose to power through politics and were "legally" elected.

Stalin was elected by the Bolshevik party and hitler was elected by the German people for his "speechs" on the "glories of germany." Stalin was elected truthfuly while Hitler used lies and his personality to get elected.

-Both raised their countries to greatness quickly.

It took Stalin from the 1920s to the early 1940s to build up.
It took Hitler from 1920s to late 1930s.

-Both used evil methods to accomplish their goals.

"Evil?" Is there such a thing as evil or is that just a word to classify our selfs in. Stalin wasnt perfect he made mistakes and successes and his successes contributed to the Soviet Unions economy,people,system,goverment, and rights. Besides the colective farms helped the CCCP but some didnt do it and outright tried to ruin it. Anyother AR want to add to this?

Soviet - 21st April 2009, 07:51

Let me say it plainly: PCommie=Hitler. Let's look:
-Both are demagogues.
-Both hate Stalin.
How would you like my logic,PCommie?

PCommie - 21st April 2009, 22:56

No clue what demogogues is, comrade. Okay, I was wrong to say Stalin = Hitler. Let me rephrase: Stalin has things in common with Hitler. But whatever, where's the historical text to reflect your claims on Stalin? You know I'm pretty reasonable, show me proof that Stalin was a good man. My accusations to disprove are thus:

-Stalin rose to power against Lenin's wish, through political manoevering.

-Stalin called the Social-Democrats "fascist" and executed them, executed the old Bolshevik revolutionaries, his old comrades.

-Gulags, terrible labor camps, were used.

-Purges, which I believe are mass executions of a group of people that fit into a specific category, were used.

-Stalin gave international socialism a bad name forever and armed the Capitalists with propaganda.

I don't know what else he's done, I think, but I don't make statements that aren't at least a little backed up. In Stalin's defense, though, he wasn't an Imperialist by Lenin's definition.

-PC

Brother No. 1 - 21st April 2009, 23:59

-Stalin gave international socialism a bad name forever and armed the Capitalists with propaganda.

Like how Mao gave a "bad rep on International Socialism?" Please any leader in a Socialist countries the Capitalist would use their mistakes and make them sound like villians. Also how could there be International Socialism if the other Revolutions failed at that time.

-Stalin rose to power against Lenin's wish, through political manoevering.

Lenins wish? What wish he just claimed that he thought Trosky would be a better leader but infact he dispised Trosky alot. He hated his politic comrade so he didnt see your Trosky as a good person either.

-Stalin called the Social-Democrats "fascist"

you proof of this?

Stalin has things in common with Hitler.

Like what?

Soviet - 23rd April 2009, 09:03

PCommie.
I'll answer you later,firstly I want to ask you:If Stalin was so bad as you say why he had (and has!)so great authority over the Soviet people?Were they morons?If not,then therefore antistalinists are morons,are they?

marxistcritic - 14th May 2009, 02:35

Stalinism is the most embarresing thing that ever happened to communism. If Marx knew about Stalinism, he would roll in his grave.

Brother No. 1 - 14th May 2009, 03:37

Stalinism is the most embarresing thing that ever happened to communism.

If you mean that then you mean this.

Marxism-Leninism is pathetic to you then for "Stalinism"=Marxism-Leninism.

Now can you prove that it was "Pathetic" or will you just tell me its pathetic?

If Marx knew about Stalinism, he would roll in his grave.

Marx wouldnt agree with all the left movements but he'd agree with Marxism-Leninism which = "Stalinism"

Communist Theory - 14th May 2009, 13:28

Hah PCommie eats up Capitalist propaganda like brownies obviously.
Mmm brownies.

Soviet - 15th May 2009, 17:17

Stalinism is the mode of worker's state survivaling in extrermal conditions.

Brother No. 1 - 15th May 2009, 20:58

Hah PCommie eats up Capitalist propaganda like brownies obviously.

This is why we are to ignore people that listen to the Capitalist propaganda.

Discussion on Stalin.

Discussion Tools