Discussion on Stalin.

Stalin did more to secure the defeat of socialism than 50 years of western imperialism.

He is the reason people think 'gulags' when the name of communism is mentioned.

I know that some people are hardcore Stalinist but I really don't know why.

That's becouse they know the thing much better than you.

he wasn't really even a communist

If he wasn't then his policy was bourgeoise.Let 's look.
1.Collectivization of agriculture-is it the act of boureoise policy or of cocialist policy?Of course,it's the act of socialist policy.
2.Industrialisation(as a results are the strengthening of economic power of the USSR,the growing of the proletariat from 14% at 1917 up to 33% at 1939 and the elimination of unemployment)-is it the act of boureoise policy or of cocialist policy?Of course,it's the act of socialist policy.
3.Culture revolution-is it the act of boureoise policy or of cocialist policy?Of course,it's the act of socialist policy.
4.The solution of a national problem-is it the act of boureoise policy or of cocialist policy?Of course,it's the act of socialist policy.
5.The generation of strong armed forces which ensured the state security of the USSR.What about it?

[QUOTEthose are my feelings.][/QUOTE]
Feelings!You mustn't feel,you must know and you didn't,exscuse me.

he did practicaly the same thing any dicator does.

You must understand that under those conditions after the civil war and in hostile foreign environment there couldn't be any power but only dictatorship.The quostion is in whose interests was the dictatorship.I've mentioned you facts wich are showing that it was in interests of the most people.

Any person who had an opposing idea to him was killed.

Wrong.Stalin's opponent suffered a defeat in open discussions and went over to the underground struggle for power.That's why they were condemned
[QUOTEA modurn example of Stalin was Sadam Husain][/QUOTE]
Nothing of the kind

I might not obsessively study Stalin and read his propaganda

Then you shouldn't talk about this things if you don't want to know anything about them.

I only ask that you do not attack my opinnions either.

I don't attack you,I only try to explain you things wich I know better.
Listen,I'd never dispute agaist you about Black Panters,for example,or KKK,becouse you must know them better than me,I'd better listen for you.But why you don't want to understand that I know the history of my country much more better than any stranger,why don't you want to understand what I say?

but at the end got paranoid and killed many people.

I'm bored with nude matters.Who were killed?Names,please.From what search your information?

he did do good and bad.

What bad exactly?Facts,please.

Stalin came to power "illegally" and against the wishes of Lenin

Why?Stalin was voted in the Central Commity as early as 1910.In april 1922 he was voted in General secretary of the party.By the way, by Lenin's aprobation.So what do you call "illegally"?

He was far from Lenin's inner circle

Those whom you call " Lenin's inner circle" were intelligenses-emigrants who leaved abroad for 15-20 years been sure that they could make revolution sitting on their asses.Stalin as a leader of the Russian Buro had his own curcle:revolutioners who leaved and worked in Russia,who knew Russia and Russian people.

have destroyed the proletarian morale in 1937 with neighbor against neighbor denunciations

have destroyed the proletarian morale in 1937 with neighbor against neighbor denunciations

At first,at 1918 neighbor fought against neighbor in the civil war.Are you sure that it is better?At 1937 was the final act of the civil war.
At second,what about the proletariat moral?Do you think that the proletariat is a something ideal?Socialism was built by the people corrupted by capitalism,that's why it couldn't be ideal.At 1937 people was called for unmusking public enemies but nobody called them for righting false denunciations.

Hmm. First, what's Revisionism/Anti-Revisionism? Second, Polish Soviet, don't let Rebel get you down. He doesn't defend his beliefs his just say "fuck you" to the opposition ("redneck dicks", he remembers). Third, from what I know of Stalin, I would say it's like with Hitler: He knew how to get what he wanted done, but his methods were not good. Of course, not as bad as Hitler. You can't deny what he did, but you can protest his method. Again, I am speaking from an uninformed position.

H&S forever,
-PC

If we'll sum up results of this discussion we'll see that antistalinists can't prove anything,the can only make nude matters.

What do you want to say by that?And why I can't say "bourgeoisie propaganda" if it is really bourgeoisie propaganda from bourgeoisie source?A bourgeoisie interpretation of real events.A bourgeoisie interpretation consists in calling all victims of a "great purge" innocent.But have you your own head?Have you ever heard about a class war?You could have understood that the wide scope of repressions annonces that they were the result not of someone's caprice but of a strained class war.The "great pourge"was the final act of the civil war in Russia.And if you sympathizes with "innocent victims" you sympathizes class enemies.Then you are not a marxist.

I am anti-Stalin. Did he do some decent things? Yes he did. But could of others do better? Yes!

1. He was a constant backstabber. I assume that Soviet is from a former Soviet country. Then you should be familiar with the story on how he seized power? It was one big chain of backstabs.

2. The Great Purge. The Purge was not to get rid of our class enemies. He arrested many generals. His reasons was that he studied Napoleon Bonaparte's rise to power and he wanted to remove all generals with charisma and initiative.

3. His WW2 policy was abysmal. Spies, while they were a bit inaccurate, all eventually zeroed in to say that the invasion would come June 22. He didn't alert the Air Force, he didn't alert the Army, he didn't alert the Navy. His generals, Zhukov and Timshenko both warned him but they ignored him. They even did a hypothetical battle involving the Nazis VS the Soviets earlier that year around New Years, showing what plan they would need to go.

4. More on WW2, when war did start he was to blame for the Red Army's first defeats. The Red Airforce was in crowded air bases where the Luftwaffe was easily able to destroy them in their pretty star formations. The Red Army was caught by suprise and they have a massive retreat in the north. Stalin ordered a counter attack, which was impossible, the troops were under equipped, under manned, the Soviet Army was in the process of preparing for Stalin's attack plan that would take place in 1942. They were neither prepared to attack or defend. Generals were forced to take their troops and go on a suicidal counter attack because if they didn't their Political Commissars would shoot the General. Generals such as Zhukov and Timshenko won the war, the orders that Stalin put out only hurt the Soviet military. For example, the Soviets were about to complete the plans to build a very great tank, but Stalin, uneducated in tanks and only knowing artillery demanded that the tank's cannon become even stronger. He did not have enough KV-1 tanks, the other Soviet tanks required repair after a certain amount of miles due to their poor design. There was a defensive fort line at the pre-Soviet/Poland border. Stalin ordered these forts and such to be moved right on the border with now occupied German Poland. If they were attacking that was great! But since they had to defend it was horrible. Troops would retreat to the old fort locations near Minsk for example and when they got there they found it was just an empty shell since the guns were transferred out. Finally, Stalin's Field Marshals were not genius, their Field Marshals were mostly old WW1 Generals, making those such as Semyon Budyonny's love of calvary totally inefficient.

My source for my 4 points is Stalin's Folly by Constantine Pleshakov, who's sources include Soviet archives and Soviet generals' secret journals and letters.

I am anti-Stalin

So much the worse for you.

But could of others do better? Yes!

Nude matters cost nothing.

Then you should be familiar with the story on how he seized power? It was one big chain of backstabs.

Of course.He was elected at party Congresses.What's wrong?

The Purge was not to get rid of our class enemies. He arrested many generals.

Dust Bunnies is sure that geneals can't be class enemies!No comment.
Dust Bunnies rot about WW2 I'll comment later.

So much the worse for you.

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

Nude matters cost nothing.

Nude matters?

Of course.He was elected at party Congresses.What's wrong?

Ah I lost the names. Forgetting the area of the book where I found my information I googled it.

"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."

Those are just two of the names. The rest of the term paper talks about Stalin's seizure of power.(http://www.customessaymeister.com/cu...nism/13353.htm).

Dust Bunnies is sure that geneals can't be class enemies!No comment.

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.

Dust Bunnies rot about WW2 I'll comment later.

My responses put into red inside your quote box. I, honestly is a novice in all fields, I guess now would be the opportune time to read "Revolution Betrayed" by Leon Trotsky? :P