AvanteRedGarde: #2 on the ignore list. Thanks, cutie pie.
There's a good chance I'm just pissed off that Cumannach (now ignored, so I don't know if he can even see my posts? I can't see his, which is nice) is trying to claim that I am a revisionist for differentiating between what I believe is socialism and developing socialism. As Organ pointed out, there were, of course, many authoritarian aspects to Stalin's rule. Some of them necessary, in my opinion, some of them not. I'm not claiming that the Soviet Union was 'state capitalist' or anything of the sort, but I acknowledge that if there is not total workers control and comprehensive reforms that are widespread, there is not socialism. That's what I see as developing socialism: a state that is combatting the bourgeois state and struggling for socialism that is led by a vanguard party of the working class that is in power, but at the moment, does not or may not have the resources to properly sustain widespread reforms. This does not mean it was degenerating or revisionist, but merely that it was developing socialism. Is that revisionist?
Let's clear up a couple of things.
1) I'm not a Trotskyist. I'm not giving into their agenda, so stop acting like this is a tug-of-war competition.
2) I'm not saying that anti-revisionism is a flawed ideology and I shouldn't have said anything like that. What I think I'm trying to say here is that there's a lot of anti-revisionists here who claim to be critical of Stalin on some issues, but they never say what. I appreciate all of you taking the time to do that, but you should always do that. Don't leave a gray area.
I thank those of you who took the time to expand on my and your ideology. To those of you who insist on being petty and sectarian, eat me.