Discussion on Stalin.

Someone should fix that[meaning adding those screens that show the people actually talking instead of endless typing on threads]. Speaking of threads, there are way too many stalin threads, we have more than enough already and should continue off of those.

Yeah, it's in the history section as a sticky, right?

It's got about as many replys on it as this thread. Speaking of, we realy are getting very off-topic, aren't we?

Read what the topic is about. Its called the Stalin discussion thread. Thus we have been discussing about Stalin.

OK

In my opinion, why USSR can be destroyed at the end is a complex worldwide issue. During 1917 and afterwards, specially during the years of Stalins leadership, USSR alone had to face the attack from imperialist countries. It survived the attacks, but the continuous bleeding make it weaker. And the final blow is the losing of 25 million citizens in WWII. Hitler and nazism demoslished, but it had done a very great service to the capitalist imperialism. During the whole period, most of the oppressed people of the world were in deep sleep. So, USSR alone had to fight all the wolves of imperialism. Just think of the situation, a huge army of international leftists, from India, other countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America came to the aid of USSR filled the gap in the working power and in the army. I AM PRETTY MUCH SANGUINE THAT HITLER AND THE NAZI ARMY WOULD BE KICKED OUT BEFORE ENTERING MINSK, FAR FAR AWAY FROM STALINGRAD, LENINGRAD, MOSCOW.
Moreover, USSR never had sufficient influx of human resources like the imperialist countries had in the past and still having. Previously the UK and at present the USA, had imposed english language on many part of the world. In India, and possible in many other parts of the world, english is still the language of science and technology education. Those who are educated in this manner felt very close to countries like USA and UK and immigrate there. In short, imperialism had and still having a good input of human sources throughout the world. In contrary, USSR had to rely on its own population for sceintific and technological advancment. THAT'S CERTAINLY A VERY BIG DRAWBACK.
One of the main flaws of Stalin is that, he never thought of inviting human resources from other parts of the world to come to USSR and work for its progress. I hope that in future, after another revolution, the revolutionary party that will come to power in Russia will certainly look at that matter very seriously. I AM ASSURING THE REVOLUTIONARIES OF RUSSIA THAT THERE A HUGE NUMBER OF SCIENTIST, TECHNOCRATS, INVENTORS, INNOVATORS WHO ARE WILLING TO SERVE A REVOLUTIONARY RUSSIA.

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

If you don't like Stalin, then why do you have a pic of Enver Hoxha as an avatar?

Just sayin...

STALIN PHENOMENON.

There are active opponents of Stalin, and a large mass of its more or less conscious supporters in modern Russian society.This fact illustrates both the significance of the figure itself, and that even the dead Stalin continues to "live" - he managed to resist the blows of accusations and revelations.
We should note two obvious facts.

First. As soon as the information and propaganda attacks on Stalin diminution - a positive attitude towards this figure, and her veneration begin increasing again.

The opponents of Stalin from time to time can weaken such reverence by propaganda pressure. But, on the one hand, there is a certain level, below which his popularity does not drop, and on the other - as soon as the pressure is terminated or reduced, rating the of public image begon to grow again.

Second.In general, positive assessments of Stalin are mostly affect the older age groups than the young. This seems natural: it is expected that the seniors are conservative, while the youngers are free from the stereotypes of the past .However, the usual pattern, only obscures the real paradoxical conclusion. It turns out that Stalin characterized positive primarily by those who managed to live with him, who witnessed his policies,who have experienced it for himself and for his life. And negative - those who were not eyewitnesses to those events and are repelled from the mediated information and biased interpretations.t turns out that negative assessments of the pieces are held only in so far as to actively and aggressively pressed, forced upon the public consciousness, and the positive are viable and recovered even without stimulation from the outside. Eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Stalin's rule tend to think of it positively, and negative attitudes inherent to those who have no personal experience to the unbiased judgments.

You can try to explain this situation that the older generation is still under the influence of propaganda treatment of the Stalin era. That is, " they lied, and then tell us the truth. " And indeed, there are those who honestly admit: "We believed in Stalin. But the XX Congress (XXII Congress, Solzhenitsyn, something else), opened our eyes - and we realized what it was a horror and a cheat!" However, such a position - a figure willingness of its owner to believe in everything they say - is an indicator of information instability, uncritical receptivity. The criterion of truth here is probably that people tend to take on a certain non-official level, the level of what is called a spontaneous memory of the people.

In other words, for the introduction of negative assessments of Stalin requires constant propaganda pressure. Positive assessments recovered spontaneously, on the basis of eyewitness accounts.

Our society has survived two massive anti-Stalinist campaign, top: in the late 50's and early 60's and in the years of perestroika. Plus, an official anti-communism of the 90's. As a result, today a positive attitude toward Stalin is typical for about 50% of the population, negative - about 30%. These indicators are not absolute, they vary, but generally about as follows.

In late October, at the television program "Honest Monday" on NTV viewers were asked who is Stalin to them: a criminal, a hero or an effective manager. Moreover, for a certain category of viewers the opportunity to vote was closed. Voting was carried out not by telephone but by text messages, not so common among the older generation, complimentary configured to Stalin. In the end the positive assessment clearly prevailed over the negative (61/39). Criminal Stalin called 39%, hero - 54%, and an effective manager - 9%.

If you lived under Stalin's rule positive assessments of his policies stem from personal experience, but the younger generation, not being its witnesses, are witnessing the post-Stalin policies. It was Stalin's policy - known for its results and costs, the price paid for progress. Moreover, traces of Stalin's success can be seen everywhere: from Stalin's skyscrapers to the Stalinist industry, from Banner of Victory and the staff defeated the Reichstag to the maps showing which countries were then at the border and what was the impact in the world. About the price they can only judge from the words, and mostly from the not quite adequate personalities.

And now there is anti-Stalinist politic. It shows progress only in words, but it's cost - is obvious and far more momentous and disastrous.

That is why Stalin in the eyes of ordinary people seems a kind of symbol of the Great Victory and all the other victories. One can think about the price that had to pay for the statement.

Exposer of repression usually reduce everything to the usual emotional descriptions: "Millions and millions! Flywheel terror! Shaft suffering! Tens of millions!" Forty million! "Fifty million!" Eighty million! " Normal person is horrified, overwhelmed immeasurable suffering untold agony of the victims. Then he wakes up a little and - after checking the actual historical evidence - findes out that it was all a little different. Namely: for the period 1921-53 all were convicted for political articles 4 million, and sentenced to death 800 thousand people. At the same time in 1937-38 years were convicted 1 344 923 persons, and 681 692 of them were sentenced to death . That is 85% of all shot falls during these two tragic years. And all of these processes are affected less than 2% of the population.And except for 1937-38, political repression were not of mass character.

And when these facts are being investigated, those who a moment ago talked about the "tens of millions", completely forget about what they said and immediately change the subject, rhetorically, exclaiming: "Is it too little?" But if this much, then why it was necessary to speak of "tens of millions"? So, either people did not initially know what, actually, said, or - what is true - they did, but lied, seeking a greater emotional impact. In the first case, it turns out that the speaker - the person incompetent, and his opinion can not be regarded as deserving of attention. In the second case - that he is dishonest. A liar,whose opinion is the opinion of conscious liar.

And people who say so - that is, starting with the tens of millions of destroyed, then in respect of two orders of magnitude smaller declare: "And what's difference, is it too little?" - they see not real human lives, human tragedy, but merely an argument against those whom they hate - but hated by some of his own, otherwise unrelated to the discussion of reasons.

Four million of the repressed (together - the guilty and the innocent) - is four million. And in a country with 200 millions of people - a two per cent.

If you recall the historical context of the intensification of the struggle and the confrontation of the masses, then in general it appears that losses were almost close to the minimum. Especially when you consider that the number of victims of power politics during perestroika and the 90-ies actually many times more than the number of victims of Stalinist repression.

But it is also true that the victory of Stalin's worth an incredible effort, great sacrifice, great price. And in 1937 - is, of course, a terrible tragedy.

Everything seems clear to those who say: "They were enemies. Honest Communists Revolutionaries, headed by Stalin, saving the country, crushed fascist and counterrevolutionary agents,there is nothing to regret". Everything seems clear to those who say otherwise: "Crazy and paranoid tyrant Stalin for the sake of his ambition of destroying honest and loyal to the revolution of the communists."

There is no tragedy in these two statement. In the first case it is a feat. In the second - a crime.

The tragedy appears, if honest Communists, headed by Stalin destroyed with the enemies other honest Communists (by the way, too, believed in Stalin) . This is much terrible. And the tragedy here is mutual. Just if we want to understand it, to realize the horror, to understand how this could happen,at first we must abandon the cries of the crimes. And try to understand it as a tragedy.

Could our losses be lower? We do not know. If we had examples of how these and similar tasks in similar circumstances were fullfiled with a lesser price - then we could talk. But we do not have.

We know the other thing. Stalin had a specific goals. He managed to solve them. We do not know countries in which the same term in similar circumstances would have been solved the same scale problem. Follow domestic policy either did not have similar scale purposes, or were unable to solve them.

The one is succesfull who solves problems,but not the one who pays a lower price, but does not solve the problem. The commander, who knew how to win on the cheap is better than the commander, who pays for the victory of big losses. But only under one condition - if victory is achieved. If the minimization of losses is considered as something more important than the victory, the commander and his army must, without entering into battle, immediately surrender to the enemy

All this is almost obvious. That is why the mass consciousness and spontaneous people's memory is so attracted to the image of Stalin. However, as evident by the fact that a certain portion of society treats him differently. In general political terms there is more or less clear. It is clear that certain groups hated Stalin because of natural ideological and political differences with their professed ideology and expresses its economic interests. Similarly, it is clear that there is no reason to feel love for him for people whose families have suffered from his actions . However, besides these motives should be noted another one,wich sometimes playes a leading role.

The fact is that Stalin and his policies are a kind of concentrate of mobilization on the one hand, and rigid accountability - on the other. These style and policy are a requirement of work and constant voltage, combined with the ability to achieve results, often located almost beyond the bounds of possibility. This is a constant tension, a work at the limit. People of that generation - the generation of the Revolution and World War II - are people of such a lifestyle in which your work is the main thing, and you give it completely. And neither of which do not have more fun than it.

At least,for two socio-professional groups this style is alien and hated. Firstly, for the bureaucracy, born in the mobilization system,who wished to enjoy the power and authority without burdening their responsibility and stress. Secondly, for the elite bourgeoisie,the petty-bourgeois part of the intelligense, who wished gentlemanly relaxation and comfort.

Mobilization style demanded not only a constant voltage - it required constant readiness to exploit, a real commitment to heroism, to commit acts for which you pay yourself. In other words, the style required to be and always remain a human being, who is differ from an animal becouse he has something for which he is willing to die, and the animal - does not matter. He demanded all the time to spur himself, all the time not to prevail over a biological origine, seeking to become the master of your social shell - and subdue your intellectual substance.

Stalin - or something that can be identified by that name, - represented the style and the world moving forward, the world is the ability to transcend its weaknesses. The world where people with each new victory over the circumstances rises to a new level of its generic existence.The society where knowledge is more important than consumption.

Anti-Stalinism as a kind of socio-political and socio-psychological phenomenon is a world of relaxation. The " yum-yum " society, where the development of consumption takes place human development. Where biological triumphs over the social and intellectual. Where is the overproduction of comfort is considered as a practice that can replace the lack of creativity. Where to eat - is more important than to know,and to consume - is more important than to create.

Meanwhile, a development of a human and his ascent from the eater to the researcher, from consumer to creator, in fact, is what is called progress. But the world is designed so that you pay for progress - by a will, stress, nerves, material resources.

I repeat: at the beginning of XX century Russia had two objectives. The objective of breakthroughing into a new civilizing quality and the objective of creating a social state. These tasks do not put the Bolsheviks and Stalin. They were put by the history and progress and that has caused a revolution. Lenin and the Bolsheviks, Stalin these tasks are only expressed and realized that, without solving them as quickly as possible, the country runs the risk of simply historically disappear. Stalin was able to solve them - just as he was able, and for a certain price. This does not mean that it's OK or that it is bad. This means that he managed to do it.

Who can do it better - let them show it. No one has shown.

There is the only one way to solve the problem of Stalin, to overcome his image and his memory : in similar circumstances to solve larger problems than he did - but with smaller losses and lower cost. Everything else are the lies and evil.

If Stalin had been an anarchist, Hitler would have marched through Russia in less than 5 days.