Apperently so.
Results 1 to 20 of 33
For Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninists
Oaky, this is not meant to be an attack, it is because im truly curious; in your support for Stalin, why do you think there are so many Anti-Stalinists on the Left? Are they all believers of bourgeois propaganda? A list, i know from wikipedia; but it gets the point across: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Stalinist_left
Apperently so.
Economic Left/Right: -9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
"There are decades when nothing happens; and there are weeks when decades happen." - Lenin
Well lets see...Anarchists werent to fond of Joseph Stalin and niether were Trotskyists, obviously, and others of the left dont like Stalin for his actions and think he brought the CCCP down, brought State Capitalist,ect... But the term Stalinists is basicly an attack its-self. It imples that we Marxist-Leninists, who are Anti-Revisionists, worship Joseph Stalin like some god. Do you honestly believe we Maxist-Leninists are cultists? We follow a different branch of the left like the Marxist and Anarchists do.
Wikipedia isnt the best place to get facts for it is run by cappies and anyone can say anything on there.
"In conflict only the winner writes history." Stalin did make mistakes but the Capitalists sometimes over-exagerate the estimations of his failures like they do with Mao,Lenin,ect...
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
“Congratulating Stalin is not a formality. Congratulating Stalin means supporting him and his cause, supporting the victory of socialism, and the way forward for mankind which he points out, it means supporting a dear friend. For the great majority of mankind today are suffering, and mankind can free itself from suffering only by the road pointed out by Stalin and with his help.” – Mao Tse Tung
So that's a yes to his question then?
I understand that, but this page outlays the different leftist groups that opposed stalin; and is easily accessible.
Let's see. Trotskyists must worship Trotsky then, and Maoists must worship Mao, so on and so on...
Economic Left/Right: -9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
Now speaking did Stalin ever say he was a Stalinist? for speaking Trotskyists are named like they are for Trotsky made a theory of Socialism through his ideas. Did Stalin ever do that? No he was a Marxist-Leninist. Mao created Maoism another form of Socialism thorugh his ideas. If a name is there then the most commonthing here on the left Ism ot Ist then that person created that theory. But Stalinist is used as a insult because of the Personality cult. Or have Trotskyists forgotten what they use on us poor "Stalinists" in most arguements?
“Congratulating Stalin is not a formality. Congratulating Stalin means supporting him and his cause, supporting the victory of socialism, and the way forward for mankind which he points out, it means supporting a dear friend. For the great majority of mankind today are suffering, and mankind can free itself from suffering only by the road pointed out by Stalin and with his help.” – Mao Tse Tung
Mensheviks will always be numerous
"We stand with great emotion before the millions who gave their lives for the world communist movement, the invincible revolutionaries of the heroic proletarian history, before the uprisings of working men and women and poor farmers – the mass creators of history.
Their example vindicates human existence."
- from 'Statement of the Central Committee of the KKE (On the 90th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia 1917)'
I see Anti-Revisionism completely separate from Marxism-Leninism. Also, Stalin had his own ideas about Communism just like Trotsky and Mao so I feel it's fair to call his ideas "Stalinism". It's no different from calling Trotsky's ideas Trotskyism or Mao's ideas Maoism.
Economic Left/Right: -9.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
This was directed towards anti-revisionist/marxist leninists. Pipe down Trots, and let them answer a question directed at them.
Please answer the questions the OP made, and stop turning it to conversations.This is basically attended to non-M-L that have responded in here, last warning, if you do it again , then further administrative action should and will be taken, please, if the question isnt attended to you, just dont answer, i dont think thats too hard!
Edit:Lol Sean
Fuserg9
COMMUNISM
You're never over
^Hivemind.
Oh, children, children. Does one person on this website comprehend revolutionary leadership? Respecting a leader or a revolutionary is not cultish. Leninists do not get off to pictures of Lenin, just like Anarchists don't sing 'Hare Krishna' around potraits of Bakunin. Revolutionary leadership is realizing that someone or some group is incredibly adept at what they do and the things they organize. With the Bolsheviks, Lenin has the ability to reach out to the masses and the working class to promote organization. In China, Mao Zedong led the struggle against reactionaries and bourgeois fascists. You have to recognize revolutionary leadership if you ever want to understand revolutionary politics.
Anyway, as much as the ignorant masses would like to proclaim, Anti-Revisionists do not worship Stalin. Of course there's a lot of anti-Stalin on the left. But there's also a lot of anti-Trotsky. A lot of anti-Obama. A lot of anti-everyone. That doesn't mean that just because a figure is not universally accepted, he must be repudiated. The Soviet Union under Stalin saw massive industrial development and incredible military growth that sustained the massive onslaught of the Nazi military. I like to ask people to close their eyes and imagine if Stalin and Hitler never clashed. Imagine if Hitler focused all his energy on Western Europe and left the Soviet Union completely alone. They'd be speaking German over there, that's for fucking sure.
To the original poster, it sounds like you've been reading my posts. I often claim that those who are anti-Stalin are subscribing to bourgeois propaganda. This is not totally true, but it has a valid notion that needs recognized. Take Noam Chomsky, for example. Chomsky has written some good stuff on imperialism and the media's hegemony in the United States. It's ironic, though, because despite his incredible anti-imperialist stance, he totally ignores the imperialist factors in the Soviet Union. Ask yourself, was the Soviet Union threatened consistently since the moment the Bolsheviks took power? Was it attacked by military powers? Was it not an under-industrialized nation that would have been destroyed, had Lenin and Stalin not industrialized and prepared the state for military assault? Would we have preferred that Stalin allow the Soviet Union to remain impoverished and watch Hitler's war machine march through the entire nation?
Chomsky, as we see, totally ignores imperialism's role in the development of the Soviet Union. As do most others. It is total bourgeois propaganda to come out and claim that 'Communism failed in the Soviet Union' without acknowleding why. It wasn't because of an ideological flaw in Marxism, but it was instead colonial and imperialist threats from the capitalist world that forced the Soviet Union to focus on its military to such an extent that workers and the proletariat were not the prime centers of attention. It was literally a choice between enacting socialism without industrial development and allowing Germany to destroy and disunify the entire nation, or industrialize and keep the state alive. Stalin chose the latter to sustain Soviet development and had his policies continued to be strengthened and not impeded by revisionism, the Soviet Union would have become a massive, self-sustainable power that would properly enact socialist reforms.
Therefore, we must see the factors that played out in the Soviet Union and not totally accept the bourgeois notions that 'Marxism' and 'Communism' are ideologically flawed. If anything, it is the capitalist oppression and destructive hegemony of the bourgeoisie that is flawed, as it decimated entire nations and groups in the interest of profit. The Soviet Union was a threat to corporate profit and imperialist gains, so it had to go.
The basic ideas of Marxism, upon which alone a revolutionary party can be constructed, are continuous in their application and have been for a hundred years. The ideas of Marxism, which create revolutionary parties, are stronger than the parties they create, and never fail to survive their downfall. They never fail to find representatives in the old organizations to lead the work of reconstruction. These are the continuators of the tradition, the defenders of the orthodox doctrine. The task of the uncorrupted revolutionists, obliged by circumstances to start the work of organizational reconstruction, has never been to proclaim a new revelation – there has been no lack of such Messiahs, and they have all been lost in the shuffle – but to reinstate the old program and bring it up to date.
- James P. Cannon, 'The Degeneration of the Communist Party'
So is that a yes, they are all believers in bourgeois propaganda?
Last edited by Idealism; 10th May 2009 at 19:23. Reason: Impulsive remark ;)
Not directly and intentionally, but they definitely propagate a lot of the same general theories and statements that bourgeois scholars and capitalis media figures promote.
The basic ideas of Marxism, upon which alone a revolutionary party can be constructed, are continuous in their application and have been for a hundred years. The ideas of Marxism, which create revolutionary parties, are stronger than the parties they create, and never fail to survive their downfall. They never fail to find representatives in the old organizations to lead the work of reconstruction. These are the continuators of the tradition, the defenders of the orthodox doctrine. The task of the uncorrupted revolutionists, obliged by circumstances to start the work of organizational reconstruction, has never been to proclaim a new revelation – there has been no lack of such Messiahs, and they have all been lost in the shuffle – but to reinstate the old program and bring it up to date.
- James P. Cannon, 'The Degeneration of the Communist Party'
They are lots of groups, but not a lot of people. I don't know if they are "all believers in bourgeois propaganda", that sounds like a very bourgeois idealist way of putting it in the first place.
To be honest, this question can be extended to pretty much all political movements. Liberals, conservatives and libertarians are against fascism. Why are there so many anti-fascists on the right? Are they all believers of marxist propaganda? Stalinists, anarchists and maoists are all against trotskyism, why are there so many anti-trotskyists on the left? Are they all believers of stalinist propaganda?
What's the matter Lagerboy, afraid you might taste something?
Actually trashed my stupidity and cleared the thread from the other posts too.Again sorry Idealism!
You're never over
It's fine, mistakes happen, No worries.
The reason why im asking by the way, is because of looking into this belief in history; that completely challenges what i had thought before, and is rejected widely by most people (in America). On one hand, if i say Stalin was a dictator, then why are my comrades supporting him? they have no reason to support a dictator, so this leads me to believe that he is not. On the other hand, if it is true that he did help build socialism and was a loyal Marxist-Leninist, how am i supposed to believe that my comrades are against him? why are so many historians against him? this leads to believe that i am mistaken in the idea that he was such a person. So you see, it is because I see very conflicting ideas, both from people who i see as my comrades, as people i can trust.
Welcome to politics. Really, you just have to make your own conclusions.
In my opinion, its not as simple as for example "was Stalin a dictator or not"; this kind of black and white analysis is pointless and doesn't get to the point. The point being whether or not Stalin's actions left a positive impression for the development of socialism in the USSR. I think for the most part his actions had positive effects, but he definitely was not perfect. Not only is it analytically weak to view a person with such black and white standards; its also incorrect to assume that one man comprised the political makeup of a point in time. Stalin certainly had power, but it wasn't absolute, and nor was he superhuman; everyone has their limits.
Anti-Revisionists see the Soviet Union developing on a path towards socialism during Stalin's leadership. As evidenced by the economic and social development seen in the Soviet Union during this time, as well as the suppression (yet seemingly failed suppression) of bourgeois influence on society. Really, that's what it get's down to. Of course the Soviet Union wasn't perfect, and it didn't fit the compartmentalized views of some revolutionaries....but when has an ideology put into practice been the absolute perfect embodiment of an ideal? Never.
