Stalinists: Why Are You?

[Richard Nixon]

Why are there Stalinists still around despite the overwhelming proof nowadays that he was mass-murdering blood thirsty dictator who killed millions, helped form the Molotov-Ribbentop Pact which divided up Poland, and also was an imperialist with regards to Eastern Europe? Yes I know he industrialized the Soviet Union but in the process he forced Russians to drastically limit cosumption and conducted a brutal policy against kulaks.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Uh-oh, someone has a blatant political agenda.

Next time if you want to start a thread to ask "STALINISTS!!!!!111" why they hold their respective political positions, you should be a bit more fair in asking your questions. You can rummage through the OI for countless discussions on the subject as well, this thread is largely unnecessary.

[Kovacs]

He basically won the second world war, came from georgian peasant roots to lead an agrarian nation into being a world power and also was a massive bastard.


Djugshvalli stands as a reminder of what you can do when you are utterly ruthless. But also as an obstacle to anybody trying to export socialism because he was such a bastard rightists and historians have documented the bodies he racked up during the Terrors.

He annoys me because he fixed the idea of communism in most peoples minds as some sort of nightmare Stasi-world. Of course the Cap govs of the west stoked this all the way, but it had basis in truths.

I imagine anyone backing his ideology to day has only recourse to the argument 'he got shit done'

But at what cost?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I am not a "Stalinist" by any means, but let me explain my point of view (which I consider to be neutral towards Stalin):

Why are there Stalinists still around despite the overwhelming proof nowadays that he was mass-murdering blood thirsty dictator who killed millions...

Probably less than a million, actually (though it could be as high as 3.5 million). But yeah, he was a major paranoid asshole who instituted a reign of terror. There's not much you can do to get around that, except to argue that extreme measures were needed because the USSR was about to be overthrown from within in the 1930s... by largely the same people who created it in the first place. Yeah, ok, I don't buy that argument.

...helped form the Molotov-Ribbentop Pact which divided up Poland...

Ok, for this one you need to cut him some slack. Stalin did everything he could to form an anti-fascist alliance with Britain and France in the late 30s, but without any success. The Molotov-Ribbentop Pact was a last-ditch attempt to delay the inevitable Nazi invasion of the USSR. And yes, Stalin did agree to divide up Poland, but what would you have wanted him to do - let the Nazis take all of Poland? That would have been worse. What Stalin did in 1939 was the least bad option at the time.

...and also was an imperialist with regards to Eastern Europe?

That's debatable. Eastern European governments were pretty much allowed to do whatever they wanted internally, as long as their foreign policy gave unconditional support to the USSR. And although the Soviets did extract some economic benefits from Eastern Europe from 1945 to around 1955-60 (war reparations and such), the economic relationship between Eastern Europe and the USSR was largely favourable to Eastern Europe from 1960 to 1989.

Yes I know he industrialized the Soviet Union but in the process he forced Russians to drastically limit cosumption and conducted a brutal policy against kulaks.

As Kovacs said, Stalin got shit done. And he got shit done more efficiently than anyone else. Also, he crushed fascism. Those are the two main reasons given to support him.

[Drace]

mass-murdering blood thirsty dictator who killed millions

Not a very intellectual assault...just what millions are you referring to?

[Led Zeppelin]

I am not a "Stalinist" by any means, but let me explain my point of view (which I consider to be neutral towards Stalin):

As Kovacs said, Stalin got shit done. And he got shit done more efficiently than anyone else. Also, he crushed fascism.

That is indeed the epitome of neutrality.

[Valeofruin]

Why are there Stalinists still around despite the overwhelming proof nowadays that he was mass-murdering blood thirsty dictator who killed millions, helped form the Molotov-Ribbentop Pact which divided up Poland, and also was an imperialist with regards to Eastern Europe? Yes I know he industrialized the Soviet Union but in the process he forced Russians to drastically limit cosumption and conducted a brutal policy against kulaks.

1. Not only are 'Stalinists' still around, but we maintain a majority in the Communist ranks. Assuming of course you count anyone who includes Stalin in their ideology and views him positively.

2. The overwhelming proof suggests somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 - 4 million, including starvation and disease, which Stalin attempted to alleviate.

3. He mass murdered the bourgeois, who needed to be taken care of anyways on pain of the USSR's extinction.

4. Division of Poland, invasion of the baltics and the invasion of Finland was necessary to provide a buffer between the Soviets and the Fascists. Stalin anticipated the attack well in advance and was merely preparing for it.

5. Kulak revolt against collectivization had a role in starting the famine, and spreading the diseases I most graciously (for the bourgeois) attributed to Stalin in point 1, even though he probably didn't deserve it.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

That is indeed the epitome of neutrality.

In the same post, I also mentioned he was a mass murderer...

[Richard Nixon]

I am not a "Stalinist" by any means, but let me explain my point of view (which I consider to be neutral towards Stalin):


Probably less than a million, actually (though it could be as high as 3.5 million). But yeah, he was a major paranoid asshole who instituted a reign of terror. There's not much you can do to get around that, except to argue that extreme measures were needed because the USSR was about to be overthrown from within in the 1930s... by largely the same people who created it in the first place. Yeah, ok, I don't buy that argument.


Ok, for this one you need to cut him some slack. Stalin did everything he could to form an anti-fascist alliance with Britain and France in the late 30s, but without any success. The Molotov-Ribbentop Pact was a last-ditch attempt to delay the inevitable Nazi invasion of the USSR. And yes, Stalin did agree to divide up Poland, but what would you have wanted him to do - let the Nazis take all of Poland? That would have been worse. What Stalin did in 1939 was the least bad option at the time.

He could have actually supported the Polish with weapons or maybe even intervened in favour of Poland. And if only invaded to stop the Nazis from taking over the rest of Poland than why didn't he set up a free government in Poland in the areas the Soviets occupied?

That's debatable. Eastern European governments were pretty much allowed to do whatever they wanted internally, as long as their foreign policy gave unconditional support to the USSR. And although the Soviets did extract some economic benefits from Eastern Europe from 1945 to around 1955-60 (war reparations and such), the economic relationship between Eastern Europe and the USSR was largely favourable to Eastern Europe from 1960 to 1989.

Emphasis on the bolded part, how is that different from American foreign policy which you call "imperialist"? Most of the time Americans don't give a damn about internal affairs but they do insist on unconditional support for American policy and enforce it with some "imperialist" actions.

As Kovacs said, Stalin got shit done. And he got shit done more efficiently than anyone else. Also, he crushed fascism. Those are the two main reasons given to support him.

I wouldn't call killing millions of people including skilled workers, military officers, and others "efficient". Plus he did crush fascism and Nazism but replaced it with Stalinism which isn't much of an improvement at least until Khruschev's reforms.

1. Not only are 'Stalinists' still around, but we maintain a majority in the Communist ranks. Assuming of course you count anyone who includes Stalin in their ideology and views him positively.

No I mean those people who think "Stalin was right most of the time!" or "The kulaks deserved to be masscred!" and think Stalin was a good man. To give an example I respect Oliver Cromwell but that doesn't mean I think he's a "good" guy.

2. The overwhelming proof suggests somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 - 4 million, including starvation and disease, which Stalin attempted to alleviate.

3. He mass murdered the bourgeois, who needed to be taken care of anyways on pain of the USSR's extinction.

So people can be mass-murdered (incl women and children) as long as they aren't in the right class? Besides kulaks are not bourgeois any more than American farmers who own their own land are bourgeois.

4. Division of Poland, invasion of the baltics and the invasion of Finland was necessary to provide a buffer between the Soviets and the Fascists. Stalin anticipated the attack well in advance and was merely preparing for it.

Than why didnh't Stalin prepare for the June invasion and why was the Soviet army caught completely off-guard?

5. Kulak revolt against collectivization had a role in starting the famine, and spreading the diseases I most graciously (for the bourgeois) attributed to Stalin in point 1, even though he probably didn't deserve it.

Stalin could have bribed the kulaks or made a deal with them. Kulaks like everyone else are human beings and they naturally don't want to give up land. They certainly weren't totally opposed to socialism but what they were opposed to was complete forced collectivzation. They were sort of like the civil rights protestors in the US in the '60s or the anti-war protestors in their tactics.

[Valeofruin]

He could have actually supported the Polish with weapons or maybe even intervened in favour of Poland. And if only invaded to stop the Nazis from taking over the rest of Poland than why didn't he set up a free government in Poland in the areas the Soviets occupied?


Emphasis on the bolded part, how is that different from American foreign policy which you call "imperialist"? Most of the time Americans don't give a damn about internal affairs but they do insist on unconditional support for American policy and enforce it with some "imperialist" actions.




I wouldn't call killing millions of people including skilled workers, military officers, and others "efficient". Plus he did crush fascism and Nazism but replaced it with Stalinism which isn't much of an improvement at least until Khruschev's reforms.



No I mean those people who think "Stalin was right most of the time!" or "The kulaks deserved to be masscred!" and think Stalin was a good man. To give an example I respect Oliver Cromwell but that doesn't mean I think he's a "good" guy.


So people can be mass-murdered (incl women and children) as long as they aren't in the right class? Besides kulaks are not bourgeois any more than American farmers who own their own land are bourgeois.


Than why didnh't Stalin prepare for the June invasion and why was the Soviet army caught completely off-guard?


Stalin could have bribed the kulaks or made a deal with them. Kulaks like everyone else are human beings and they naturally don't want to give up land. They certainly weren't totally opposed to socialism but what they were opposed to was complete forced collectivization. They were sort of like the civil rights protestors in the US in the '60s or the anti-war protestors in their tactics.

1. Stalin was right 'most' of the time, or rather, Stalin made many good decisions, is a view held by 'Stalinists', Maoists, Jucheists, Castroites, 'Marxist-Leninists', pan socialists etc.

If all the 'pro stalin' groups are lumped together, and stacked against all the 'anti stalin' groups (aka the trots, anarcho communists and spartacist types), pro stalin has the majority. If you count social democrats this can change, but I really wouldn't call them 'Communists'

2. The kulaks could technically be considered petty bourgeois, depending on who you ask. Regardless they were reactionaries and nationalists, it was their choice to adopt a policy of violent resistance to collectivization, they brought the wrath of the soviet workers upon themselves.

Further, the notion that killing women and children is any worse or better then killing men is a rather chauvinist idea. Women are quite capable of fighting, as are SOME children (at a certain point in their maturity). They are not weak and vulnerable and need the almighty alpha male to protect them.

3. The USSR was not caught off guard, he did prepare, he was preparing since 1935, possibly just early 1936.

Just because you do not like the strategy, and you think preparation equates to putting a shit load of missiles on the border, does not mean the USSR was 'unprepared'.

4. Communists don't 'bribe' reactionaries, we just shoot them.

Alot of former peasants in the Ukraine supported the Nazis, I wonder why? Point being, anti collectivization quickly degraded to anti Sovietism and anti communism.

[Old Man Diogenes]

3. He mass murdered the bourgeois, who needed to be taken care of anyways on pain of the USSR's extinction.

Were anarchists and other dissenters part of the bourgeoisie as well?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

He could have actually supported the Polish with weapons or maybe even intervened in favour of Poland.

Yes, but that would have meant going to war with Germany in September 1939, while the Western Allies did nothing (remember, France and Britain declared war and then sat around for months without firing a single shot). So, this course of action would have been suicide for the USSR.

And if only invaded to stop the Nazis from taking over the rest of Poland than why didn't he set up a free government in Poland in the areas the Soviets occupied?

Oh, I never said Stalin was in any way interested in the welfare of Poland. I said he was interested in defeating the Nazis. Saving the Polish people from slavery was, for the most part, just a side effect of Stalin's main goal (and I do mean slavery in the literal sense, because that's what the Nazis had planned for Slavic peoples in their conquered territories - some were to be exterminated, and others were to be kept as illiterate servants).

Stalin occupied Eastern Poland not because he cared about the people there (the majority of whom were Belorussian, by the way, not Polish), but because he cared about stopping the Nazis from advancing further East.

Emphasis on the bolded part, how is that different from American foreign policy which you call "imperialist"? Most of the time Americans don't give a damn about internal affairs but they do insist on unconditional support for American policy and enforce it with some "imperialist" actions.

Actually, most of the time, the US exploits the countries in its sphere of influence. Imperialism requires economic domination and exploitation (with or without the cooperation of local elites in the dominated country). This is precisely what the American ruling class does. You can see it most clearly with oil, but practically every American military action in the last 60 years has been intended to defend or promote the profits of American corporations - at the expense of the workers in the conquered country.

Obviously, there are some cases where United States insists on unconditional foreign policy support but does not demand anything else. American policy towards Western Europe is the best example. In those particular cases, the US is not acting in an imperialistic manner. I don't think anyone claims that, say, Belgium has been a victim of US imperialism.

I wouldn't call killing millions of people including skilled workers, military officers, and others "efficient".

I agree. The amazing thing is that Stalin's regime was efficient, despite some horrible sources of inefficiency, like the ones you listed. Imagine what could have been achieved if Stalin hadn't imprisoned hundreds of thousands of people who could have been doing skilled work.

Plus he did crush fascism and Nazism but replaced it with Stalinism which isn't much of an improvement at least until Khruschev's reforms.

Not much of an improvement? Are you kidding? Do you have any idea what the Nazis planned to do after the war, if they won? What we call the Holocaust was supposed to be just the beginning. The Jews were the first "non-Aryan" nation on Hitler's hit list, but they were by no means the last. The Nazis wanted Lebensraum - "living space" - in the East, and they planned to get it by doing to the people of the Soviet Union exactly what European colonists did to the Native Americans... except on a much grander scale, since there were so many more of them.

Stalinism, in the post-war years, threw lots of people in jail for opposing the government. Yes, this is repressive, but it is rather ordinary, mundane repression, which happened in many different countries (including most Western countries in the 19th century). It is infinitely better than a Nazi superpower dedicated to the extermination and/or enslavement of about 1/4 of Europe's population - and its replacement with German colonists.

And Stalinism was more than just political repression. That was the negative side of it, but there was also a big positive side. In Eastern Europe after WW2, women were given equal rights to men (in some countries, like my own, this was a radical progressive reform). The 1950s in the East were a better experience for women than the 1950s in the West. Women were able, for the first time, to get the same jobs as men and earn their own income (which, by the way, was equal to the income of men for the same job - something capitalism has not achieved even today).

In the late 1940s, private schools and universities were nationalized, and all education was made free for everyone. This made it possible for the children of ordinary workers, like my grandfather, to get a higher education and have successful careers as professionals, intellectuals, civil servants or politicians. For about 10 years, there was even an affirmative action program to help children from working class backgrounds get an education. The pre-war societies of Eastern Europe were highly stratified and intensely conservative. Stalinism smashed the old elites and massively improved social mobility. Under Stalinism, it was really possible for a worker to rise to the highest levels of government - and many did. Such a thing would have been unthinkable before the war.

Today, the generation of people who were 20 years old around the year 1950 is still extremely supportive of Stalin and Stalinism. I don't really know why that is, but I suspect it's because the people of that generation feel they owe their education and their careers to Stalinism. For young people who did not oppose the government, the 1950s were a time of amazing new opportunities.

And, of course, Stalinism also brought industrialization to the agricultural societies that existed in most of Eastern Europe.

[Bud Struggle]

I wonder though, no matter what the actual pros and cons of Stalin are--why bother with him? In the eyes of 90% of the world he's damaged goods. No people in large numbers are going to flock to an organization that bears his name and likeness. Besides he's DEAD.

Communism isn't a half bad idea, but as long as you keep bring up Stalin and Trotsky and Mao and some of the others no serious people are going to listen to anything you say.

You'd do better advancing the cause or world Communism as a plan for the future than trying to rehabilitate the memory of another dead Commie butcher.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I wonder though, no matter what the actual pros and cons of Stalin are--why bother with him? In the eyes of 90% of the world he's damaged goods. No people in large numbers are going to flock to an organization that bears his name and likeness.

You'd be surprised...
He's damaged goods in the eyes of most people in Europe and North America, yes, but in Russia he's a national hero, and in other parts of the world (as far as I know) he is not seen as either particularly good or particularly bad.

Besides he's DEAD.

This on the other hand, is a much better point. I completely agree with you that we shouldn't really bother talking about Stalin, except as a purely historical topic. The problem is that even if we don't mention Stalin, our opponents will. So then we have to talk about him...

[danyboy27]

i am not a stalinist, so i cant really speak for them.

but i guess it was all about the good idea he has in the 30s that shaped the soviet union in some sort of badass superpower.

Personally, i think a lot of credit stalin received was actually stolen from its close generals and minister, but this practice is not unique to the left, its still today vastly widespread.

stalin didnt won ww2, his generals did, when he finally decided to listen to them.

[ComradeMan]

He basically won the second world war, came from georgian peasant roots to lead an agrarian nation into being a world power and also was a massive bastard.

He didn't win the Second World War! Come on... He was part of the victory. The Battle of Britain, the Battle of El Alamein and the cracking of the enigma code at Oxford were all fundamental too!!!

Stalin would not be on high on my season's greetings list however! LOL!!!

[hugsandmarxism]

Nothing brings anarchists and capitalists together like a good Stalin bashing. What can I say though? It seems both are anti-authoritarian in some sense... capitalists resisting the legitimate authority of those they exploit, and anarchists rightly resisting the authority of their exploiters.

The difference lies in that the metaphysical caprices of the anarchist inhibit them from securing any kind of real authority for their class. Smear whatever shit you like over Lenin and Stalin, it's your imperative, after all; both the exploiters seeking to defame the advances of socialism and the anarchists and petty ultra lefts who couldn't cut the mustard share a common goal in perpetuating the comic-bookish "history" of "Stalinism."

So whilst the left who couldn't and the right who wouldn't circulate the same farcical propaganda, reinforcing the dominance of the latter and the submissiveness of the former, Marxist-Leninist soberly appraise the situation, see their theory vindicated in such examples as the Soviet Union, the PRC, and Socialist Albania.

Why am I a "Stalinist"? Because I seek to resist bourgeoisie hegemony both economically and socially, ideologically and in all ways... and drinking the koolaid of anti-communism gets us no where.

/thread

[bailey_187]

He didn't win the Second World War! Come on... He was part of the victory. The Battle of Britain, the Battle of El Alamein and the cracking of the enigma code at Oxford were all fundamental too!!!

Stalin would not be on high on my season's greetings list however! LOL!!!

80% of German casualties were due to the Workers of the Soviet Union using Socialist-made weapons.

[bailey_187]

Why are there Stalinists still around.

Because we are the only left ideology that can be classed as "still around", all others are where they have always been - irelevent.
Stalin showed Socialism in practice.

despite the overwhelming proof nowadays that he was mass-murdering blood thirsty dictator who killed millions.

1) This was a view held since the 1930s. Nowadays, so its nothing new
2)if you actually read Soviet History you will see he did not kill millions. 700,000 were executed. The reasons for this are numerois though but not due to Stalin just wanting them all dead. I can explain later if you want. The question should be, why, after all the new scholarhsip from the likes of Getty with the new Soviet archives do you keep (not you personally) keep repeating this stuff which is objectivly not true?

helped form the Molotov-Ribbentop Pact which divided up Poland .

I may aswell repost what paul cockshott said in another post then rewriting it
"
[FONT=Verdana]When the Germans attacked Poland, Soviet forces initially stayed behind the international frontier. Had the Polish government withdrawn to the east into eastern Poland they could then have negotiated a peace treaty with German as the French did. Under the German Soviet pact the Germans had undertaken not to advance into the east of Poland.

Soviet forces only occupied eastern Poland after the Polish government had in a cowardly fashion fled to Romania and been interned. At that point there was no Polish government in existence any more. Had the USSR not sent its troops in the Germans would have occupied the whole country. The Polish forces offered no resistance to the USSR, whilst continuing to fight the Germans. This indicates that at that point in time, the Poles made a distinction between the actions of Germany and the USSR -- a distinction that is not maintained by current Polish nationalists."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]the pact allowed the USSR, as Robert's in Stalin's Wars says to prepare and plan for war. It also allowed the Soviets to divert troops ot the east to fight Japan[/FONT]

and also was an imperialist with regards to Eastern Europe? .

Eastern Europe did not subsidise the standard of living for Soviet workers. The closest thing to that was the taking of reperations from the Soviet Sector in Germany but the extent to whic the USSR was destroyed by the Germans, its understandable to take reperations.

Yes I know he industrialized the Soviet Union but in the process he forced Russians to drastically limit cosumption and conducted a brutal policy against kulaks.

Ultimatly though, workers benefited from the industrialisation. Consumption started to increased in the late 30s but then resources had to be diverted for war preperation.

[bailey_187]

I wonder though, no matter what the actual pros and cons of Stalin are--why bother with him? In the eyes of 90% of the world he's damaged goods. No people in large numbers are going to flock to an organization that bears his name and likeness. Besides he's DEAD.

Communism isn't a half bad idea, but as long as you keep bring up Stalin and Trotsky and Mao and some of the others no serious people are going to listen to anything you say.

You'd do better advancing the cause or world Communism as a plan for the future than trying to rehabilitate the memory of another dead Commie butcher.

The only Communist party in world that is going to seize power in the forseable future (in Nepal)





^this looks like some random shed lol. IIRC its a collective farm in Nepal


More pics from other parts of the world of people upholding Stalin:


Russia


Ukraine