The Stalin Thread 2: all discussion about Stalin (as a person) in this thread please

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Firstly Ismail, you sound absolutely crackers. Seriously, you could not come across as more away from reality if you tried. You celebrate the 1917 revolution yet are happy to decry most of its leaders as counter-revolutionaries deserving of death. You defend the NEP as a necessary step given material conditions, yet again are happy to decry many of its supporters and bureaucrat-implementers as anti-revolutionaries, saboteurs or spies. You love the industrialisation/collectivisation of the 1930s, yet again decry many of its party supporters as fascists, rightists or other somewhat unbelievable charges. And again, you Stalinists celebrate Sergei Kirov, yet fanatically celebrate the process that resulted in the death of most of those at the 1934 'Congress of the Victors' who voted for Kirov on the Central Committee.

Coincidence? I think not. Anyway, it matters not because the issue is an historical irrelevance.

Secondly, so what if Bukharin opposed Stalin? Is political opposition reasonable grounds for the death penalty now? Or even imprisonment? It's not a crime, even if you think their politics is 'rightist' or whatever. So what if he talked about murdering him? Surely by that logic, Stalin should have hung for the murder of Trotsky? What's your excuse for that one?

[Geiseric]

It's quite simple. Bukharin was a rightist and leader of the Right Opposition; he spoke of getting rid of Stalin and conspired with the Left Opposition against him. At one point during his open opposition he discussed the possibility of murdering him. In his last letter to Stalin while in prison he admitted that a few years earlier at an illegal conference of his followers one of them discussed killing Stalin and that he himself took no action to report this to the authorities.

Sudoplatov, the guy who organized the assassination of Trotsky, noted in his memoirs published after 1991 that Stalin called the man a "fascist hireling." It's long been confirmed that Trotsky after his exile from the USSR was still working to build up not only a new Left Opposition, but tried to establish contacts with what still existed of the Right Opposition as well. The Moscow Trials and pre-trial testimonies, of which there is no evidence Stalin didn't believe in them (he actively inquired about them, wrote letters to Kaganovich, Molotov, etc. talking about what the confessed were saying in private testimonies, etc.), evidently laid forth the view that Trotsky had established ties with Nazi Germany, Britain, Japan, etc. in an effort to take power.

First off, building a political opposition isn't a bad thing, but you're a supporter of Stalin, so you wouldn't ever understand why. For some reason you believe in the myth that Trotsky, the founder of the red army and president of the Petrograd soviet, was a fascist, or was supported by Fascists. There isn't any proof for this, and Trotsky advocated for the utter destruction of fascism.

Nothing you listed that was true, i.e. establishing contacts with people inside the U.S.S.R. is worthy of being killed for.

[Ismail]

You celebrate the 1917 revolution yet are happy to decry most of its leaders as counter-revolutionaries deserving of death.

Probably because helping to carry out a revolution does not make you immune from later on adopting reactionary positions, ignoring for a moment that Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov and others were originally against the prospect of a revolution and only supported it as it occurred, in line with democratic centralism.

You defend the NEP as a necessary step given material conditions, yet again are happy to decry many of its supporters and bureaucrat-implementers as anti-revolutionaries, saboteurs or spies.

Bukharin and Co. didn't merely "support" NEP, they wanted to extend it indefinitely after its original purpose had run its course, at a time when its continuance would have meant harm for the Soviet state and the dictatorship of the proletariat. They adopted clearly right-wing positions on kulaks (believing they could peacefully "grow into socialism") and other subjects.

You love the industrialisation/collectivisation of the 1930s, yet again decry many of its party supporters as fascists, rightists or other somewhat unbelievable charges.

Apparently the Moscow Trials had "advocates industrialization and collectivization" among the charges levied against the defendants and the world forgot to notice.

And again, you Stalinists celebrate Sergei Kirov, yet fanatically celebrate the process that resulted in the death of most of those at the 1934 'Congress of the Victors' who voted for Kirov on the Central Committee.

The "they voted for Kirov" story has little basis in fact. Kirov was loyal to Stalin and Stalin became alarmed when he was assassinated.

Secondly, so what if Bukharin opposed Stalin? Is political opposition reasonable grounds for the death penalty now?

It violated the ban on party factions established by Lenin, and, in line with the directives of the Party, many rightists and Trots were promptly expelled from it. There was no talk of executing anyone until the 30's.

Surely by that logic, Stalin should have hung for the murder of Trotsky?

Why? Trotsky was expelled from the Party (and, indeed, from the country itself) for factional and later conspiratorial activity. He was later sentenced in absentia during the Moscow Trials for treason, which obviously carried the death penalty. He was completely discredited within Soviet society. Still seen as a potentially destabilizing force, Stalin had him assassinated.

For some reason you believe in the myth that Trotsky, the founder of the red army and president of the Petrograd soviet,

Deng Xiaoping, Mehmet Shehu, and all sorts of rehabilitated post-56 pro-Soviet revisionist leaders boasted more-or-less impressive revolutionary records. I fail to see how that makes them forever glorious communists. Trotsky certainly was in opposition to Lenin before 1917, calling him a dictator among other things. Just because he fought well and was a skilled orator does not automatically make him an awesome communist who would never deviate.

was a fascist, or was supported by Fascists. There isn't any proof for this, and Trotsky advocated for the utter destruction of fascism.

No one seriously claimed that Trotsky was a fascist. During the trials it was claimed at most that Yagoda, a rightist who was portrayed as a guy who would work with the Trotskyists and promptly kill them after the "Stalinists" were overthrown, was sympathetic to fascism and would establish a fascist-like government. The charges against Trotsky centered around the claim that he collaborated with fascists to overthrow the Soviet state and come to power, not that he himself was one.

Nothing you listed that was true, i.e. establishing contacts with people inside the U.S.S.R. is worthy of being killed for.

Establishing contacts with people inside the USSR wasn't what the Moscow Trials defendants were charged with. It's not hard to find out the charges or even find the transcripts; they're all online.

* http://sovietlibrary.org/Library/Uni...entre_1936.pdf
* http://sovietlibrary.org/Library/Uni...entre_1937.pdf
* http://sovietlibrary.org/Library/Uni...yites_1938.pdf

[Geiseric]

Dude you're alienating so many people from the communist movement if you keep spouting this bullshit. I hope you don't claim to represent marxists if you ever defend Stalin in real life, because I and the rest of the future movement suffers if you do.

Also Deng Xioping was following Comintern's, by extension, Stalin's orders. I don't care if you ignore the bureaucratization, it's a fact.

And Trotsky never collaborated with any Fascists. Find me proof, or you're spouting nonsense. Why would he call for an overthrow of Nazism (which Stalin didn't) if he was planning on supporting them against the USSR? He didn't. If I really need to explain his position, he was calling for a revolution against the Bureaucracy which strangled the USSR and the world revolution, not establishing a "fascist like" (which is completely ridiculous if you know what fascism is) government.

[Камо́ Зэд]

I don't know that Trotsky collaborated with actual fascists. I wouldn't be all that surprised if this turned out to be true, but that's likely an attitude resultant of my prejudice against the man. I'm personally guilty of calling Trotsky a fascist on more than one occasion, and there's the famous quote about Trotsky by Gramsci, but until I know for sure that Trotsky collaborated with actual fascists, the extent to which Trotsky can be called a "fascist" is determined by how far the man's politics deviated from the theoretical framework of Marxism-Leninism. Even then, it strikes me as hyperbolic, although revisionism is the progenitor of fascistic attitudes.

[Ismail]

Also Deng Xioping was following Comintern's, by extension, Stalin's orders.

Well yeah, so was Mao. Then Stalin died and Mao complained about how Stalin didn't trust him and how big bad dogmatic Stalin didn't trust the peasantry, didn't trust the CCP, etc. The point is that Mao, Deng, Liu Shaoqi, and others toed the line when it was impossible for them otherwise, and then when the coast was clear they made their rightists moves. The only difference is that Liu and Deng were to the right of Mao. But this isn't my point anyway; the point is that being in an important event, or being a veteran communist in general, doesn't mean anything when you later endorse rightist policies.

Case in point: when the Communist Party of Albania was founded, most of its founding members had no ties with the Comintern (Hoxha included.) Only Koço Tashko and later on Sejfulla Malëshova had prominent ties with it. Malëshova in particular had become a communist in the 20's and was a professor of philosophy in the Soviet Union, and had gotten in trouble for being a sympathizer of the Right Opposition under Bukharin.

During the war Malëshova, under the pretext that he was acting on orders from the Soviets, called for the National Liberation Front to promote the creation of a party from the ranks of the Balli Kombëtar, the collaborationist "resistance" organization opposed to the communists, as a way of splitting it and "broadening" the basis of the Front. Hoxha rejected this suggestion even though Malëshova insisted Hoxha's stand was in opposition to that of the Soviets. After the war Malëshova continued, promoting the formation of multiple parties within the Front. In addition he also called for Albania's revolution to basically be a bourgeois-democratic one rather than a socialist one, for an "all-Albanian cultural front" which aimed to synthesize reactionary (under the guise of being "national") literature with progressive literature, for good relations with the West, etc. In other words, he was clearly a rightist, and was expelled from the Party as a result.

As for Tashko, he was expelled in 1960 after being so absurdly supportive of the Soviet revisionist line that he accidentally pronounced, in a bout of confusion, the Russian word for "full stop" in a speech which had been presented to him by the Soviet embassy in Albania.

Even Kost Boshnjaku, pretty much the first Albanian communist and who was sent to Albania by the Comintern in 1918 to organize a communist movement there, gradually lost interest in communism but later on emerged in the postwar government as head of the State Bank and as a rightist. Llazar Fundo, another 20's communist and Cominternist, briefly flirted with Trotskyism but then became a social-democrat and collaborator with British-backed anti-communist groups during the war.

Why would he call for an overthrow of Nazism (which Stalin didn't) if he was planning on supporting them against the USSR?

Lenin called for the overthrow of German imperialism alongside all other imperialisms. Lenin accepted money from the Germans with the aim of returning to Russia to organize the Bolsheviks to lead the workers' movement there. Trotsky could be against Nazi Germany and still see value in collaborating with it, although obviously this collaboration would have been in a very different situation.

As for evidence, see: http://clogic.eserver.org/2009/Furr.pdf

not establishing a "fascist like" (which is completely ridiculous if you know what fascism is) government.

No one said that Trotsky would aim to establish a fascist-like government. Read my post, Yagoda was accused of wanting to establish one. And yes, fascist-like governments do exist. What do you call the Baltic states of the interwar period? Interwar Poland (which Trots at the time also called quasi-fascist)? Franco's Spain? Portugal under Salazar? Obviously they were not quite fascist in the sense of Italy (and less so in the sense of Nazi Germany), yet clearly were inspired by fascism.

[Камо́ Зэд]

And yes, fascist-like governments do exist.

I'm reminded of Bill Bland's, I believe, characterization of the Soviet Union following the Liberman/Kosygin reforms as a fascist-type state. Looking at it through Marxist-Leninist theory, the D.P.R.K. could likewise be categorized a fascist-type state without having actually been "inspired" by fascism, as well. I doubt anyone would argue that North Korea is at least quasi-fascistic and has deviated significantly from the Marxist-Leninist socialist endeavor, even though its anti-imperialist efforts may be admirable.

[Raskolnikov]

The DPRK? Fascist? That's kinda ignoring the whole thing about the material situations and political situations of the DPRK from the 50s to the today-now-time.

When I consider "Fascist", I consider a regime hell-bent on protecting capitalism and the bourgeois through an authoritarian right-wing military dictatorship; usually helped via the CIA or CIA-machinations. (Free Radio of Europe anyone? How bout Operation Gladio?)

That is the entire "point" of fascism, it's purpose. The protection of Capitalism and it's machinations as a dictatorship with no smoke and mirrors. Full-on dictatorship. Sometimes (as seen in the Cold War) to protect capitalist interests' in the region, usually capitalists from Imperial(First World) Dominions.

Then Stalin died and Mao complained about how Stalin didn't trust him and how big bad dogmatic Stalin didn't trust the peasantry, didn't trust the CCP, etc.

One can question Stalin's fever in finding a KMT-CCP alliance finding fruit..though Ultimately didn't Mao oppose Khrushchev's "Secret Meeting" and his criticism of Stalin?

Why would he call for an overthrow of Nazism (which Stalin didn't) if he was planning on supporting them against the USSR?

..Which is why Stalin actually wanted an Anglo-Franco-Soviet alliance to Crush Hitler in the late 30s before the Non-Aggression Pact was signed?

If I really need to explain his position, he was calling for a revolution against the Bureaucracy which strangled the USSR and the world revolution,

During a time where the USSR was still recovering from the War, the NEP and so forth..No hazards there..None what so ever..

[Ismail]

One can question Stalin's fever in finding a KMT-CCP alliance finding fruit..though Ultimately didn't Mao oppose Khrushchev's "Secret Meeting" and his criticism of Stalin?

"Ultimately" yes, at the time no. Mao praised the fall of the "Anti-Party Group," said that under Khrushchev the USSR and China were "equals," attacked Stalin for seeing in Mao a "Tito-type" person, etc.

[Камо́ Зэд]

I don't know that fascism can be really called a "no smoke and mirrors" form of oppression, in that fascists would typically assert that their intent was to move "beyond" capitalism, rather than to feverishly defend everything about it. One of Hitler's earliest comrades broke from the N.S.D.A.P. on the grounds that Hitler had "lost sight" of the supposed anti-capitalist goals of National Socialism, that the very nature of capitalism and private enterprise was "Jewish" in character.

[Geiseric]

Fascism rose because of chaotic capitalism and inevitable crisis that didn't end in a revolution. Calling trotsky an advocate of a "fascist type government" is rediculous and I find it hard to take seriously anybody who believes that. But untill the nazis invaded fascism was a matter of taste right?

[Ismail]

Calling trotsky an advocate of a "fascist type government" is rediculous and I find it hard to take seriously anybody who believes that.

Yeah, good thing no one says that.

[Raskolnikov]

"Ultimately" yes, at the time no. Mao praised the fall of the "Anti-Party Group," said that under Khrushchev the USSR and China were "equals," attacked Stalin for seeing in Mao a "Tito-type" person, etc.

Stalin seeing Mao as a 'Tito-Type'? Strange..more so than the whole relationship between Yugoslavia and the USSR (formerly quite grand before that fallout) but I've never heard that phrase before.

Letters from the 50s, prior to the Doctors Plot?

[Ismail]

Stalin seeing Mao as a 'Tito-Type'? Strange..more so than the whole relationship between Yugoslavia and the USSR (formerly quite grand before that fallout) but I've never heard that phrase before.

Letters from the 50s, prior to the Doctors Plot?

http://marx2mao.com/Mao/TMR56.html

Stalin did a number of wrong things in connection with China. The "Left" adventurism pursued by Wang Ming in the latter part of the Second Revolutionary Civil War period and his Right opportunism in the early days of the War of Resistance Against Japan can both be traced to Stalin. At the time of the War of Liberation, Stalin first enjoined us not to press on with the revolution, maintaining that if civil war flared up, the Chinese nation would run the risk of destroying itself. Then when fighting did erupt, he took us half seriously, half sceptically. When we won the war, Stalin suspected that ours was a victory of the Tito type, and in 1949 and 1950 the pressure on us was very strong indeed.

Stalin tended to distrust leaders who were fond of "nationalizing" Marxism-Leninism in some way; he also had some distrust of Ho Chi Minh for similar reasons.

As Hoxha wrote in his diary when he read those words of Mao's, "Glancing over all the main principles of Mao Tsetung's revisionist line, in regard to all those things which he raises against Stalin, we can say without reservation that Stalin was truly a great Marxist-Leninist who foresaw correctly where China was going, who long ago realized what the views of Mao Tsetung were, and saw that, in many directions, they were Titoite revisionist views, both on international policy and on internal policy, on the class struggle, on the dictatorship of the proletariat, on peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems, etc." (Reflections on China Vol. II, p. 385.)

[Geiseric]

Stalin tended to distrust leaders who were fond of "nationalizing" Marxism-Leninism in some way; he also had some distrust of Ho Chi Minh for similar reasons.

So he was pro capitalist relations? I'm not going to post in here, because all you reply with is what Stalin or Hoxha thought, which is meaningless, since they're the subjects of the criticism in the first place!

Interviewer: Mr. X, you murdered Mr. Y, what was your opinion on him?

Mr. X: Mr. Y was an asshole!

That's basically every arguement that i've heard here. Substitute asshole for revisionist, and that's Stalinism.

[Камо́ Зэд]

So he was pro capitalist relations? I'm not going to post in here, because all you reply with is what Stalin or Hoxha thought, which is meaningless, since they're the subjects of the criticism in the first place!

Interviewer: Mr. X, you murdered Mr. Y, what was your opinion on him?

Mr. X: Mr. Y was an asshole!

That's basically every arguement that i've heard here. Substitute asshole for revisionist, and that's Stalinism.

This confuses me, because the above seems to be in response to an open criticism of Stalin by a Marxist-Leninist, but at the same time seems to suggest that Marxist-Leninists are nothing if not constantly defensive of him. That Stalin misjudged the character of many of those who "nationalized" Marxism-Leninism (like Ho Chi Minh, a very admirable Marxist-Leninist) marks a shortcoming in Stalin's methodological approach to these questions, but it is at least as unreasonable to say that this shortcoming makes Stalin "pro-capitalist" as it is to say that Trotsky's own (many and varied) shortcomings of methodology make him "pro-fascist."

[Althusser]

Do you even understand what art is? 'Learning chords on the piano as some soulless bourgeois exercises'. In what sense is that bourgeois? It is precisely what art is, and art is where culture comes from.

You cannot force a population over a period of time to pre-dispose itself to a new conception of artistic culture. Sorry to say it, but some of the greatest art in the world has come from painting still faces and 'learning chords on the piano'. That you demean the art of musicality to such a sorry, simplistic phrase indicates to me that you do not understand what you are talking about.

If the populace makes artistic expressions that convey a socialist ideal because of happiness that springs from new socialist system, then that's just dandy, but in no way should the state determine whether a piece of art meets the level of "consciousness" required. In no way am I saying that this extreme is what some here consider "ideal" but... just say I wanted to paint the sky, sculpt a human figure or sing a "love song" (not for socialism but for man/woman) ... is this bourgeois?

I feel that people are implying that with the bourgeois mode of production gone, all everyone will live for and think about is their new glorious system. Bourgeois social relations will change but I'm sure there will be communists that find joy in painting a goddamn pine tree without [insert socialist leader here] handing fruit to children frolicking in the meadow.

If I got into art (painting/sculpting/music) in a socialist system, I would definitely make political statements myself because the "revolution", marxist theory in action, and cooperatively forging better society is what I'm interested in... but I only speak for myself.

EDIT: Sorry, I just realized how far this thread has gone. I don't mean to derail the subject being discussed now.

[Ismail]

So he was pro capitalist relations?

What kind of reply is that? I said that Stalin was suspicious of those who tried to put a "national" stamp on Marxism-Leninism. Considering that such stamping often meant concessions to the bourgeoisie in some form, evidently no, Stalin was not "pro capitalist relations."

[ind_com]

This confuses me, because the above seems to be in response to an open criticism of Stalin by a Marxist-Leninist, but at the same time seems to suggest that Marxist-Leninists are nothing if not constantly defensive of him. That Stalin misjudged the character of many of those who "nationalized" Marxism-Leninism (like Ho Chi Minh, a very admirable Marxist-Leninist) marks a shortcoming in Stalin's methodological approach to these questions, but it is at least as unreasonable to say that this shortcoming makes Stalin "pro-capitalist" as it is to say that Trotsky's own (many and varied) shortcomings of methodology make him "pro-fascist."

Stalin had more serious shortcomings. He took some revisionist positions too. He declared the end of class struggle in the USSR and indirectly supported the revisionist dissolution of the communist armed struggles in India. He also didn't oppose the line of participation in imperialist wars instead of defeatism in the colonies. All of these positions helped capitalists to take over the USSR as well as defeat the communist movements in colonial countries.

[Geiseric]

Ismail, stalin originated the "national stamp" with socialism in one country, and his great russian cheuvanism towards minorities, especially in southern russia. He dissolved comintern and formed cominform, which was more or less as he said verbatum, because he thought comintern should of been used "for the purpose of foreign policy."