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

[Red_Banner]

Socialism has stages leading to communism.

The USSR and RSFSR were still in the lower stages.

You are under the assumption that socialism is only the higher stages.

[#FF0000]

Socialism has stages leading to communism.

The USSR and RSFSR were still in the lower stages.

You are under the assumption that socialism is only the higher stages.

Well the "lower stages" nonsense is something Lenin just sorta came up with.

Can you call state capitalism "socialism" as long as it's state capitalism "for the people"?

[Red_Banner]

There are still contradictions in socialist society.

This was Lenin's way of resolving some of those contradictions.

[Ismail]

The forcing unveiling of women was part of the Stalinist repression on minorities which benefited from the October Revolution such as the muslims and had nothing to do with class struggle. The Tzarist regime did the same thing. This means that the Tzarists were seeking for social progress and it was a matter of class struggle?

The Tsarists did the same thing? Really? If so then there must have been a massive re-veiling of women after the Bolsheviks took power. In fact, the Tsarists propped up the reactionary clergy and feudal lords, who were free to engage in any backward practice so long as they recognized their submission to Russian colonialism. It was the Central Asian Bolsheviks who opposed such practices.

Just because the repression was red instead of white it doesn't change the character of it. It's the same as saying that repressing other minorities such as the homosexuals was bad under Tzarism but good under the soviet rule.

This is absurd, as if opposing the religiously-mandated inferiority of women was the same as repressing someone for being gay.

You seem to be assuming that Soviet Central Asia in the 20's was basically like the European parts only with the women wearing veils, which isn't true at all. Tribal elders, reactionary clergymen, and other archaic elements continued to exist. Women were not giving the choice to wear a veil or not, it was imposed upon them.

One would have to think that Lenin was an obstacle to social progress and class struggle for defending this.

Not at all. The Soviets never infringed upon the ability of Muslim believers to continue to practice their faith. But if aspects of that faith conflicted with the stated goals of the Bolsheviks towards equality between the sexes and the achievement of socialism and communism (such as reactionary clergymen declaring that "God" or "Allah" decides who shall be rich and who shall be poor), then no, the Bolsheviks were not tolerant of such activities except when they felt unable to directly confront them for the time being.

The fact that the first allies the Bolsheviks sought out in Central Asia (besides the region's workers and peasant, of course) were the reform-minded Jadids, and not the feudal lords and their clerical apologists, is a basic example of this.

Besides, the revisionists of the 30's were defending Kirov for the leadership of USSR

No they weren't, that story is bullshit. It was only after 1956 that the revisionists tried to portray Kirov in such a light, just as the revisionists also used the likes of Dimitrov and others for their own ends in this direction.

Khrushchev's opposition to Stalin wasn't about the course taken by Stalin

It couldn't have publicly been, for it was Stalin who oversaw the construction of socialism and led the country to victory against all of its enemies. Precisely by claiming to "defend" this legacy, which was attributed not to Stalin but to renegades, the Soviet revisionists sought to restore capitalism under so many slogans of "perfecting" matters, of "overcoming dogmatism," of "advancing towards communism," etc.

My point is that you said that Gorbachev condemned Stalin for violating Lenin's norms. I said that Khrushchev made the same claim and you denied it.

I did? I pointed out that both claimed Stalin "violated Leninist norms." Gorbachev simply went further and attacked the entire period of socialist construction while unleashing new slanders against Stalin.

It's only proletarian internationalism as long as is Stalin in charge. From the moment that is another person it begins to be social-imperialism. That's a very poor argument.

No, it is social-imperialism when a powerful socialist country is transformed into a capitalist country and the objective necessity for it to pursue an imperialist course is accordingly adopted.

The refusal of the Marshall Plan by the Czechs under Soviet instructions was clear an example of "limited sovereignty" as it's obvious.

No, it was an utmost defense of the sovereignty of Czechoslovakia against the maneuvers of imperialism. It was the Soviet revisionists who allowed the likes of their counterparts in Romania, Hungary, and elsewhere to join institutions such as the IMF and to tie their economies to the imperialist West and social-imperialist East alike, all in the name of "peaceful coexistence" and later "détente" between the two superpowers, while of course neither allowed their respective spheres of influence to change. Likewise the Chinese revisionists were full of praise for Khrushchev as part of his efforts to "normalize" relations between "socialist" countries.

Such demonstrates the differences between the principled line of Stalin's time, which sought to aid the cause of socialism in Eastern Europe, and the unprincipled line of the Soviet revisionists who under the banner of "equality and mutual collaboration between states" turned these countries into neo-colonial outposts of a social-imperialist superpower seeking world domination.

It is obvious you are making apologias for Soviet revisionism. It is useless to continue talking to someone who furthermore distorts what I say.

[Old Bolshie]

The Tsarists did the same thing? Really? If so then there must have been a massive re-veiling of women after the Bolsheviks took power. In fact, the Tsarists propped up the reactionary clergy and feudal lords, who were free to engage in any backward practice so long as they recognized their submission to Russian colonialism. It was the Central Asian Bolsheviks who opposed such practices.

First, you can't say if there was a massive re-veiling of women in Central Asia or not unless you have some statistics to show.

Second, if there was a massive re-veiling of women I don't see the surprise when it was Lenin himself who recognized the repression of Muslim customs during the Tzarist regime ("...whose beliefs and customs have been trampled upon by the tsars and oppressors of Russia...) and defended the freedom of Muslims practices (..."your beliefs and practices, your national and cultural institutions are forever free and inviolate...")

After the October Revolution there was a strong decentralization of the territory and toleration of local costumes specially in Central Asia. For instance, while homosexuality was not punished in USSR it remained illegal in Central Asia. This was the policy followed by Lenin which was reverted later by Stalin.

This is absurd, as if opposing the religiously-mandated inferiority of women was the same as repressing someone for being gay.

Are you stupid? I said specifically "minorities". I was comparing the repression of minorities itself (like the homosexuals and the muslims were in USSR) and not specific parts of the repression.

You seem to be assuming that Soviet Central Asia in the 20's was basically like the European parts only with the women wearing veils, which isn't true at all. Tribal elders, reactionary clergymen, and other archaic elements continued to exist. Women were not giving the choice to wear a veil or not, it was imposed upon them.

LOL. This is funny to read when the forcefully removal of the veil by the soviet authorities "backfired, and the veil became more popular than ever among the workers, whereas prior to this was mostly used by the middle, wealthier classes."

Douglas Northrop, Veiled Empire: Gender and Power in Stalinist Central Asia, Cornell University Press, 2004.

Not at all. The Soviets never infringed upon the ability of Muslim believers to continue to practice their faith. But if aspects of that faith conflicted with the stated goals of the Bolsheviks towards equality between the sexes and the achievement of socialism and communism (such as reactionary clergymen declaring that "God" or "Allah" decides who shall be rich and who shall be poor), then no, the Bolsheviks were not tolerant of such activities except when they felt unable to directly confront them for the time being.

The fact that the first allies the Bolsheviks sought out in Central Asia (besides the region's workers and peasant, of course) were the reform-minded Jadids, and not the feudal lords and their clerical apologists, is a basic example of this.

This was all true during Lenin's leadership and before Stalin began to systematically oppress the Muslims in USSR. The freedom Lenin gave to them was the same that Stalin took from them leading to the return of the old Tzarist oppression of Muslims.

No they weren't, that story is bullshit. It was only after 1956 that the revisionists tried to portray Kirov in such a light, just as the revisionists also used the likes of Dimitrov and others for their own ends in this direction.

Is bullshit because it isn't convenient to your Stalinist angle. However, the archives showed how Kirov during the 17th Congress of the party received only 3 negative votes for the election to the CC, making him the most popular figure in the Congress. Since the Congress was mostly composed by the revisionists it automatically leads to the conclusion that the revisionists supported Kirov.

It couldn't have publicly been, for it was Stalin who oversaw the construction of socialism and led the country to victory against all of its enemies. Precisely by claiming to "defend" this legacy, which was attributed not to Stalin but to renegades, the Soviet revisionists sought to restore capitalism under so many slogans of "perfecting" matters, of "overcoming dogmatism," of "advancing towards communism," etc.

LOL. So Khrushchev who was a disguised capitalist didn't not wanted to renounce the socialist construction of Stalin who he condemned in the XX Congress and was secretly seeking to restore capitalism. This is idiotic as it is to claim that Stalin was an avid "secret" capitalist. Khrushchev didn't change Stalin's course and his condemnation of Stalin was only in words for opportunistic reasons.

I did? I pointed out that both claimed Stalin "violated Leninist norms." Gorbachev simply went further and attacked the entire period of socialist construction while unleashing new slanders against Stalin.

You can go back and look at what we both said. You claimed that Gorbachev did it, I said Khrushchev did the same thing and you denied it.

No, it is social-imperialism when a powerful socialist country is transformed into a capitalist country and the objective necessity for it to pursue an imperialist course is accordingly adopted.

Since USSR was as much capitalist as it was during and after Stalin's leadership, it already qualifies Stalin actions towards the Eastern Bloc as social-imperialism.

No, it was an utmost defense of the sovereignty of Czechoslovakia against the maneuvers of imperialism.

Khrushchev and Brezhnev claimed similar things when they intervened in Hungary and Czechoslovakia respectively.

It was the Soviet revisionists who allowed the likes of their counterparts in Romania, Hungary, and elsewhere to join institutions such as the IMF and to tie their economies to the imperialist West and social-imperialist East alike,

So, if the Soviet revisionists intervene in the sovereignty of a country they are social-imperialists but if they respect that same sovereignty they are......social-imperialists. Completely absurd.

all in the name of "peaceful coexistence" and later "détente" between the two superpowers,

Stalin was the one who called for "peaceful coexistence" after the Second World War and was in favor of a detente between USSR and USA.

while of course neither allowed their respective spheres of influence to change.

Like Stalin did towards Czechoslovakia regarding the Marshall Plan.

Such demonstrates the differences between the principled line of Stalin's time, which sought to aid the cause of socialism in Eastern Europe, and the unprincipled line of the Soviet revisionists who under the banner of "equality and mutual collaboration between states" turned these countries into neo-colonial outposts of a social-imperialist superpower seeking world domination.

It actually shows how similar it were the principle lines of Stalin and his successors.

It is obvious you are making apologias for Soviet revisionism. It is useless to continue talking to someone who furthermore distorts what I say.

I would be doing apologias for Soviet revisionism (which isn't obviously the case) in the same degree you are doing for Stalinism which is nothing but the Soviet Revisionism itself.

[Ismail]

Second, if there was a massive re-veiling of women I don't see the surprise when it was Lenin himself who recognized the repression of Muslim customs during the Tzarist regime ("...whose beliefs and customs have been trampled upon by the tsars and oppressors of Russia...) and defended the freedom of Muslims practices (..."your beliefs and practices, your national and cultural institutions are forever free and inviolate...")

If you're going to use quotes like this then you are taking the same position as the Soviet revisionists who posed as "friends of Islam," and who, as the Albanians noted, allowed the propagation of churches and mosques, declared that socialism could be obtained through the holding of a Quran in one hand and Das Kapital in the other, etc.

They, like you, used that very same quote to justify their revisionist activity in this regard.

Are you stupid? I said specifically "minorities". I was comparing the repression of minorities itself (like the homosexuals and the muslims were in USSR) and not specific parts of the repression.

Except under this model the only persons being repressed were men who weren't allowed to keep their wives in veils and reacted by murdering them. I somehow don't think anyone on earth would mind repression against such elements.

LOL. This is funny to read when the forcefully removal of the veil by the soviet authorities "backfired, and the veil became more popular than ever among the workers, whereas prior to this was mostly used by the middle, wealthier classes."

Douglas Northrop, Veiled Empire: Gender and Power in Stalinist Central Asia, Cornell University Press, 2004.

Grenzer, who has read that book, pointed out that by the time of the revisionist period the veil had, in fact, become a pretty rare sight in Central Asia.

Your comments about Khrushchev are idiotic. I already made clear the differences between Khrushchev and Gorbachev, which were merely ones of two revisionist cliques operating in two different conditions, both claiming a "return to Leninism" in different ways, the former appropriating the socialist period without the actual lines which led to its existence, the latter attacking the whole period in order to justify the abandonment of central planning in principle and the effective liquidation of even the rhetoric of Marxism-Leninism hitherto employed by the revisionists.

Khrushchev and Brezhnev claimed similar things when they intervened in Hungary and Czechoslovakia respectively.

So what? They claimed they were advancing the USSR towards communism as well. They wouldn't be revisionists if they didn't claim to be "communists."

So, if the Soviet revisionists intervene in the sovereignty of a country they are social-imperialists but if they respect that same sovereignty they are......social-imperialists. Completely absurd.

As Hoxha noted, the revisionist leaderships of Eastern Europe always pressured the Soviet revisionists to allow them to increase their contacts with the West, which had things like hard currency, superior technology, and in many cases more attractive contracts and trade prospects. These were not principled struggles for sovereignty, they were indications of the unprincipled aspirations of local state-capitalist regimes which offered their countries to the highest bidders, as much as the Soviet revisionists would allow them to do.

[Old Bolshie]

If you're going to use quotes like this then you are taking the same position as the Soviet revisionists who posed as "friends of Islam," and who, as the Albanians noted, allowed the propagation of churches and mosques,

This is clearly not true. Anti-religious campaigns were launched in both Khrushchev and Brezhnev tenures. For instance, a total of 3567 mosques were closed under Khrushchev in Uzbekistan alone. It was under Stalin's leadership that the Orthodox Church saw a revival of its activity in USSR.

declared that socialism could be obtained through the holding of a Quran in one hand and Das Kapital in the other, etc.

Actually Lenin himself gave the Uthman Quran (the oldest Quran in the World) to the people of Ufa, Bashkortostan and ordered its return to the Central Asia.

They, like you, used that very same quote to justify their revisionist activity in this regard.

If the position taken by the revisionists coincide with Lenin's one I don't have any problem to take the same position they did.

In fact, there is an interesting fact related to this that I would like to mention:

"Given, however, the socio-political atmosphere of the Khrushchev period, the attempt was made to conduct closures (of mosques) with the approval and, where possible, with the actual participation of believers. This was a return to the practice regarding the closure of prayer— houses in the 1920's which was presented as "the result of the mobilization of social opinion"".

Yaacov Ro'i, Islam in the Soviet Union: From the Second World War to Gorbachev.

Except under this model the only persons being repressed were men who weren't allowed to keep their wives in veils and reacted by murdering them. I somehow don't think anyone on earth would mind repression against such elements.

Don't be so stupid and ignorant. I already told you more than once that I was referring to the repression of Muslims in all its aspects and not just one in particular. The forced unveil of women was just one aspect of the repression against Muslims as it's obvious.

Grenzer, who has read that book, pointed out that by the time of the revisionist period the veil had, in fact, become a pretty rare sight in Central Asia.

I don't see how this contradicts the fact that the veil became more popular than ever after the beginning of the Stalinist repression, unless you are saying that the book contradicts itself. It just shows once again how Stalin's repressive policies were preserved by its successors who you call "revisionists".

Your comments about Khrushchev are idiotic. I already made clear the differences between Khrushchev and Gorbachev, which were merely ones of two revisionist cliques operating in two different conditions, both claiming a "return to Leninism" in different ways, the former appropriating the socialist period without the actual lines which led to its existence, the latter attacking the whole period in order to justify the abandonment of central planning in principle and the effective liquidation of even the rhetoric of Marxism-Leninism hitherto employed by the revisionists.

You denied that Khrushchev referred to Stalin's violation of Lenin's norms in one of your previous post and next you claimed that both did. You said that Khrushchev sought to restore capitalism in USSR and now you say that he appropriated the socialist period. You said that both Khrushchev and Gorbachev belonged to the same revisionist line and now you claim that they were part of different revisionists cliques. Your ignorant Stalinist argumentation keeps contradicting itself.

So what? They claimed they were advancing the USSR towards communism as well. They wouldn't be revisionists if they didn't claim to be "communists."

So what? So this makes them so revisionists as Stalin who also claimed to be advancing towards communism as well.

As Hoxha noted, the revisionist leaderships of Eastern Europe always pressured the Soviet revisionists to allow them to increase their contacts with the West, which had things like hard currency, superior technology, and in many cases more attractive contracts and trade prospects. These were not principled struggles for sovereignty, they were indications of the unprincipled aspirations of local state-capitalist regimes which offered their countries to the highest bidders, as much as the Soviet revisionists would allow them to do.

And the Soviet revisionists, imperialists as they were. would allow those states under its control to become more and more engaged to the other imperialist camp? Absurd as I said. Your argumentation is totally inconsistent.

[Ismail]

This is clearly not true. Anti-religious campaigns were launched in both Khrushchev and Brezhnev tenures. For instance, a total of 3567 mosques were closed under Khrushchev in Uzbekistan alone. It was under Stalin's leadership that the Orthodox Church saw a revival of its activity in USSR.

The Albanians provided statistics to go alongside their pointing out of revisionist praise for "religious socialism." For example, in an article in Mësuesi (The Teacher) dated September 9, 1984, it is written that, "The rebirth of religion, supported and encouraged [in American society by its government], can be witnessed in revisionist countries as well. The Soviet Union, for example, seems to be doing all it can to resurrect religion in all of its forms. Greater power or more freedom have been given to both the churches and their clergy. This is no little thing when one realizes tat there are now more than 20,000 church-communities representing about forty denominations. With government assistance, old churches and mosques are being renovated while new ones are being constructed. In the past seven years alone, there have been 30 Orthodox, 70 Lutheran, 22 Catholic, and 50 Muslim houses of worship opened in the Soviet Union. Furthermore, and in order to attract youth to the 'niceties' of religion, the divine services are externally beautified with music, while artistic groups are found adjacent to the church buildings. But the Soviet Union is not alone in this 'flowering of faith' among its people. Czechoslovakia has followed suit. In Prague along there are 18 denominations, 195 church buildings, and close to 5,000 clergymen. Even more, these believers are permitted to poison the minds of youth through the publication of some 30 periodicals, and to manage 6 seminaries which graduate hundreds of students. This proliferation and exploitation of religion is more so prevalent in Poland. The churches there can count thousands of 'servants of God', with hundreds more being allowed to study in foreign seminaries."

This, of course, is in great contrast to Albania where all religious institutions and organizations were shut down in the late 60's and the clerical profession was no longer recognized as a legitimate job. It is also a bit odd to compare the relative revival of religious practices under Stalin, which occurred in the context of a war of annihilation against it (FYI Muslim religious activity increased as well during this time), with the 30 subsequent years without any such situation. During Albania's National Liberation War the religious were brought into the struggle against the occupiers and Hoxha noted that such was a case of correct tactics.

Actually Lenin himself gave the Uthman Quran (the oldest Quran in the World) to the people of Ufa, Bashkortostan and ordered its return to the Central Asia.

I fail to see what that has to do with promoting "religious socialism" as the revisionists did, for example, in backing the bourgeois-nationalist regime of Ben Bella. Lenin's act was done in the interest of demonstrating friendly ties between peoples by tranferring a valuable historical artifact from one people (whose rulers took it) to another (to whom it belonged.) The Albanians kept a few historic mosques and churches in place for their architectural value and allowed them to function as museums for foreign and domestic visitors, obviously having nothing to do with encouraging religious sentiments in the process.

Don't be so stupid and ignorant. I already told you more than once that I was referring to the repression of Muslims in all its aspects and not just one in particular. The forced unveil of women was just one aspect of the repression against Muslims as it's obvious.

In that case feel free to give other examples.

I don't see how this contradicts the fact that the veil became more popular than ever after the beginning of the Stalinist repression, unless you are saying that the book contradicts itself. It just shows once again how Stalin's repressive policies were preserved by its successors who you call "revisionists".

If it became more popular, that spike obviously subsided by the time the revisionists took power, and in fact the veil never became an issue afterwards.

You said that Khrushchev sought to restore capitalism in USSR and now you say that he appropriated the socialist period.

... yes? Unless you're saying that the only way capitalism can be restored in a country is if the leadership openly denounces socialism and if the Communist Party were renamed the Capitalist Party. The point of revisionism is to claim adherence to Marxism while robbing it of its scientific and revolutionary content. What else did the Soviet revisionists do if not engage in opportunistic appropriation of the achievements of socialism, which were carried out not on the basis of their line, but on the basis of the line of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin which they were now condemning? What choice did they have but to extol the socialist period and its achievements if they did not want to be immediately disposed by the mass of Soviet people, who in the 50's still retained their belief in the superiority of that system, a belief which rapidly diminished with the restoration of capitalism and the subsequent growth of bureaucracy, corruption, cynicism and stagnation in the 60's, 70's and 80's?

You said that both Khrushchev and Gorbachev belonged to the same revisionist line and now you claim that they were part of different revisionists cliques.

Brezhnev was one of Khrushchev's most trusted lieutenants. He furthered Khrushchevite revisionism in all essential aspects while projecting a more "hardline" image at home and abroad. As the Albanians noted, he represented Khrushchevism without Khrushchev, for the latter had discredited himself with his disastrous economic initiatives (specifically the regional economic councils and the "Virgin Lands" campaign) and foolish image in foreign affairs. By the 80's there developed a deep fissure between those revisionists associated with the state bureaucracy and those associated with the likes of technocrats, the intelligentsia, etc. And yet both revisionist cliques, represented by persons like Ligachev (the former) and Gorbachev (the latter), obviously had nothing but praise for the 20th Party Congress and the Soviet revisionist line.

So what? So this makes them so revisionists as Stalin who also claimed to be advancing towards communism as well.

I don't see how that logic follows. Lenin and Gorbachev publicly proclaimed they were communists. That does not make Gorbachev as "revisionist" as Lenin, for in both words and deeds we could see that the former was actually a communist whereas the latter was a phony. You seem to be reducing everything to words, and highly selective ones at that.

And the Soviet revisionists, imperialists as they were. would allow those states under its control to become more and more engaged to the other imperialist camp?

Of course. Does not French capital compete with American capital in countries of the Françafrique sphere, let alone emerging Chinese capital on the continent? Do not imperialist powers seek temporary agreements with one-another in which spheres are redivided or concessions otherwise made? It is fact that imperialists both collude and collide with each other at different times, as Lenin pointed out. That Romania was able to join the IMF while having most of its economy firmly secured in the Soviet sphere through Comecon, and the security of Soviet social-imperialist investments guaranteed through the Warsaw Treaty, does not in any way alter the situation.

Again, to you "sovereignty" seems to mean the freedom of the leadership of a country to sell said country to the highest bidders or to strike bargains between itself and two superpowers. Ceaușescu, for example, spoke a lot of words about the "independence" of Romania, managed to obtain a favored trade treaty with the Americans, and adopted a "maverick" position vis-à-vis some Soviet revisionist acts (the invasion of Czechoslovakia, of Afghanistan, etc.) This was not real sovereignty, just as it wasn't in Yugoslavia. Hoxha pointed out: "Mao received Ceausescu. Hsinhua reported only that he said to him: 'Rumanian comrades, we should unite to bring down imperialism'. As if Ceausescu and company are to bring down imperialism!! If the world waits for the Ceausescus to do such a thing, imperialism will live for tens of thousands of years." (Reflections on China Vol. I, p. 536.)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Second, if there was a massive re-veiling of women I don't see the surprise when it was Lenin himself who recognized the repression of Muslim customs during the Tzarist regime ("...whose beliefs and customs have been trampled upon by the tsars and oppressors of Russia...) and defended the freedom of Muslims practices (..."your beliefs and practices, your national and cultural institutions are forever free and inviolate...")

After the October Revolution there was a strong decentralization of the territory and toleration of local costumes specially in Central Asia. For instance, while homosexuality was not punished in USSR it remained illegal in Central Asia. This was the policy followed by Lenin which was reverted later by Stalin.

Even if this were the case - as far as I can tell, it wasn't, religious courts were allowed to operate for only a short time, their decisions could be appealed to the Soviet courts, and they were closed shortly after the final consolidation of proletarian power in the Turkestan - surely you can't have meant to cite it as a positive example? I mean, sure, the Bolsheviks fought against the oppression of minority religions - but this meant, for example, the flogging of Old Believers. The inability of people in Islamic areas to forcibly veil their female relatives or wives or imprison homosexuals isn't oppression except in the psychotically racists minds of Western liberals.

[Old Bolshie]

The Albanians provided statistics to go alongside their pointing out of revisionist praise for "religious socialism." For example, in an article in Mësuesi (The Teacher) dated September 9, 1984, it is written that, "The rebirth of religion, supported and encouraged [in American society by its government], can be witnessed in revisionist countries as well. The Soviet Union, for example, seems to be doing all it can to resurrect religion in all of its forms. Greater power or more freedom have been given to both the churches and their clergy. This is no little thing when one realizes tat there are now more than 20,000 church-communities representing about forty denominations. With government assistance, old churches and mosques are being renovated while new ones are being constructed. In the past seven years alone, there have been 30 Orthodox, 70 Lutheran, 22 Catholic, and 50 Muslim houses of worship opened in the Soviet Union. Furthermore, and in order to attract youth to the 'niceties' of religion, the divine services are externally beautified with music, while artistic groups are found adjacent to the church buildings. But the Soviet Union is not alone in this 'flowering of faith' among its people. Czechoslovakia has followed suit. In Prague along there are 18 denominations, 195 church buildings, and close to 5,000 clergymen. Even more, these believers are permitted to poison the minds of youth through the publication of some 30 periodicals, and to manage 6 seminaries which graduate hundreds of students. This proliferation and exploitation of religion is more so prevalent in Poland. The churches there can count thousands of 'servants of God', with hundreds more being allowed to study in foreign seminaries."

This, of course, is in great contrast to Albania where all religious institutions and organizations were shut down in the late 60's and the clerical profession was no longer recognized as a legitimate job.

In 1984 both Khrushchev and Brezhnev were already dead. Also, saying that 50 mosques and 30 churches are a "propagation of churches and mosques" is completely non-sense. The statistics show that the number of functioning churches in 1987 had fallen to 6893 whereas during Stalin's leadership that same number reached more than 20,000.

It is also a bit odd to compare the relative revival of religious practices under Stalin, which occurred in the context of a war of annihilation against it (FYI Muslim religious activity increased as well during this time), with the 30 subsequent years without any such situation. During Albania's National Liberation War the religious were brought into the struggle against the occupiers and Hoxha noted that such was a case of correct tactics.

Firstly, the rapprochement of Stalin with the Orthodox Church went way beyond the war period and lasted until his death.

Secondly, is funny that you talk about a "relative revival" under Stalin when the number of churches opened under Stalin's leadership reached 25,000 and of a "propagation of churches" when the number of opened churches is just 30.

I fail to see what that has to do with promoting "religious socialism" as the revisionists did, for example, in backing the bourgeois-nationalist regime of Ben Bella. Lenin's act was done in the interest of demonstrating friendly ties between peoples by tranferring a valuable historical artifact from one people (whose rulers took it) to another (to whom it belonged.) The Albanians kept a few historic mosques and churches in place for their architectural value and allowed them to function as museums for foreign and domestic visitors, obviously having nothing to do with encouraging religious sentiments in the process.

It shows that Lenin saw no problem with the Quran's existence in a society advancing towards socialism.

Besides, saying that the revisionists promoted "religious socialism" just because they supported Ben Bella is ridiculous. If they were promoting religious socialism would they unleash strong anti-religious campaigns at home? Non-sense.

In that case feel free to give other examples.

The close down of mosques and religious schools, persecution of Muslim religious leaders and any Muslim activity, etc...

If it became more popular, that spike obviously subsided by the time the revisionists took power, and in fact the veil never became an issue afterwards.

The fact that it became more popular than ever doesn't imply that the prohibition of the veil ended. The repression continued and became more violent than ever in the Central Asia during the 30's. If during the revisionist period the veil usage was rare that means that the Stalinist repression of it was well succeeded.

... yes? Unless you're saying that the only way capitalism can be restored in a country is if the leadership openly denounces socialism and if the Communist Party were renamed the Capitalist Party.

This was precisely what happened with the fall of the USSR and the entire Eastern Bloc. Capitalism and social-democracy were restored and even the former communist parties were renamed. It could have happened earlier but both Khrushchev and Brezhnev opposed to it which completely contradicts your version that the revisionists sought to restore capitalism. Of course, for me there wasn't a capitalist restoration because as I already said capitalism never ceased to exist in USSR but I am referring to it in the same sense you are doing.

The point of revisionism is to claim adherence to Marxism while robbing it of its scientific and revolutionary content. What else did the Soviet revisionists do if not engage in opportunistic appropriation of the achievements of socialism, which were carried out not on the basis of their line, but on the basis of the line of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin which they were now condemning? What choice did they have but to extol the socialist period and its achievements if they did not want to be immediately disposed by the mass of Soviet people, who in the 50's still retained their belief in the superiority of that system, a belief which rapidly diminished with the restoration of capitalism and the subsequent growth of bureaucracy, corruption, cynicism and stagnation in the 60's, 70's and 80's?

This is true as far as Marx, Engels and Lenin goes. The line they pursued was the same of Stalin which makes them so revisionist as Stalin. Stalin also appropriated Lenin's line in words and completely subverted in practice.

Brezhnev was one of Khrushchev's most trusted lieutenants. He furthered Khrushchevite revisionism in all essential aspects while projecting a more "hardline" image at home and abroad. As the Albanians noted, he represented Khrushchevism without Khrushchev, for the latter had discredited himself with his disastrous economic initiatives (specifically the regional economic councils and the "Virgin Lands" campaign) and foolish image in foreign affairs. By the 80's there developed a deep fissure between those revisionists associated with the state bureaucracy and those associated with the likes of technocrats, the intelligentsia, etc. And yet both revisionist cliques, represented by persons like Ligachev (the former) and Gorbachev (the latter), obviously had nothing but praise for the 20th Party Congress and the Soviet revisionist line.

This doesn't mean that Gorbachev belonged to the same line of Khrushchev and Brezhnev. In fact his policies were totally divergent from the ones taken by the later two. Gorbachev had a social-democrat agenda as he admitted. This wasn't the case of Khrushchev and Brezhnev who actually destroyed any attempt of it in the Eastern Bloc.

I don't see how that logic follows. Lenin and Gorbachev publicly proclaimed they were communists. That does not make Gorbachev as "revisionist" as Lenin, for in both words and deeds we could see that the former was actually a communist whereas the latter was a phony. You seem to be reducing everything to words, and highly selective ones at that.

The logic is that if the revisionists are the ones who claim to be communists in words but their practices are anti-communists the same can be apply to Stalin who also claimed to be communist and yet his practices were anti-communists. Besides, Gorbachev admitted to be a social-democrat contrary to Khrushchev and Brezhnev.

Of course. Does not French capital compete with American capital in countries of the Françafrique sphere, let alone emerging Chinese capital on the continent?

The difference is that both US and USSR were two imperialistic powers competing against each other with no economic association between the two whereas it isn't the case of France or China. You didn't see US capital and loans to massively entering in the USSR as you saw in some Eastern countries.

Do not imperialist powers seek temporary agreements with one-another in which spheres are redivided or concessions otherwise made?

Yes. We have the example of the USSR's agreements with US and UK in the post-World War II.

It is fact that imperialists both collude and collide with each other at different times, as Lenin pointed out. That Romania was able to join the IMF while having most of its economy firmly secured in the Soviet sphere through Comecon, and the security of Soviet social-imperialist investments guaranteed through the Warsaw Treaty, does not in any way alter the situation.

Actually Romania distanced itself from both Comecon and Warsaw Pact since its refusal to participate in the Valev Plan and it was the only country beside Albania which didn't participate in the Prague invasion by the countries of the Warsaw Pact and even condemned it.

Again, to you "sovereignty" seems to mean the freedom of the leadership of a country to sell said country to the highest bidders or to strike bargains between itself and two superpowers. Ceau?escu, for example, spoke a lot of words about the "independence" of Romania, managed to obtain a favored trade treaty with the Americans, and adopted a "maverick" position vis-à-vis some Soviet revisionist acts (the invasion of Czechoslovakia, of Afghanistan, etc.) This was not real sovereignty, just as it wasn't in Yugoslavia. Hoxha pointed out: "Mao received Ceausescu. Hsinhua reported only that he said to him: 'Rumanian comrades, we should unite to bring down imperialism'. As if Ceausescu and company are to bring down imperialism!! If the world waits for the Ceausescus to do such a thing, imperialism will live for tens of thousands of years." (Reflections on China Vol. I, p. 536.)

No. My point from the beginning of the arguing was very simple. The sovereignty of the Eastern Bloc was the same before Khrushchev as it was after it. Nothing really changed from the end of the II World War to the collapse of the Eastern Bloc.

[Red_Banner]

"Actually Romania distanced itself from both Comecon and Warsaw Pact since its refusal to participate in the Valev Plan and it was the only country beside Albania which didn't participate in the Prague invasion by the countries of the Warsaw Pact and even condemned it."

Didn't the GDR refrain from sending troops in fearing memories of WW2?

Wasn't it just logistic and supply support?

[Old Bolshie]

Even if this were the case - as far as I can tell, it wasn't, religious courts were allowed to operate for only a short time, their decisions could be appealed to the Soviet courts, and they were closed shortly after the final consolidation of proletarian power in the Turkestan - surely you can't have meant to cite it as a positive example?

Actually, the introduction of the parallel court system according to the Sharia Law happened in 1921 during the final stage of the Bolshevik struggle in Central Asia and remained active afterwards.

In December of 1922 it was implemented the possibility of applying to soviet courts but, for instance, in Chechnya the number of cases solved in Muslim Courts was 80%.

I pointed out as a positive example of decentralization and freedom of minorities in USSR's early days.

The inability of people in Islamic areas to forcibly veil their female relatives or wives

This comes from an ignorant assumption that all women using a veil do it because they were forced to do it. Muslim women tend to use the veil because of their religious beliefs and not because it is imposed by somebody.

imprison homosexuals isn't oppression except in the psychotically racists minds of Western liberals.

Imprison homosexuals isn't oppression against homosexuals?

Damn, I am so racist. I will be banned from RevLeft for considering the imprisonment of homosexuals an act of oppression.

[Old Bolshie]

"Actually Romania distanced itself from both Comecon and Warsaw Pact since its refusal to participate in the Valev Plan and it was the only country beside Albania which didn't participate in the Prague invasion by the countries of the Warsaw Pact and even condemned it."

Didn't the GDR refrain from sending troops in fearing memories of WW2?

East Germany contributed with small combat units, liaison elements and support personnel mostly. There was also air force contribution.

Wasn't it just logistic and supply support?

The East Germany leader, Walter Ulbricht, was an early proponent of a military intervention to end the "Prague Spring" and supported the intervention in Czechoslovakia in 1968.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

This comes from an ignorant assumption that all women using a veil do it because they were forced to do it. Muslim women tend to use the veil because of their religious beliefs and not because it is imposed by somebody.

Actually, a hijab is often enforced by someone's standing uncle or uncle-like figure within the family traditionally, so yes; muslim women would often wear veils because it was enforced quite thoroughly by the family.

So the person making an ignorant assumption is you, believing that people would suddenly 'choose' to wear a veil after being brought up with it their entire life, with the massive social stigma of taking it off and dangerous repercussions from friends and family if they did - especially back then, and in Chechnya of all places (which had a short-lived caliphate just before the revolution, IIRC).

Imprison homosexuals isn't oppression against homosexuals?

Damn, I am so racist. I will be banned from RevLeft for considering the imprisonment of homosexuals an act of oppression.

That was misquoting him. The full sentence was:

The inability of people in Islamic areas to forcibly veil their female relatives or wives or imprison homosexuals isn't oppression except in the psychotically racists minds of Western liberals.

He was talking about how stopping islamists from enforcing veils on women and also stopping them from imprisoning homosexuals is not 'religious oppression', and he's completely correct that such repulsive logic only exist within the minds of West liberal culturalist extremism ass-kissers.

[Old Bolshie]

Actually, a hijab is often enforced by someone's standing uncle or uncle-like figure within the family traditionally, so yes; muslim women would often wear veils because it was enforced quite thoroughly by the family.

So the person making an ignorant assumption is you, believing that people would suddenly 'choose' to wear a veil after being brought up with it their entire life, with the massive social stigma of taking it off and dangerous repercussions from friends and family if they did - especially back then, and in Chechnya of all places (which had a short-lived caliphate just before the revolution, IIRC).

You stupid shit. My case is that not all women are forced to use a veil as he assumed to be. For instance, when the prohibition of the veil was implemented recently in France most of the protests against it were women who wanted to wear it voluntarily and not because they were being forced to do it.

There are women who are forced to use which I don't deny it but there is also other who want to use it voluntarily because of its religious beliefs.

That was misquoting him. The full sentence was:

He was talking about how stopping islamists from enforcing veils on women and also stopping them from imprisoning homosexuals is not 'religious oppression'

In the post quoted by him I referred to the oppression of Muslims and homosexuals by Stalin who made the imprisonment of homosexuals legal in all the territory. So if I misquoting was because he was not clearly enough in distinguish it.

, and he's completely correct that such repulsive logic only exist within the minds of West liberal culturalist extremism ass-kissers.

Look idiot, I was not defending Islam or its laws. I was defending the unprecedented decentralization and freedom of religious minorities in Russia which existed in USSR's early days. The most reactionary punishments such as stoning to death were actually outlawed by the soviets. All of this resulted in a misunderstanding of my post.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Star Linn has already addressed your mangling of my post.

Actually, the introduction of the parallel court system according to the Sharia Law happened in 1921 during the final stage of the Bolshevik struggle in Central Asia and remained active afterwards.

Alright, but how does that contradict my statement? The reactionary Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus was crushed late in 1920, and Soviet rule remained tentative for much of the subsequent period. At first, religious courts were allowed to operate, then the possibility of an appeal to Soviet courts was introduced, then the religious courts were abolished, as they should have been immediately in an ideal situation. The limited operation of religious courts was a concession, like the NEP, like the existence of the Far Eastern Republic, like the, well, concessions.

I pointed out as a positive example of decentralization and freedom of minorities in USSR's early days.

I will never understand this fetish for decentralisation, particularly since the logic of socialist development necessitates intense centralisation and large-scale coordination. And you still haven't explained how the ability of an Islamic religious court to imprison a homosexual is "freedom for Muslims". Some freedom.

These sentiments usually come from liberal-racist logic to the effect that, of course, "we Westerners" have individual rights, and we would howl in indignation if someone attempted to hang us for our sexual preference, but those brown people, they only have the collective right to passively obey "their culture" and "their leaders", and if they are killed, maimed or imprisoned, well, they should be passive and wait for "their culture" to change some time in the indefinite future.

This comes from an ignorant assumption that all women using a veil do it because they were forced to do it. Muslim women tend to use the veil because of their religious beliefs and not because it is imposed by somebody.

And religious beliefs are not imposed on them? They are born religious? Fascinating. In any case, I explicitly mentioned male relatives and husbands forcing their wives to wear the veil, which you apparently think is alright. I did not mean to endorse the de-veiling campaign in full. Of course, the veil is part of a virulently misogynist ideology of stewardship and social exclusion, and as such has no place in a socialist society. Unfortunately, however, reactionary opinions can't be legislated away. Coercion by husbands and male relatives should have been smashed by the full force of Soviet power - but "voluntary" veiling should have been fought with political, persuasive methods. Yet, if I criticise Stalin, it is because I think that under his supervision, a necessary campaign was done badly. Not because I fetishise the sacred inviolability of "culture".

[Old Bolshie]

Alright, but how does that contradict my statement?

The reactionary Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus was crushed late in 1920 and Soviet rule remained tentative for much of the subsequent period.

So the reactionary forces were crushed and the soviet rule remained tentative? The Turkestan Autonomous SSR where the courts were operating was completely under Bolshevik rule. The same goes for the Mountain Autonomous SSR which was established by the Bolsheviks after the defeat of the Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus.

At first, religious courts were allowed to operate, then the possibility of an appeal to Soviet courts was introduced, then the religious courts were abolished, as they should have been immediately in an ideal situation. The limited operation of religious courts was a concession, like the NEP, like the existence of the Far Eastern Republic, like the, well, concessions.

The fact that it was a concession doesn't change the fact that it existed in USSR's early days before the repression on religious minorities began in USSR. Nobody here thinks that when we reach socialism there will be religious courts in a society where the state itself doesn't exist pretty much nobody thinks that State Capitalism will exist under socialism.

I will never understand this fetish for decentralisation, particularly since the logic of socialist development necessitates intense centralisation and large-scale coordination.

This happens because you didn't follow my arguing with Ismail. I argued that under Stalin centralization became higher than ever and Ismail denied by referring to the force unveil of women in Central Asia which he himself later admitted to be an example of centralization and not of decentralization as he claimed to be initially.

And you still haven't explained how the ability of an Islamic religious court to imprison a homosexual is "freedom for Muslims". Some freedom.

In this cases they could always appeal to a higher soviet court to avoid the imprisonment. On the other hand, after Stalin criminalize homosexuality homosexuals had no choice but imprisonment. In this case the logic that Stalin did a good thing by forbidding Islamic from arresting homosexuals completely fails since he turned a regional illegality to a national one.

Again, the imprisonment of homosexuals is an act that I reprove and as it's obvious it isn't what I am thinking when I talk about the freedom of minorities in USSR's early days like it certainly wasn't for Lenin when he promoted it. Sure the policy allowed those defects like illegality of homosexuality in Central Asia but there aren't perfect policies and that fact was more an unfortunate effect among others much more positive than that.

These sentiments usually come from liberal-racist logic to the effect that, of course, "we Westerners" have individual rights, and we would howl in indignation if someone attempted to hang us for our sexual preference, but those brown people, they only have the collective right to passively obey "their culture" and "their leaders", and if they are killed, maimed or imprisoned, well, they should be passive and wait for "their culture" to change some time in the indefinite future.

I am against the repression of homosexuals by white or brown people. However, I don't think you should repress an entire culture based on one bad specific aspect of it. I am pretty sure that not all Muslims are in favor of repressing homosexuals.

And religious beliefs are not imposed on them? They are born religious? Fascinating. In any case, I explicitly mentioned male relatives and husbands forcing their wives to wear the veil, which you apparently think is alright. I did not mean to endorse the de-veiling campaign in full. Of course, the veil is part of a virulently misogynist ideology of stewardship and social exclusion, and as such has no place in a socialist society. Unfortunately, however, reactionary opinions can't be legislated away. Coercion by husbands and male relatives should have been smashed by the full force of Soviet power - but "voluntary" veiling should have been fought with political, persuasive methods. Yet, if I criticise Stalin, it is because I think that under his supervision, a necessary campaign was done badly. Not because I fetishise the sacred inviolability of "culture".

Of course the religion is imposed on them. But that wasn't the issue we were discussing. We were discussing specifically the veil which as I said isn't always imposed as you assumed to be in your post. If one adult Muslim chooses voluntarily to use the veil this must be respected and not repressed as it was with Stalin.

Moreover, my point from the very beginning of the arguing was to show that religious minorities enjoyed an unprecedented freedom in USSR's early days while under Stalin rule they were repressed. Unfortunately that was distorted by you and the other idiot who assumed that I was defending their right to repress homosexuals or force the use of the veil on woman. As I said above those were unfortunate effects of the policy.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So the reactionary forces were crushed and the soviet rule remained tentative? The Turkestan Autonomous SSR where the courts were operating was completely under Bolshevik rule. The same goes for the Mountain Autonomous SSR which was established by the Bolsheviks after the defeat of the Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus.

Nonetheless, Bolshevik control of these areas remained tentative due to peasant banditry, reactionary uprisings, the presence of interventionist forces across the border etc. etc. The ubiquity of radical-bourgeois cadre in organs of Soviet administration, for example the Jadid cadre in Turkestan, is also notable.

The fact that it was a concession doesn't change the fact that it existed in USSR's early days before the repression on religious minorities began in USSR. Nobody here thinks that when we reach socialism there will be religious courts in a society where the state itself doesn't exist pretty much nobody thinks that State Capitalism will exist under socialism.

That said, some here - surprisingly enough, not the usual IS / ICFI-WRP suspects - think that religious courts are alright not just in the bourgeois state but the transitional society.

This happens because you didn't follow my arguing with Ismail. I argued that under Stalin centralization became higher than ever and Ismail denied by referring to the force unveil of women in Central Asia which he himself later admitted to be an example of centralization and not of decentralization as he claimed to be initially.

Alright? My point was that centralisation is not something to be avoided but something to be vigorously pursued if any sort of socialist construction is to take place. And of course centralisation in terms of laws is pretty much required if the bourgeois rights of the citizens are to be protected and a revolutionary discipline maintained.

In this cases they could always appeal to a higher soviet court to avoid the imprisonment. On the other hand, after Stalin criminalize homosexuality homosexuals had no choice but imprisonment. In this case the logic that Stalin did a good thing by forbidding Islamic from arresting homosexuals completely fails since he turned a regional illegality to a national one.

That plainly does not follow. The illegalisation of homosexuality, which was of course an immensely negative event, does not retroactively make the abolition of religious courts negative. Using this sort of logic, the Soviet decision to decriminalise homosexuality was negative because it was later recriminalised.

And isn't it remarkable how these religious courts you support are best when their decisions are not followed?

Again, the imprisonment of homosexuals is an act that I reprove and as it's obvious it isn't what I am thinking when I talk about the freedom of minorities in USSR's early days like it certainly wasn't for Lenin when he promoted it. Sure the policy allowed those defects like illegality of homosexuality in Central Asia but there aren't perfect policies and that fact was more an unfortunate effect among others much more positive than that.

So, what exactly was positive about the existence of religious courts, except that it provided the Soviet power with some breathing space (which it used to regroup and later shut down these courts)?

I am against the repression of homosexuals by white or brown people. However, I don't think you should repress an entire culture based on one bad specific aspect of it. I am pretty sure that not all Muslims are in favor of repressing homosexuals.

Of course. Not all Muslims are in favour of religious courts either - in fact I guess the majority are not in their favour. And who said anything about "repressing an entire culture"? I didn't, neither did Star Linn, Ismail, or Stalin for that matter. If we refuse to prostrate ourselves in front of "exotic" religions, that does not make us racists (actually, half of my family is nominally Muslim, and I think Star Linn has - or has had - family in the Middle East).

Of course the religion is imposed on them. But that wasn't the issue we were discussing. We were discussing specifically the veil which as I said isn't always imposed as you assumed to be in your post. If one adult Muslim chooses voluntarily to use the veil this must be respected and not repressed as it was with Stalin.

I think it should be neither - sadly (since they are so easy to implement) administrative measures don't work, but the voluntary wearing of the veil (much like "Western" women "voluntarily" doing all the housework) means acceptance of a reactionary conception of the "role" of women and should, as all religion, be fought politically.

And nowhere did I assume that the use of the veil is always imposed - in fact I specifically talked about coercion by husbands and male relatives.

Moreover, my point from the very beginning of the arguing was to show that religious minorities enjoyed an unprecedented freedom in USSR's early days while under Stalin rule they were repressed. Unfortunately that was distorted by you and the other idiot who assumed that I was defending their right to repress homosexuals or force the use of the veil on woman. As I said above those were unfortunate effects of the policy.

No, no, no. You don't get to complain about us two idiots misinterpreting you when your first example of how wonderfully open-minded Lenin was was the illegality of homosexuality in Central Asia. Like, that was literally the first thing you though about and you had to share with everyone how wonderful that was. The rest of us are more than entitled to raise eyebrows.

[Old Bolshie]

Nonetheless, Bolshevik control of these areas remained tentative due to peasant banditry, reactionary uprisings, the presence of interventionist forces across the border etc. etc. The ubiquity of radical-bourgeois cadre in organs of Soviet administration, for example the Jadid cadre in Turkestan, is also notable.

I don't see how peasant banditry is a threat to the soviet rule. There was no major threat to Soviet control in those areas after the end of the Civil War.

That plainly does not follow. The illegalisation of homosexuality, which was of course an immensely negative event, does not retroactively make the abolition of religious courts negative. Using this sort of logic, the Soviet decision to decriminalise homosexuality was negative because it was later recriminalised.

My point was that those courts weren't shut down because there was a concern by the soviet power with the people targeted by the Islamic Courts.

And isn't it remarkable how these religious courts you support are best when their decisions are not followed?

But I don't support those religious courts. For me it is preferably not to have any religious courts at all in a worker's state. But I find remarkable Lenin's policy of allowing it to operate in a larger context of freedom of minorities in USSR and I pointed it as an example of it.

So, what exactly was positive about the existence of religious courts, except that it provided the Soviet power with some breathing space (which it used to regroup and later shut down these courts)?

Considering the history of repression that the Muslims and other minorities suffered at the hands of the Tzar and the Orthodox Church it showed an unprecedented freedom for the Muslim minority in Russia History pretty much like the abolition of homosexuality punishment for the homosexuals.

Of course. Not all Muslims are in favour of religious courts either - in fact I guess the majority are not in their favour. And who said anything about "repressing an entire culture"? I didn't, neither did Star Linn, Ismail, or Stalin for that matter. If we refuse to prostrate ourselves in front of "exotic" religions, that does not make us racists (actually, half of my family is nominally Muslim, and I think Star Linn has - or has had - family in the Middle East).

The Muslims were one of the minorities heavily repressed by Stalin in soviet territory. The prohibition of the veil was one aspect of a larger policy of repression against Muslims.

And nowhere did I assume that the use of the veil is always imposed - in fact I specifically talked about coercion by husbands and male relatives.

You only talked about the forcibly imposing of the veil when I was referring to the voluntarily use of it.

No, no, no. You don't get to complain about us two idiots misinterpreting you when your first example of how wonderfully open-minded Lenin was was the illegality of homosexuality in Central Asia. Like, that was literally the first thing you though about and you had to share with everyone how wonderful that was. The rest of us are more than entitled to raise eyebrows.

I didn't call you idiot, I called the other guy idiot because of the way he addressed my post. The illegality of homosexuality in Central Asia was shown as an example of decentralization during Lenin's leadership. Not a positive one for sure but one nonetheless.

[Sea]

Wait, now we're defending the right to oppress women? Oh, what freedoms have been taken away from our comrades in the Caucasus! They can no longer coerce half their population into covering themselves! What immodesty we are forcing on them! Give me a break. If someone other than Stalin did this, you'd be wetting yourselves over the great leap in crushing reactionary gender roles. But Stalin? No! He didn't care about that! All along it was just an excuse for man in the mustache to wield his iron fist of death! Stalin is a horrible reactionary when he makes strategic concessions to the church, but when he does something about an oppression that effects millions, he's suddenly doing too much!

It's as if we were to consider Stalin's actions bad, before we even knew what those actions were! To hell with class character, anything he did can and will be used against him!

Pathetic.