It seems that he is a kind of Lord Voldemort: "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named"
Results 1 to 15 of 15
Questions on Stalin/Stalinism
Many communists have different views on him, and being a sophomore in high school I don't exactly get a completely non-propagandized answer on the ethical/political reasoning on Stalinism. I understand historically he is said to have been a mass murdering dictator, but his beliefs are said to be based on Marxism. I apologize if I sound very uneducated, but I am, and I want a little insight on everyone's views on Stalin.
It seems that he is a kind of Lord Voldemort: "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named"
Bourgeois historians would like to equate the practice of Stalinism to the theoretical framework of Marxism because it succeeds in delegitimizing Marxism, making it appear as if Marxism in political practice can only take the form of centralized tyranny in which workers are the subjects of the state as opposed to a state composed of the working class.
Another fundamental question that remains in regards to Stalin is whether or not his work represents a break with the tradition of Lenin. Trots would like to tell you, yes it does. However, the material conditions that necessitated Lenin's politics, which were in contradiction to the mainstream of the Marxist movement, were nothing more than a breading ground for Stalinism. Even Lenin recognized the Russian revolution has a holding act that depended on the success of revolution of in the west. However, this part of the discussion was completely dropped from the equation once it was obvious the western revolutions had failed.
"The people have proved that they can run it... They (the pigs) can call it what they want to, they can talk about it. They can call it communism, and think that that's gonna scare somebody, but it ain't gonna scare nobody" ― Fred Hampton
“Mao Zedong said that power grows from the barrel of a gun. He never said that power was a gun. This is why I don't need no gun to do my thing. What I need is some freedom and the power to determine my destiny” ― Huey P. Newton
Thanks for replies, but after reading all the giant circlejerks about this conversation before mods approved my thread i'm completely done researching this haha i've decided it really just depends on your view. I consider myself a marxist-leninist and i mean the dichotomy between trotsky and stalin is very ephemeral and I mean, Trotsky never controlled the USSR so i can't exactly form an opinion on who was better, I don't exactly condone the actions of stalin, but he did turn the USSR better economically.
Bourgeois historians tend to (though not always) axiomatically assume that Marxism and Stalinism were identical, not because they are evil lying capitalist apologists, but because they share in the illusions of the epoch, as Marx called it. Methodologically, it is simply a flaw in the method of historical analysis.
"In the whole conception of history up to the present this real basis of history has either been totally neglected or else considered as a minor matter quite irrelevant to the course of history. History must, therefore, always be written according to an extraneous standard; the real production of life seems to be primeval history, while the truly historical appears to be separated from ordinary life, something extra-superterrestrial. With this the relation of man to nature is excluded from history and hence the antithesis of nature and history is created. The exponents of this conception of history have consequently only been able to see in history the political actions of princes and States, religious and all sorts of theoretical struggles, and in particular in each historical epoch have had to share the illusion of that epoch. For instance, if an epoch imagines itself to be actuated by purely “political” or “religious” motives, although “religion” and “politics” are only forms of its true motives, the historian accepts this opinion. The “idea,” the “conception” of the people in question about their real practice, is transformed into the sole determining, active force, which controls and determines their practice."
Similarly, if an epoch imagines itself to be socialist then historians, political theorists, etc. assume that this is the accurate and sole determinate force of their practice, when, from a Marxist perspective, we know it's not (at least, not so in the case of the USSR). This methodological flaw is also common in Stalinists, and even an anti-Stalinist RevLefter said that the proliferation of Marxist literature in Cuba was an indicator that the Cuban Revolution was not a solely bourgeois phenomenon.
Also, "mainstream of the Marxist movement" sounds suspiciously like a Chomskyite soundbite.
pew pew pew
Give anybody too much power, and it goes to their heads. Next thing you know, they'll be killing random people with remote-controlled planes, and calling them "militants" after the fact.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/proof-plut...87/index2.html
honest individuals were initially shielded from taking antisocial decisions – but, with time, even they slid down the slippery, corrupting slope of power. Even more interesting was our observation that those who had high levels of testosterone were most corrupt when they had high power.
See also: http://reddit.com/r/socialism http://www.reddit.com/r/anarchistnews http://reddit.com/r/anarchism
The only slaves who are happy, are the crazy ones.
[wrong thread]
See also: http://reddit.com/r/socialism http://www.reddit.com/r/anarchistnews http://reddit.com/r/anarchism
The only slaves who are happy, are the crazy ones.
Stalin was a leader of the revolution ,ie the most authoritarian thing there is; revolution is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles — authoritarian means.That's why he as any leader of any victorious revolution is an "authoritarian tyrant" and "a mass murdering dactator" towards the losing party, but a superhero for the victorious party.Your point of view depends on what side are you on.
The further from Stalin - the closer to Hitler.
Stalin was an individual, not a population
“Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence, and enjoy it to the full.” –
“Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.”-
Stalin had little to do with the revolution. He was in Russia in 1917 (unlike Lenin and Trotsky) and was part of the leadership group that supported the Kerensky government and national defence. When Lenin returned from exile and published the April Theses Stalin immediately sided with him even though it was a 180-switch in political orientation.
The view of Stalin has more to do with whether one considers that the state-capitalist regime in the Soviet Union was somehow a good thing for the working class worldwide, or whether it was the result of the bitter failure of the revolution.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
The information for ignorant persons : the revolution in Russia continued till the middle of 1930s,at the end of 1920s it reached the fully socialist phase that finished with a construction of a new social economic system quite different from what existed in the profit-driven capitalist world--as the capitalists themselves were not slow to recognize.
The further from Stalin - the closer to Hitler.
Thinking of revolution, I never imagined the revolution as being led by one leader, but a revolt led by the proletariat as a whole, but that may just be me having anarcho-syndicalist feelings of revolution. Thanks for the response, a lot of views on communism seem to be based solely on individual views. The bickering between stalin-supporters and those who disapprove of him seems to be less important than the fact that all people who share communist views (despite that trots,etc. often find stalin to not be a part of communism, but as an authoritarian dictator) should unite not in difference but against bourgeois views/blind followers. oh well this strayed off into mindless rambling... thanks for response, i'm still very uneducated on this...all help is appreciated
The counter-revolution had triumphed in Russia as everywhere else by 1929. Dead as a door-nail and frankly things were going in the wrong direction by 1919.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
"It is common knowledge that the masses are divided into classes...,classes are led by political parties; that political parties, as a general rule, are run by more or less stable groups composed of the most authoritative, influential and experienced members, who are elected to the most responsible positions, and are called leaders.
To go so far, in this connection, as to contrast, in general, the dictatorship of the masses with a dictatorship of the leaders is ridiculously absurd, and stupid" - Lenin.
And one more remark: don't mix revolution with uprising or coup d'etat.Revolution is a leap into a new quolity, a radical change of a social economic system.This new social economic system appeared in Russia in the middle of 1930s.
The revolution in Russia in 1917 - middle of 1930s had fluxes and refluxes, at the first phase it simultaneously solved the problems of the bourgeois revolution but just in 1929 the revolution reahed the fully socialist stage.Just in the period of 1929 - the middle of 1930s millions of privat owners were expropriated,as a result of the "socialist offensive along the whole front" in 1939 in the Soviet economy was formed a fundamentally different situation.. Сollectivization and industrialization finished. Kulaks no longer existed as a class, the small-scale peasant farms were replaced by the collective farms, a large-scale industry appeared. Private production had totally disappeared. State-owned enterprises, as well as collective farms operated on a single state plan. A deliberate policy to replace the commodity-money relations by planning relations was carried out.
"Permanent revolutionaries" unmask themselves when they renounce the revolution when it reachs the socialist phase.
Last edited by Destroyer of Illusions; 18th April 2015 at 02:23.
The further from Stalin - the closer to Hitler.
DoI: counter-revolution is what you mean. The revolution was already defeated by the time you think it reached its 'socialist' stage. 'Socialist', when Stalinists say it, just means 'capitalist'.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
