Stalinism or anti-Stalinism

[Chomskyan]

I´m starting to change my views on Stalin little by little, I´m still against Marxism-Leninism, but I found a very interesting article that defends Stalin´s policies and the socialism in the Soviet Union.

I´m really looking for the truth, in what seems to be a gray area. We know that Stalin had people killed, the secret police had people killed, members of the central committee were killed and Stalin had people disappear, even to the point of erasing their portrayals in photography.

Given the information seems to have both pluses and negatives on both ends, I want to know what is the most accurate picture I can get of Stalinism. Not saying Marxism-Leninism is a success, it has many flaws, deficiencies, and nationalistic cultic aspects to it, but I am interested in Stalin in particular and whether his policies were as bad as is commonly claimed, and whether or not the USSR could be considered in some sense to be socialist.

Socialism in One Country is an abandonment of socialist internationalism as well, so that´s an important point to keep in mind.

[DDR]

"Stalin: History and Critic of a Black Legend" by Domenico Losurdo may help you.

[Faust Arp]

It's quite absurd measuring the general benefit of Stalin's individual policies for the Soviet and international working class when they were simply the inevitable conclusion of a socialist revolution remaining isolated in a large, but mostly agrarian area - and thus choking itself. It's no different than trying to judge the track record of bourgeois politicians in the same way - some might be responsible for policies which either further harm or somewhat benefit the working class on a general scale, but in the end they are all merely bourgeois politicians doing their job for the bourgeois regime.

Either way, Stalin was all too happy to capitalize on the isolation of the Russian revolution, and that is all that matters.

[ComradeAllende]

Given the information seems to have both pluses and negatives on both ends, I want to know what is the most accurate picture I can get of Stalinism. Not saying Marxism-Leninism is a success, it has many flaws, deficiencies, and nationalistic cultic aspects to it, but I am interested in Stalin in particular and whether his policies were as bad as is commonly claimed, and whether or not the USSR could be considered in some sense to be socialist.

Well, I tend to take the systematic approach toward Uncle Joe, which is mostly based off of what I remember from Trotsky's Revolution Betrayed. For me, Stalin was the protector of the Party bureaucracy in the theoretical and power struggles following Lenin's death. While Trotsky was by far the more popular of the two within the USSR, Stalin had developed support among the new Party cadres (which helps to explain his purges of the Old Bolsheviks). He first combined with Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Bukharin against Trotsky and the Left Opposition, then turned against Bukharin (and later Zinoviev and Kamenev) to assert his supreme control over the Party and the state. This does not suggest that he was a tool of the Party bureaucrats, or even their creation; in fact he purged quite a few bureaucrats for drifting from established dogma. Rather, his rule was a dictatorship of the nomenklatura, a far cry from the democratic Paris Commune that inspired such hope and optimism from leading socialist thinkers like Marx, Bakunin, etc.

This approach also has the added benefit of explaining the Soviet Union's continuation after Stalin's death in 1953 (and Khrushchev's attempts at de-Stalinization); Stalin was the volatile incarnation of the apparatchiks' power over Soviet society, rather than their sovereign ruler. If that was the case, the USSR would have collapsed as bureaucrats would have struggled to assert themselves in the power vacuum ensuing his death.

[Antiochus]

The Stalinist cult of personality has many parallels to say, Reagan's. It is likely both opposed such cults out of 'principle' (different ones of course); but I find it absolutely absurd that either of them were rubber duckies on the fucking ocean, trying but failing to change the tide against it.

Even subtle things strike me as quite ridiculous; Stalin was portrayed as a giant with an impressive physical build, when in reality he was a diminutive man. I find it very, very hard to believe that Stalin did not personally enjoy the benefits of such a cult, particularly in purging individuals with virtually no evidence or due process just based on his own word.

And just so we are clear, even IF Stalin was personally opposed to such a cult, this doesn't, in my opinion, vindicate him in any way. Most historians now agree that Alexander the Great's supposed "megalomania" (particularly his 'crazed' belief he was a god) was a strategic way for him to rule over a great host of foreign peoples he recently conquered. And indeed, we see historically that many of the generals that hated him for it like Ptolemy, Seleucus, Antigonus etc... then adopted their own cults and jockeyed for the 'blessing' of the dead king as his 'true' successor. I fail to see much difference with this and Lenin/Marx once they died and Stalinists.

[Chomskyan]

The Stalinist cult of personality has many parallels to say, Reagan's. It is likely both opposed such cults out of 'principle' (different ones of course); but I find it absolutely absurd that either of them were rubber duckies on the fucking ocean, trying but failing to change the tide against it.

Even subtle things strike me as quite ridiculous; Stalin was portrayed as a giant with an impressive physical build, when in reality he was a diminutive man. I find it very, very hard to believe that Stalin did not personally enjoy the benefits of such a cult, particularly in purging individuals with virtually no evidence or due process just based on his own word.

And just so we are clear, even IF Stalin was personally opposed to such a cult, this doesn't, in my opinion, vindicate him in any way. Most historians now agree that Alexander the Great's supposed "megalomania" (particularly his 'crazed' belief he was a god) was a strategic way for him to rule over a great host of foreign peoples he recently conquered. And indeed, we see historically that many of the generals that hated him for it like Ptolemy, Seleucus, Antigonus etc... then adopted their own cults and jockeyed for the 'blessing' of the dead king as his 'true' successor. I fail to see much difference with this and Lenin/Marx once they died and Stalinists.

What could he have done that would vindicate him?

[Guardia Rossa]

I am anti-Stalinist, but I still insist on defend USSR against bourgeois propaganda.

However, I don't consider USSR socialist. I just cannot stop linking this particular paper enough: http://www.sinistra.net/lib/pro/whyrusnsoc.html

[Alet]

As far as his conception of socialism is concerned, Stalin was a terrible eclectic and a rather lazy thinker. But as a bourgeois revolutionary he was one of the most progressive figures in the Soviet Union. We should abandon moralistic criticisms, and instead understand Stalinism in its historical context.

[Chomskyan]

As far as his conception of socialism is concerned, Stalin was a terrible eclectic and a rather lazy thinker. But as a bourgeois revolutionary he was one of the most progressive figures in the Soviet Union. We should abandon moralistic criticisms, and instead understand Stalinism in its historical context.

I agree entirely, which is why I have high opinions about Mao Zedong and Che Guevara, despite their poor politics. I have the same view of Lenin and Trotsky, even though I don´t agree with their politics I recognize the brilliance of Mao and Trotsky, as well as the cunning of Lenin and spirit of Che.

But, their politics don´t resonate with me.