Stalin

[The Advent of Anarchy]

What do you think about Stalin? There are two major divisions in Communist theory: pro-stalin, and anti-stalin. I have been going through a political battle with myself for a while, about my Pro-Stalin position and everything else. I need to know both sides of the argument before I make any ideological decisions. So, what I'm asking the people of Revleft is, what do you think about Stalin, anti-revisionism, and the Stalin-era Soviet Union itself?

[Kilroy Was Here]

Industrial progress under Stalin was astronomical, without a doubt. However the negatives of his reign of terror massively outweigh the positives. He purged the leadership of some of the greatest and keenest minds of communism (Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin), he pursued his aims without a single consideration for human life (some estimates place the death toll of forced collectivisation and industrialisation at between 20 and 30 million), he ruthlessly persecuted ethnic minorities resulting in millions of deaths (think of Ukraine), he completely mismanaged the country during the war (it was the genius of generals like Zhukov and the remarkable fighting spirit of the great Russian people that won the conflict), and his own paranoid-slash-psychopathic nature resulted in countless unneeded cruelties and deaths (think of the gulags and the Doctor's Plot).

Was the USSR's superpower status really worth so many deaths? The level of suffering the people endured under Stalin is horrific and demonstrates his complete lack of respect for human life; something any great so-called Communist should hold sacred.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Okay, now possibly we can have an anti-revisionist posting here so I can look at both the sides and see who has a better argument, and possibly start a debate between the pro-stalin and anti-stalin factions.

[Panda Tse Tung]

He purged the leadership of some of the greatest and keenest minds of communism (Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin)

These we're justifiably purged. Because of their lack of mass-support they eventually had to resort into terrorism and they we're thus justifiably trialled for it.
http://art-bin.com/art/omoscowtoc.html
http://neworleans.media.indypgh.org/upload...ial_15feb07.pdf
http://neworleans.media.indypgh.org/upload...many_others.pdf
http://neworleans.media.indypgh.org/upload...7.pdf1xudb8.pdf
(i don't know much about the last 2, but they seem to add valuable information. I will certainly read them myself soon obviously.)

he pursued his aims without a single consideration for human life (some estimates place the death toll of forced collectivisation and industrialisation at between 20 and 30 million)

Your correct, they are estimates. In reality (out of the top of my head) 800.000 we're justfully executed over a period of 40 years and 500.000 died in the gulags because of conditions that are not the direct result of failing party-politics.
http://www.mltranslations.org/Russia/aucpb.htm provides some information.

My sources for this fact are not that easily found on the net (I've searched for some 10 minutes, so it was no extensive research. But still). You could read the book 'another view of Stalin' by Ludo Martens (i tried to find a source, this quick. But I'm too lazy to continue searching :P). Here's an on-line version (i don't know if it's as complete as the paper version, but o.k.): http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html .

he ruthlessly persecuted ethnic minorities resulting in millions of deaths (think of Ukraine),

The so-called 'Ukrainian holocaust' was made up by an escaped criminal who worked for a Nazi-newspaper on a false alias. He hadn't even traveled through the Ukraine when he made the whole story up. He took pictures from the Russian famine during the civil war and of Austrian soldiers during the first world war. Later when the police caught him again he told the court he made it all up, jet the capitalists seem to ignore this tiny detail.

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node68.htm...000000000000000
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/sp...ary/famine.htm

he completely mismanaged the country during the war (it was the genius of generals like Zhukov and the remarkable fighting spirit of the great Russian people that won the conflict),

This critique is quite vague. Would you like to make it more concrete please so that it is possible to factually respond to it?

and his own paranoid-slash-psychopathic nature resulted in countless unneeded cruelties and deaths (think of the gulags and the Doctor's Plot).

This is mere speculation (calling him paranoid). The doctors plot is one of the phew things i think was not right. But Stalin was getting old, and he was in a surrounding that was very hostile towards him (and Marxism-Leninism in general) which explains that for the most part.

Quite a disappointing response, especially from a self-proclaimed communist. I would have expected some more back-up on information and details in stead of vague criticism such as these.

Edit:

I found the following table somewhere on the net (Rebel Alliance to be exact):

Table - The American Historical Review USSR Custodial Population 1934-1953


1934
510,307 -Gulag Working Camps
135,190 - Counter revolutionaries
26.5 - Counter revolutionary %
26,295 - Died
5.2 - Died %
147,272 - Freed
83,490 - Escaped
510,307 - Total

1935
725,438 -Gulag Working Camps
118,256 -Counter revolutionaries
16.3 -Counter revolutionary %
28,328-Died
3.9-Died %
211,035-Freed
67,493-Escaped
240,259 -Gulag Labor Colonies
965,697-Total

1936
839,406 -Gulag Working Camps
105,849 -Counter revolutionaries
12.6-Counter revolutionary %
20,595 -Died
2.5-Died %
369,544-Freed
58,313-Escaped
457,088-Gulag Labor Colonies
1,296,494-Total

1937
820,881 -Gulag Working Camps
104,826 -Counter revolutionaries
12.8-Counter revolutionary %
25,376-Died
3.1-Died %
364,437-Freed
58,264-Escaped
375,488-Gulag Labor Colonies
1,196,369-Total

1938
996,367 -Gulag Working Camps
185,324 -Counter revolutionaries
18.6-Counter revolutionary %
90,546-Died
9.1-Died %
279,966-Freed
32,033-Escaped
885,203-Gulag Labor Colonies
1,881,570-Total

1939
1,317,195 - Gulag Working Camps
454,432 - Counter revolutionaries
34.5-Counter revolutionary %
50,502-Died
3.8-Died %
223,622-Freed
12,333-Escaped
355,243-Gulag Labor Colonies
350,538-Prisons
2,022,976-Total

1940
1,344,408 - Gulag Working Camps
444,999 -Counter revolutionaries
33.1-Counter revolutionary %
46,665-Died
3.5-Died %
316,825-Freed
11,813-Escaped
315,584-Gulag Labor Colonies
190,266-Prisons
1,850,258-Total

1941
1,500,524 -Gulag Working Camps
420,293 -Counter revolutionaries
28.7-Counter revolutionary %
100,997-Died
6.7-Died %
624,276-Freed
10,592-Escaped
429,205-Gulag Labor Colonies
487,739-Prisons
2,417,468-Total

1942
1,415,596 - Gulag Working Camps
407,988 -Counter revolutionaries
29.6-Counter revolutionary %
248,877-Died
18-Died %
509,538-Freed
11,822-Escaped
360,447-Gulag Labor Colonies
277,992-Prisons
2,054,035-Total

1943
983,974 -Gulag Working Camps
345,397-Counter revolutionaries
35.6-Counter revolutionary %
166,967-Died
17.0-Died %
336,135-Freed
6,242-Escaped
500,208-Gulag Labor Colonies
235,313-Prisons
1,719,495-Total

1944
663,594 -Gulag Working Camps
268,861-Counter revolutionaries
40.7-Counter revolutionary %
60,948-Died
9.2-Died %
152,113-Freed
3,586-Escaped
516,225-Gulag Labor Colonies
155,213-Prisons
1,335,032-Total

1945
715,506 -Gulag Working Camps
283,351 -Counter revolutionaries
41.2-Counter revolutionary %
43,848-Died
6.1-Died %
336,750-Freed
2,196-Escaped
745,171-Gulag Labor Colonies
279,969-Prisons
1,740,646-Total

1946
600,897-Gulag Working Camps
333,833 -Counter revolutionaries
59.2-Counter revolutionary %
18,154-Died
3.0-Died %
115,700-Freed
2,642-Escaped
956,224-Gulag Labor Colonies
261,500-Prisons
1,818,621-Total

1947
808,839 -Gulag Working Camps
427,653-Counter revolutionaries
54.3-Counter revolutionary %
35,668-Died
4.4-Died %
194,886-Freed
3,779-Escaped
912,794-Gulag Labor Colonies
306,163-Prisons
2,027,796-Total

1948
1,108,057 -Gulag Working Camps
416,156-Counter revolutionaries
38.0-Counter revolutionary %
27,605-Died
2.5-Died %
261,148-Freed
4,261-Escaped
1,091,478-Gulag Labor Colonies
275,850-Prisons
2,475,385-Total

1949
1,216,361 - Gulag Working Camps
420,696-Counter revolutionaries
34.9-Counter revolutionary %
15,739-Died
1.3-Died %
178,449-Freed
2,583-Escaped
1,140,324-Gulag Labor Colonies
2,356,685-Total

1950
1,416,300 -Gulag Working Camps
578,912-Counter revolutionaries
22.7-Counter revolutionary %
14,703-Died
1.0-Died %
216,210-Freed
2,577-Escaped
1,145,051-Gulag Labor Colonies
2,561,351-Total

1951
1,533,767 -Gulag Working Camps
475,976-Counter revolutionaries
31.0-Counter revolutionary %
15,587-Died
1.0-Died %
254,269-Freed
2,318-Escaped
994,379-Gulag Labor Colonies
2,528,146-Total

1952
1,711,202 -Gulag Working Camps
480,766-Counter revolutionaries
28.1-Counter revolutionary %
10,604-Died
0.6-Died %
329,446-Freed
1,253-Escaped
793,312-Gulag Labor Colonies
2,504,514-Total

1953
1,727,970-Gulag Working Camps
465,256-Counter revolutionaries
26.9-Counter revolutionary %
5,825-Died
0.3-Died %
937,352-Freed
785-Escaped
740,554-Gulag Labor Colonies
2,468,524-Total

[Led Zeppelin]

The only reason one could give for supporting Stalin in any way shape or form was for his economic policy of industrialization. Of course, the left opposition had that plan first and Stalin stole it from them, by first opposing it when they proposed it, and then later implementing it in a hurriedly fashion which caused the deaths of a great many of people in the peasantry class.

I'm not going to debate any Stalinist so don't bother replying to me. I've debated with Stalinists countless times and we will never agree on this issue, so it's pointless.

Just putting in my two cents. And also if you want to read a good book about Stalinism I suggest The Revolution Betrayed.

[Leo]

These we're justifiably purged.

So this is how the Stalinists justify the counter-revolution.

Stalin was a representative of the bureaucratic state bourgeoisie which had risen in Russia, a representative of the bourgeoisie who took back the political power from the proletariat and restored capitalism. Stalin was a counter-revolutionary and an imperialist. Stalin was not a product of the revolution: he was the gravedigger of the revolution.

The only reason one could give for supporting Stalin in any way shape or form was for his economic policy of industrialization.

Excuse me but still the same old bullshit. Will you people never learn? This was exactly what caused the bureaucracy to grow as big as it did.

Of course, the left opposition had that plan first

Exactly the reason they were contradicting themselves.

[Led Zeppelin]

Yeah, you should read my posts in their entirety before you reply to them.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Stalin was a representative of the bureaucratic state bourgeoisie which had risen in Russia, a representative of the bourgeoisie who took back the political power from the proletariat and restored capitalism. Stalin was a counter-revolutionary and an imperialist. Stalin was not a product of the revolution: he was the gravedigger of the revolution.

I don't see any scientific back-up for this information, please provide some.

Exactly the reason they were contradicting themselves.

I'd have to agree on that one. Stalin changed his point of view, as every person does when he recognizes his errors. Jet, the left opposition keeps opposing the same policies the Soviet-Union puts into practice. While they advocated it before. Then, when Stalin puts it into practice it's a 'failing policy'. Almost literally every time he did that, which smells like opportunism to me (maybe also partly from Stalin, jet he didn't do it to discredit a socialist state. But to help build one).

[Leo]

Yeah, you should read my posts in their entirety before you reply to them.

Are you sure you understand what my point it?

[The Author]

Originally posted by Leninism@ July 25, 2007, 3:30 p.m.
The only reason one could give for supporting Stalin in any way shape or form was for his economic policy of industrialization. Of course, the left opposition had that plan first and Stalin stole it from them, by first opposing it when they proposed it, and then later implementing it in a hurriedly fashion which caused the deaths of a great many of people in the peasantry class.

He "stole" it from them? First of all, did Stalin supposedly do this all by himself? This is what I find so funny about some of the "communists" who complain about the personality cult around here. They correctly denounce it, but then they make the stupid mistake of blaming the problems occurring in a country on one man. One man does not run an entire country. One man does not make history. Blaming one man for everything is just as bad as praising him for everything.

Second, how do you know the industrialization plans were "stolen"? Weren't such plans in the works ever since the first days of the October Revolution? What about the material conditions in Soviet society in the early 1920s as opposed to the later 1920s? Did you stop to think that perhaps the Soviet Union was not ready for industrialization in the early 1920s (a period of immediate recovery from World War and Civil War where the new union-state had few funds or resources to engage such plans) as opposed to the later 1920s (when it had gained enough capital to launch such plans)? All you have to go by is the word of another man.

Third, "hurried fashion"? It's better to liquidate the material basis that would cause a cancerous growth of capitalism quickly rather than to let it grow because one did not act soon enough. This is the excuse made by bourgeois economists: "you're collectivizing and industrializing too quickly! Slow down! Let the markets live!" That way capitalism can find a material basis to grow. Sure, some officials used methods of forced collectivization, but this was not a method endorsed by the Soviet government as a whole. So there was no "revolutionary treachery" for the large part. No consideration is taken into the conditions of the weather at the time, or reports of the "famine" being over for the most part after 1932, that scores of millions did not die out because of a "manmade catastrophe" as some would have us believe.

[Leo]

I don't see any scientific back-up for this information, please provide some.

Stalin himself admits that it was the "middle cadres", the bureaucracy which supported him. "Why did we win over Trotsky and others? It is well known that, after Lenin, Trotsky was the most popular in our land. But we had the support of the middle cadres. Trotsky did not pay any attention to these cadres."* Those middle men were nominated by Comrade Card-Index himself, obviously, and they owed their rise to Stalin and Stalin represented their interests. They murdered all the old Bolshevik militants who had worked for the revolution for good reason: they were destroying the revolution itself, it was in their class interests, bourgeois interests.

Lets now quote Lenin who has spent the last chapter of his political life trying to take Stalin down: "Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. (...) Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc."** Of course Lenin didn't just talk; he also tried to take steps (although they obviously weren't enough) against the rising bureaucracy: "Our Central Committee has grown into a strictly centralised and highly authoritative group, but the conditions under which this group is working are not concurrent with its authority. The reform I recommend should help to remove this defect, and the members of the Central Control Commission, whose duty it will be to attend all meetings of the Political Bureau in a definite number, will have to form a compact group which should not allow anybody's authority without exception, neither that of the General Secretary [Stalin] nor of any other member of the Central Committee, to prevent them from putting questions, verifying documents, and, in general, from keeping themselves fully informed of all things and from exercising the strictest control over the proper conduct of affairs.***" He also adds: "Let us hope that our new Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection will abandon what the French call pruderie, which we may call ridiculous primness, or ridiculous swank, and which plays entirely into the hands of our Soviet and Party bureaucracy. Let it be said in parentheses that we have bureaucrats in our Party offices as well as in Soviet offices."****

There is also the great lie of "socialism in one country". This political position, which was against everything communism actually was about, and mixed with the ultra-industrialization policy which the Stalinist "center" did actually take from the program of the Trotskyist "left" (although this is something which Trotskyists should actually be ashamed of instead of being proud of). The mixture of two actually turned Russia into a fully capitalist state, with an industrial bureaucratic bourgeoisie. Now you will say "but there wasn't private property in Russia". However the bourgeois regime in Russia wasn't different from other bourgeois regimes on the level of the basic relations of production, but only on the level of the juridical forms of property. The means of production were "private" property as far as the workers are concerned; the workers were deprived of any control over the means of production. The means of production were only "collectivized" for the bureaucracy which owned and managed them in a collective manner. Back to "socialism in one country" being against everything communism actually was about, lets first see what Engels has to say about it: "Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone? No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany. It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace. It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range."***** The thing is that the proletariat is capable of taking political power, establishing it's dictatorship and attacking capitalism in one part of the world, however it is necessary for it to be the ruling class in the whole world to be able to establish the socialist mode of production.

Now, what would this mean? It would mean that the economy of the proletarian dictatorship, like everything else, is determined by the interests of the world proletarian movement, in other words by the political tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat in one part of the world: giving full help to other revolutionary movements, maintaining the independent organs of the proletariat (that is workers' councils) and so forth. What did Stalin and more importantly the class he represented do? They, by proletarianizing the agriculture and ultra-industrialization, conveniently worked for the development of Russian capitalism. What did they politically do? Their foreign policy was determined by their imperialist ambitions: first they cooperated with the German imperialism in order to pursue their imperialist interests in Poland, then they cooperated with the American and British imperialism against the German imperialism not only in order to "defend the homeland" but also to pursue imperialist interests in the rest of Eastern Europe.

So I repeat: Stalin was a representative of the bureaucratic state bourgeoisie which had risen in Russia, a representative of the bourgeoisie who took back the political power from the proletariat and restored capitalism. Stalin was a counter-revolutionary and an imperialist. Stalin was not a product of the revolution: he was the gravedigger of the revolution.

*Georgi Dimitroff, Tagebuecher 1933-1943, Berlin: Aufbau Verlag 2000. 7.11.37
**http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...t/congress.htm
***http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...923/jan/23.htm
****http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...923/mar/02.htm
*****http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...1/prin-com.htm

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by No. 2@July 25, 2007 06:54 pm

He purged the leadership of some of the greatest and keenest minds of communism (Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin)

These we're justifiably purged. Because of their lack of mass-support they eventually had to resort into terrorism and they we're thus justifiably trialled for it.

It always baffle me how the Bolsheviks could be at the head of a revolution, when the majority of their direction was counter-revolutionary.

The slanderous accusations of terrorism against these men have long been discredited. They were all murdered by Stalin, who was, plainly and simply, an anti-communist criminal.

Luís Henrique

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+July 25, 2007 07:38 pm--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways @ July 25, 2007 07:38 pm)

Leninism

@ July 25, 2007, 3:30 p.m.
The only reason one could give for supporting Stalin in any way shape or form was for his economic policy of industrialization. Of course, the left opposition had that plan first and Stalin stole it from them, by first opposing it when they proposed it, and then later implementing it in a hurriedly fashion which caused the deaths of a great many of people in the peasantry class.

He "stole" it from them? First of all, did Stalin supposedly do this all by himself? This is what I find so funny about some of the "communists" who complain about the personality cult around here. They correctly denounce it, but then they make the stupid mistake of blaming the problems occurring in a country on one man. One man does not run an entire country. One man does not make history. Blaming one man for everything is just as bad as praising him for everything. [/b]

In this instance at least, Stalin wasn't being solely blamed. He was described as the representative of an entire subclass.

Leo:

Stalin was a representative of the bureaucratic state bourgeoisie which had risen in Russia, a representative of the bourgeoisie who took back the political power from the proletariat and restored capitalism. Stalin was a counter-revolutionary and an imperialist. Stalin was not a product of the revolution: he was the gravedigger of the revolution.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Even if allegations of cruelty and suppression towards ethnic groups under Stalin are historically inaccurate; even if those tens of millions of real people were nothing but actual 'war casualties' or 'fabricated statistics', this does not discredit the fact that over a million of political partisans of the October Revolution were unmercifully slaughtered - that economists, trade unionists, agitators, writers, teachers, workers, and intellectuals; from all different ages and cultural backgrounds, met their death through lies, forced confessions, fire squads, and deportations. This does not separate us from the fact that he killed the revolution.

Leo Uilleann basically covered it all.

[Kilroy Was Here]

So I repeat: Stalin was a representative of the bureaucratic state bourgeoisie which had risen in Russia, a representative of the bourgeoisie who took back the political power from the proletariat and restored capitalism. Stalin was a counter-revolutionary and an imperialist. Stalin was not a product of the revolution: he was the gravedigger of the revolution.

Interesting post. I must say, in essence I agree with most of your points, however there are some ideas that are a little far-fetched, especially that of Stalin 'restoring capitalism' - this is a little brash don't you think? No-one in a sane state of mind would go so far as to call Stalin's Russia 'capitalist'. It was 'Stalinist', neither Communist nor Capitalist; a system based purely on the whims of the leader and his cronies. In short, a tyrannical, self-serving, uncompromising, megalomaniacal dictatorship. Certainly not capitalist though. I agree there was a bureaucratic bourgeoisie in place - but certainly nothing resembling what I at least would define as capitalism, a system of private property and markets.

As for you Stalinist posters (you know who you are), if you have not already done so I suggest you read Solzhenitsyn and other accounts of life in the gulags before you prattle on about the virtues of Stalin's regime. It is difficult to feel affection for someone who condemns people to a life sentence of hard labour for the 'crime' of being captured in war or daring to mildly criticise the regime when situations are so hard it would be idiotic not to. I find it highly amusing that one such Stalinist has CriticizeEverythingAlways as their screen-name. With such an attitude one wouldn't last half a minute under a Stalinist regime!

I can understand if you are going through some kind of rebellious phase, but if you are truly a Stalinist I find this highly worrying and I seriously question your state of mind.

[bezdomni]

Of course, the left opposition had that plan first and Stalin stole it from them, by first opposing it when they proposed it, and then later implementing it in a hurriedly fashion which caused the deaths of a great many of people in the peasantry class.

lol, so the left opposition first came up with a plan that would kill a lot of people? Is that something trots want to publicize?

Anyway...how exactly does one go about "stealing plans" in a democratic centralist organization?

That sentence is riddled with logical fallacies.

------------------------------

I am ultimately pro-Stalin, but I recognize that he made many mistakes and maintain (as all marxian materialists should) that we ought to learn from these mistakes instead of dismissing them.

The RCP has a great source on Stalin (and lots of other parts of communist history that are marred in bourgeois and anti-communist lies).

It's called Set the Record Straight. Check it out.

[Tower of Bebel]

The problem is: people can over or underestimate how many people were killed under Stalins regime, but for one thing I'm sure and that is that killing is not the only solution to personal beliefs, neither is the gulag.

[gilhyle]

It seems to me there are two ways to answer the question:

1. Stalin was so awful that if that is socialism....you dont want it !

2. Stalin's approach didnt work

I dont take the former view. If building a socialist society necessarily involves the decimation of the ranks of the revolutionary party and the (temporary) terrorisation of the whole population, if it requires slave labour, the frustration of foreign revolutionary movements, systematic lies and corruption well then bring it on...IF IT WORKS.

I take the second view. His approach did not and could not work. Stalin fundamentally misunderstood how a revolution needed to be built. His industrialization policy was not stolen from the Left Opposition, it was radically different from their program because it was based on forced expropriations and forced labour. It involved the destruction of the revolutionary party, the revolutionary State and the Revolutionary International and the replacement of the party by bureaucratic yes-men, the replacement of the revlutionary State by machine incapable of democracy in any form and comfortable only with the use of force and the replacement of the international by reformist parties around the world which were mere tools of soviet foreign policy.

It took a long time for what Stalin built to fall....but it was always going to fall. What he built was incapable of organising revolutions or of builidng participative planned economies.

Stalin gutted the international and Russian revolutionary movement created by the Russian Revolution to keep the USSR in place. Only the military fvictory in WW II delayed the fall of the USSR and made it unclear how chaotic and self-defeating this was...but in the end restoration happened and the whole cause of socialism was set back almost to where it had been in 1850, but now discredited as well as weak.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating...Stalin tastes rotten.

[RGacky3]

If Industrialization and speeding up the Economy makes for a good system, then Capialism works fine, Sure Stalin industrialized fast and got the economy Rolling, but so did Americans after world war 2, they turned themselves into an Empire, does'nt mean anything.

Saying that killing 800,000 is justifiable (Although I believe the figure is way way more), is absurd, how you can you justify it. Also if the Bolshevics were the minority, ie. they did'nt have support of the masses they should'nt have been in power. There is no way you can justify the Mass killings and the Gulags, if you can justify that, then Capitalism and even fascism are not hard to justify.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

RGacky3

There is a difference between the Bolsheviks, and Stalin.

So please don't derail the thread.