Stalinists are traitors

[A New Era]

Just look at the history of stalinists. Take, for instance, USSR robbing the Republican side during the spanish civil war for gold, practically it's only really valuable resource.

Or Mao closing the Shanghai commune. Or Mao ordering the halt of the Hundred Flowers Campaign.

That revolutionaries are willing to cooperate with these people is beyond me. They are reactionaries, whether they like it or not, despite their red flags.

[Comrade Rage]

Troll.

[A New Era]

Why don't you ComradeCrum contribute to the discussion in one way or another instead of spamming?

[Comrade Rage]

Spamming is what you are doing. You join up, post a bunch of crap that demeans a large number of leftists, is flame-bait, and provide little justification. Our methods (Leininsts') are time-honored and have been proven to success. Was the October Revolution perfect? No, but it accomplished a lot. You, on the other hand spew anti-Communist rhetoric with revisionist history about the Spanish anarchists. Like it or not, Spanish anarchism fell flat on it's face.

[Prairie Fire]

Crum, let it go Comrade;this is just a rite of passage for new revlefters.

I said the same stupid shit at one time too.

A for you A New Era, perhaps you should contribute something useful to the discussion to start with, like for instance a source on the "USSR stole gold from the republicans" remark you just made.

[A New Era]

Of course the Hoxhaists eagerly joined the debate. The source: The Battle for Spain-The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939 by Antony Beevor.

Crum, let it go Comrade;this is just a rite of passage for new revlefters.

Don't patronize. I am not new.

You join up, post a bunch of crap

I post facts. What do you?

Our methods (Leininsts') are time-honored and have been proven to success.

Great success in the Soviet Union, DDR, Poland, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos? How many of the leninist states are left?

You, on the other hand spew anti-Communist rhetoric

Anti-stalinist.

with revisionist history about the Spanish anarchists.

What?

Like it or not, Spanish anarchism fell flat on it's face.

Whether true or not, it doesn't change the fact that the USSR pretty much used the conflict in Spain to its own advantage, and not for workers liberation.

[A New Era]

Antony Beevors writes, among other things (I am translating from another language back to english, the original language the book was written):

Nothing was free, and many of the costs seem to be excessive, to put it mildly. The USSR claimed the credits it received in 1938, the republic had received goods and services to a value of 661 million dollars, while only 518 in gold had been sent to Moscow. In a time where the currency of rubel vs dollar was 5,5 to 1, the Soviet Union used the relationship of 2,5 to 1, a difference that created a substantial profit.

[black magick hustla]

I think Stalinism was a concrete counterrevolution that ravaged the whole Comintern, destroying internationalism and moving the pole from the left wings of the Communist parties to the right wings.

However, I don't think some stalinists themselves are "traitors". There are good communist militants that happen to be "stalinist", that have their heart in the right place.-

[A New Era]

There are good communist militants that happen to be "stalinist", that have their heart in the right place.-

I agree.

But their relation in this world is reactionary. Some of them might think they support something good, and many of them genuinly believe in class struggle in favor of the proletariat, but stalinism in itself is reactionary, and thus they have a reactionary position, despite the good intention.

[Lenin II]

You need to read this:
http://rationalred.blogspot.com/2008...-oh-my_09.html

[Wanted Man]

I agree.

But their relation in this world is reactionary. Some of them might think they support something good, and many of them genuinly believe in class struggle in favor of the proletariat, but stalinism in itself is reactionary, and thus they have a reactionary position, despite the good intention.

Well, you've already backpeddled from your original post a little. Today, I was at a protest against the demolition of social housing. There were speakers and rappers and the like, and one of the rappers said: "Find out more in the Red Dawn paper" (which is basically the Maoist group here). There was also trotskyists, squatters and us. But I guess we were all actually having "a reactionary position", and that the trots and the squatters should no longer "be willing to cooperate with us reactionaries".

Not that the protest was very big or ground-breaking. But it does nicely to illustrate how ridiculous it is to brand a bunch of people (who, in this case, were mostly just folks who were protesting the demolition of their social housing) as traitors (despite the "good intentions" disclaimer) who should not be worked with.

[black magick hustla]

(who, in this case, were mostly just folks who were protesting the demolition of their social housing) as traitors (despite the "good intentions" disclaimer) who should not be worked with.

I think on the sphere of class struggle we can work with stalinists. But I don't think we should be in the same organization, etc

[A New Era]

You have also democratic socialists who are so liberalized that, despite believing they are progressive, they are actually reactionary. They too, I would say, are reactionary. As materialists, we shouldn't check so much people have good intentions. For all we know, Dick Cheney might have good intentions. The important thing is, what role does the person, class, institution or organisation have?

And yes, a better title would be "Stalinists are reactionary". But a good deal of the stalinists are traitors: All the stalinists experiments have showed one very important thing:

The party bigwigs will supress actual workers power, the political apparatus will not be in control of the people, but the state. And the means of production has been in the hands of the state, not the people.

And they have discredited the workers movement to such a great degree that people think we are loonies. No other political group has done so much damage to the workers movement as the stalinists.

[Wanted Man]

A New Era: what? Are you going to respond to my post, or just rant and rave? I already told you that your "good intentions" note is irrelevant. Answer straight: are workers who wage class struggle "reactionary" if they belong to the "wrong" organization? Apparently, they're not traitors, because you just backpedalled again!

Also, I still don't see why the bourgeois media would not "discredit" Trotskyism and anarchism, if (that's a pretty big if) they ever formed a threat to their institutions.

Marmot: fair enough, I don't claim such. Many communist groups' founding documents include a notice where they strongly associate or disassociate with a specific piece of history of the communist movement, they'll never agree with each other!

[Comrade Rage]

Of course the Hoxhaists eagerly joined the debate. The source: The Battle for Spain-The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939 by Antony Beevor.

Don't patronize. I am not new.

You have 2 or 3 posts.

Anti-stalinist.

Anti-communists frequently say that they are Anti-Stalinists. Reagan did, but so do many contemporary leftists...for the benefit of the movement of course.

[RNK]

There's lots of talk about "thinking they're doing the right thing", "have their heart in the right place", etc. These are wholly unscientific claims to make. Socialism, the liberation of the proletariat, is not merely some morally-guided opinion; it is the product of scientific analysis and the relations of production, material conditions of suffering and exploitation.

And what is a "Stalinist", anyway? I never liked labels, especially ones used so arbitrarily. An authoritarian? All communists are authoritarian - we all want to smash the ruling class, cripple their state, and impose worker's rule. That's quite authoritarian. So again, the moral objection to authoritarian action is idiotic.

Beauraucratic authoritarianism? The rule of the party? These are issues that seperate communism from anarchism, not Trotskyism from Marxism-Leninism. We all know state power is necessary (except anarchists) - state power which must be under the control of the workers. No Stalinist I know is against this.

I think it all boils down to the belief that Stalin "betrayed" the Bolshevik revolution, took control, and transformed Soviet Russia into his own personal Empire; and the subsequent belief that all Stalinists want to do the same, due simply to their acceptance of Stalin's role in the history of revolution. So long as I do not profess a deep, overwhelming hatred of Stalin, I'll always be viewed, no matter what I say, as a snake-in-the-grass who at the earliest possible moment will spring up, poison the revolutionary movement, and try to take it over and pervert it into authoritarian dictatorship.

Uh huh. That's real believable, that there exists a large group of men and women wandering around like sleeper agents, waiting for that sign that will trigger all of them to take over any revolutionary movement and bury worker's democracy.

[black magick hustla]

I think Stalininism, as a concrete counterrevolution, did represent a set of trends. For one, the moving of the pole of most Communist Parties to the right. Siding with factions of the bourgeosie in united, popular, or anti-fascist fronts. The rejection of proletarian internationalism, and the bureacratization of the Comintern parties to the point that they become satellite parties for Moscow.

I

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm not attacking modern Stalinists. I will, however, attack their already-revisionist ideology, in spite of their self-professed "anti-revisionism."

Stalinism is revisionist on the question of democratic centralism and especially the broader "freedom of discussion, unity in action" (hence the excessively bureaucratic nature of the regimes of Stalin, those inspired by him, and his also-revisionist successors).

Stalinism is revisionist on the question of class conflict ("non-antagonistic classes" under socialism, "popular fronts" with liberal bourgeois factions, as opposed to limiting class alliances to the petit-bourgeoisie).

[RNK]

For one, the moving of the pole of most Communist Parties to the right.

Can you be more substantive?

Siding with factions of the bourgeosie in united, popular, or anti-fascist fronts.

Like the Alliance with capitalism against Nazism?

The rejection of proletarian internationalism

This accusation has been repeatedly proven false.

and the bureacratization of the Comintern parties to the point that they become satellite parties for Moscow

First, how does beauraucratization lead to a party becoming strict adherants to the Moscow line?

Second, can you prove this occured?

Third, doesn't that disprove the claim that the CPSU was anti-international?

Does any of this have to do with the often-misunderstood term "socialism in one country"?

[RNK]

"popular fronts" with liberal bourgeois factions).

How is this revisionist, unless you are attempting to claim that Marx, Engels and Lenin were also revisionists for concluding the same necessity?