Stalin , hero or villain?

[nvm]

I used to be a stalinist but i am not anymore . I am moving towards Trotskyism
I would like to hear what you have to say about Stalin. Sorry if there was another thead like that but I am new in the forum . Also i would like to post an essay i wrote some months ago on stalin and also put a poll .



Stalin, Hero or Villain?



Stalin is one of the most criticized, but at the same time one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century. Many have compared him to Hitler, just as many have compared him to a Messiah that liberated Europe. Many call him a villain, just as many call him a hero. Was Stalin a killer and a fascist as his opponents claim, or was he one of the most prominent leaders of the great Soviet Union?



Stalin is accused by his political opponents that he abandoned the idea of a world revolution. After the failure of the revolutions in Germany, Hungary, Austria and other European countries, Stalin , a bureaucrat ,invented the idea of socialism in one country, which was opposed to Lenin’s internationalism. Thus Stalin , according to his opponents condemned the revolution to a failure , bringing the rise of bureaucracy, nationalism and state capitalism.
In reality though, the possibility of sustaining socialism in one country is a fundamental principle of Leninism. Lenin argued that socialism can prevail in the beginning in some or even one capitalist country. After it had destroyed the capitalists and organized the socialist production it would uprise against the capitalists of other countries, with the help of the working class of those countries, using even military force if necessary, against the exploiters and their governments. Stalin followed the values and virtues of Leninism by the book in that case. The fact is that Lenin and Stalin believed that at the final victory of the revolution, communism, would only be global because it cannot sustain itself differently. But socialism, which was the case in the USSR, could sustain itself in a union of socialist countries or even in one country.
Therefore Stalin, not only organized a socialist economy within the USSR, he aided communist parties all over the world to create revolutions. After the Red Army defeated the Germans in the Second World War and liberated Europe, the revolution was spread throughout Eastern Europe, including East Germany. So Joseph Stalin did not only manage to build socialism in the USSR and protect the revolution from the Capitalists and the Fascists, he managed to spread the revolution all over Eastern Europe. By 1953 , the Communist block covered an immense territory , mainly thanks to Stalin.
In the economic sector it is acknowledged by everyone in the political left( Stalinists , Trotskyists and Social Democrats ) and the political center and political right , that during the Stalin era ( 1928 - 1953) the economic improvements were immense. Objective estimates say that the annual economic growth during the rule of Stalin was 14% . Indeed, Stalin’s ingenious 5 year plans achieved rapid industrialization which would give an economic independence much needed to safeguard the revolution. The mostly rural until the revolution Russian Empire, transformed to an industrial superpower. Thanks to the workers determination and Stalin’s great leadership skills, an economic miracle was performed.







Stalin fast proceeded into building socialism. He abandoned Lenin’s New Economic Policy (NEP) for the 5 year plans, which would build a socialist economy much faster. He collectivized the land , a move essential to achieve a socialist production and to ensure that there were no economic differences between the farmers. This move would essentially increase the agricultural output combined with the fact that he proceeded to the mechanization of agriculture. To achieve that, he purged those who had previously enslaved the peasants; the kulaks. The kulaks were a class of wealthy farmers that used the peasants’ underpaid work, for their own profit. They were hated amongst the peasants during the Czarist regime. After the revolution Lenin let them have their land as long as there was some redistribution. Lenin’s mercifulness proved devastating for the government after some years. The peasants situation improved only little after the revolution and until 1933. In 1928 Stalin tried to terminate that exploitation. Not only were the peasants devastated by famines during these years, but also the whole state was in danger because of the Kulak’s greediness. A lot of the production output was ending in the Kulak’s pockets and also they determined the market prices. All this was something absurd in a socialist economy. From 1928 to 1933, Stalin started collectivizing the land. The Kulak’s though were not willing to give to the workers and the peasants what was rightfully theirs and they wanted to keep the land. Many Kulak uprisings, where Kulaks and their paid armies of poor people devastated entire regions, came into place. The Kulak’s also undermined production and that resulted into shortages of food which created large scaled famines. This situation was intolerable for the workers government. Eventually the Kulak class was destroyed and they paid for all of their crimes. However, Stalin was merciful and the punishment was not severe.
Although Stalin ended a series of famines with their peak being the Holodomor in 1932-33, opponents accuse him of being responsible for these famines. The Holodomor, which is the name given to the Ukrainian famine had a death count of approximately one million lives. It is true that the Holodomor occured during Stalin’s era but the cause of that were the reactionary Kulaks as it was proven above. Therefore Stalin was not the “creator of these famines” but he also ended them once and for all with his collectivization of the land, which ensured prosperity for the workers and the entire nation.
The quality of life of the Soviets greatly increased between the years of 1928- 1953. The policies of the peoples’ government during the years when Stalin was general secretary were clear. They gave emphasis to education for all, healthcare for all and a variety of leisure activities for all. Especially after the implementation of the 7 hour work-day and the 35 hour work-week, the workers’ free time greatly increased compared to the Czarist regime. Workers could do more with their time, like educate themselves, engage into sports, music or anything else they desired. The average Soviet had opportunities that no other average citizen of any other country ever imagined. With the exception of the period during the second world war, where the USSR was devastated by the Fascist invasion, the workers enjoyed a life with great opportunities for everyone. Also the life expectancy of the Soviet citizens rose from 35 years old during the Czarist regime, to approximately 70 by the end of the Golden Era of Stalin’s rule.
“Stalin’s” purges are the subject where Stalin’s critics emphasize their criticism. No one denies that Stalin did purge some political opponents. Trotskyists, Libertarians and Westerners , describe these purges as decided by one man. They describe Stalin as someone extremely authoritarian who got rid of the opposition against the will of the majority of the people. They were partly right. But those critics do not take into account the nature of “Stalin’s” purges.





Firstly the soviet government purged Bukharin and his opposition. Bukharin belonged to the right wing of the Party. He favored so called “market-socialism” and he undermined the governments attempt of collectivization of the land. His methods were provocative, so eventually he got expelled from the government. Later, during the Moscow trials of 1938 he confessed that he worked for the Gestapo and was planning to help make Hitler’s future advance in the Soviet Union easier. That was the nature of one of Stalin’s “victims” and his opposition.
Secondly, the other most famous victim of Stalin’s purges was Lev Bronstein, or better know by his revolutionary pseudonym, Leon Trotky. The latter was firstly a Menshevik. He belonged to a group that opposed the Bolshevik ideas and ideals. While he remained faithful to the Menshevics until 1917, when he saw that the Bolsheviks gained power between the masses which surpassed that of the Mensheviks he decided to change sides and join the Bolshevik abandoning his own comrades. That clearly shows an opportunistic attitude. Trotsky always wanted to be with the majority. The fact that the people of the USSR , after Lenin’s death sided with Stalin’s fraction, outraged power hungry Trostky , who was willing to do everything in order to gain power. He could go as far as undermining the revolution as was proved later in the Moscow trials. A revolution which he did not support. Being a Menshevik , Trotsky and his comrades openly disagreed with the revolution for their own reasons. That does not mean that they were counter revolutionaries in general, but they certainly were against that particular revolution. Later as it was pre-mentioned it was proved that Lev Bronstein was planning along with other counter-revolutionaries, to overthrow the peoples government in order to serve their own interests. In order to achieve that, they cooperated with the German Gestapo. If Stalin and the people of Russia had not discovered that, socialism would have been in danger.
Opponents of Stalin argue that the soviets( the workers councils ) lost their power, and their place in decision making to bureaucrats who were loyal to Stalin. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that could prove that statement. The Soviets were functioning fine until 1956( until Krutchev’s counter revolution of Taskend). It was evident that during the second world war crisis, Stalin temporarily centralized the decision making in order to safeguard the revolution from Nazi spies. Democracy’s only flaw is that it is vulnerable to enemies of the State. Especially in a major crisis it would be insane to make decisions through the Soviets, because that would risk the socialist order.
However Stalin did not only build socialism in the USSR. He managed to defend it. And he did that with great might. The Red Army under Stalin’s command was the first one to defeat the armies of the third Reich. After being able to defend the USSR with the peak of the defensive being the heroic battle of Stalingrad , Stalin led a major offensive, until he reached Berlin, liberating all of Europe from the German Fascists.
How can a leader that improved the living conditions of his people, safeguarded the socialist order from invaders and spies and ensured that freedom, democracy and socialism would exist in the USSR, be ever considered a villain? Stalin is a hero in our hearts and minds. He should be a reference point for every revolution that will follow. Long live Stalin’s ideals, values and virtues. Long live Socialism, Democracy and Fre

[Dros]

Overall, Stalin's contribution to history is a positive one. Although he did make several mistakes, it is important to recognize the material context in which these occured.


[ps: here comes the shit-storm...]

[Dimentio]

Just another despot, ruling on a system based on despotism. Bread was free in ancient Egypt as well, but no one called Ramses progressive.

[Awful Reality]

The conditions under which Stalin was in power justify a minority of his acts on a social level;

The conditions under which Stalin took power are not justified, he usurped power from the rightful hands of Trotsky;

Stalin's policy on a political and party level are not justifiable, i.e. Moscow Trials, Bukharin, Trotsky, etc.

I have more than a "negative impression."

[Robespierre2.0]

Stalin was the greatest socialist leader of the 20th century. Lenin was a great man, but he died much too early, and therefore it was Stalin who truly implemented Marxism-Leninism on a national scale for the first time; and incredible achievement.

I think of the Korean War- when the USSR, PRC and DPRK were united against a common foe- as the high water mark of socialism in this last century.

[ArabRASH]

Lenin was a great man, but he died much too early, and therefore it was Stalin who truly implemented Marxism-Leninism on a national scale for the first time; and incredible achievement.

So purging your own party, your army, fellow communist intellectuals, and enslaving his own people in gulags is considered "implementing Marxisim-Leninism" on a national scale? Do you really think that's what Lenin would have done? Come on man...I'll admit he should get some credit for achievements such as WWII, but he certainly was not a communist leader...

[F9]

Negative impression defenetly!Even if he had done any tiny good his bad actions are far worse!He was just a red fascist!

Fuserg9

[Die Neue Zeit]

The conditions under which Stalin took power are not justified, he usurped power from the rightful hands of Trotsky

Stalin was a skilled "political animal."

Trotsky - the most bureaucratic person in the Central Committee ("excessive self-assurance and [...] excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work") - should have seen it coming when Stalin was appointed gensek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...ry_of_the_CPSU

In 1919 - 1922, the position of a Responsible Secretary was held by Yakov Sverdlov, Nikolay Krestinsky, Yelena Stasova, Vyacheslav Molotov; this position did not play any important role in the Party whose de facto leader was Lenin; however, at lower levels responsible secretaries of regional and local party committees very often were # 1 leaders of respective committees even before Stalin's rise to power.

Stalin's policy on a political and party level are not justifiable, i.e. Moscow Trials, Bukharin, Trotsky, etc.

I have more than a "negative impression."

Granted that Stalin was a theoretical REVISIONIST ("non-antagonistic classes," turning Lenin's temporary emergency restrictions on workers' democratic rights into supposedly essential and eternal principles of working class rule, not spreading world revolution at the first opportunity), but so was Trotsky ("permanent revolution," bureaucratic super-industrialization, "transitional" demands that confuse workers instead of minimum demands).

Policy-wise, however, I hereby criticize Stalin like he did Ivan (for not going far enough with "terrible" things needed to be Russia's first czar) in that there were certain policies-for-the-pure-sake-of-policy that he compromised too much on, like kolkhozization versus the more effective sovkhozization.

So purging your own party, your army, fellow communist intellectuals, and enslaving his own people in gulags is considered "implementing Marxisim-Leninism" on a national scale? Do you really think that's what Lenin would have done? Come on man...I'll admit he should get some credit for achievements such as WWII, but he certainly was not a communist leader...

The gulags were a revisionist spin on Trotsky's controversial yet utilitarian notion of universal labor duty, which Lenin decried in The Trade Unions, The Present Situation, And Trotsky's Mistakes.

[Not that conscripted labor is necessarily a bad thing, but...]



As for WWII, Zhukov's role and those of the other military marshals were overrated. Sometimes the "brilliant General" Stalin wanted to press the attack regardless (problems arise here), but at other times he had to temper the enthusiasm of his subordinates (credit has to be given to the "brilliant General" Stalin for this).

[Dros]

The conditions under which Stalin took power are not justified, he usurped power from the rightful hands of Trotsky;

The CC gave Stalin power and rejected Trotsky. Trotsky did not have a right to be the General Secretary. Get over.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Hold on, let me think.

It's coming to me...wait for it....

Oh, yeah, that's right, he was an totalitarian piece of excrement. I almost forgot!

On the other hand, he did, however, have an impressive mustache. No one can take that away from him.

[Vargha Poralli]

The CC gave Stalin power and rejected Trotsky. Trotsky did not have a right to be the General Secretary. Get over.

The CC which mainly comprised of careerists and opportunists who was exploited by Stalin who exploited his position as general secretary of the party.

The CC of 1924 was comprised of same Cadres who carried out the october revolution. Better you accept that fact.

[Gitfiddle Jim]

Stalin had outright power in mind when he went about his duties, not the progression of socialism, and once in charge abused his power. The struggle for Lenin's successor shows how manipulative and ruthless he was in defeating his opponents (most of whom where either removed from the party or exiled).

But like Agora77 said his moustache does deserve some recognition.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Well, since you're talking about less political issues like moustaches, I'll up the ante with the Soviet anthem. Unlike the "Brezhnev" version, which I can't seem to memorize "I krasnomu znameni slavnoy otchizny" - let alone the last three lines of the third stanza - I can sing the ENTIRE wartime/"Stalin" anthem and provide the literal translation of even the entire third stanza.

Nas vyrastil Stalin — na vernost' narodu,
Na trud i na podvigi nas vdokhnovil!

My armiyu nashu rastili v srazhen'yakh,
Zakhvatchikov podlykh s dorogi smetyom!
My v bitvakh reshayem sud'bu pokoleniy,
My k slave Otchiznu svoyu povedyom!

Slavsya, Otechestvo nashe svobodnoye,
Druzhby / Schast'ya / Slavy narodov nadyozhny oplot,
Znamya sovetskoye, znamya narodnoye
Pust' ot pobedy k pobede vedyot!

[Lector Malibu]

Well it really didn't matter what he was like when The United States needed him.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Overall, Stalin's contribution to history is a positive one. Although he did make several mistakes, it is important to recognize the material context in which these occured.


[ps: here comes the shit-storm...]

It seems to me like literally anything can be justified using "material analysis", as long as the event or person in question is wrapped in a red flag.

[Dros]

It seems to me like literally anything can be justified using "material analysis", as long as the event or person in question is wrapped in a red flag.

Where did I say anything about "material analysis in my post? Or attempt to "justify" Stalin's mistakes? I said that his errors need to be undertood in their historical context. Would you disagree with that.

[Wanted Man]

It's a bit odd to use "material analysis" in this context anyway, as the subject of this thread is purely individual and moral. Whether he was personally a "hero" or "villain" is of little consequence. Surely, he was a "hero" to the Reds in the Battle for Tsaritsyn (which is why the place got named after him in the first place", and a "villain" to the Whites.

I voted for the third option, but it's essentially meaningless. The second and fourth options can coincide with the third one easily. Or you could start employing "maoist mathematics" ("70% good, 30% bad" ).

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Comrade Stalin is often the center of blame; yes, he made mistakes, but what revolutionary does not? It is very easy to turn every action of the time against Stalin, but many of the acts carried out were necessity of the time. Many of his actions were not opposed to that of Lenin's, and to sit with the argument regarding Trotsky is absurd. I may not agree with every action associated with Stalin, but revolutionaries are every bit human. Lenin recognized that revolutionaries, too, will make mistakes, as conflicts develop and situations that comrades have not been faced with before or had to act in regard to.

While the assassination of Trotsky occurred on the basis of a very personal conflict, I can understand Stalin's reason. Nevertheless, to make the argument many decades after it has occurred that "Trotsky would have done better" is like attempting to remove a body from its grave and say "if they didn't die then..." there is no logical reason one could argue such, so why bother. There's no evidence. That aside, I don't believe that Trotsky would have taken care of the problem, or that he could have done better, because Stalin took care of it the only way it could have been. Sometimes what must be done is not ideal and does not equate with one's vision of what you wish were the means or the outcome. If you use that as your basis for every act post-revolution, the proletarian state will burn down in flames. As I said, it's like playing with cards that are not there.

There are many policies under Stalin that existed in some form under Lenin. Yes, it was carried out differently, but before Lenin died the civil war hadn't developed into such a great conflict and he surely did not have to deal with the clean up, as did Stalin. It is very easy to blame Stalin for the purges, but if you blame Stalin and consider him ruthless, remember that Lenin thought much of it was necessary, even if he did not carry it out in the same exact way. While I see Stalin as having a great difficulty in separating personal issues with comrades from the party, that is a very hard thing to do on any level because such a threat can develop into a greater one, which threatens the state and waiting around for such a development could cause the deaths of comrades and workers- and the destruction of the soviet state. That is something that must be a concern for all comrades during post-revolutionary time, because, we surely do not want kulaks keeping all the grain to themselves and feeding the famine, killing cattle and sabotaging state farms, property.

His role in WWII was especially important. If it wasn't for Stalin, the Nazis may have invaded, the actions of Stalin and the soviet soldiers were heroic and should be honored. The nazis were defeated as a result of those actions and Stalin should be honored for it.

It is unfortunately that so many comrades here have lost respect for Comrade Stalin, he was a great honorable comrade and did his best to continue where Lenin left off. We must not be blinded by reactionary viewpoint and forget the honorable actions of Comrade Stalin.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Neither Stalin nor Trotsky were "comrades," either to each other or to their fellows in the party. Also, how could Stalin have been a "revolutionary"?

[On a personal basis, one was consistently rude (and called Lenin's wife a "whore"), while the other was consistently arrogant (reading French books at Politburo meetings).]



Nice coloured avatar, though.

[Led Zeppelin]

Don't be so confused Jacob, it has been a while since Nadezhda degenerated into a vulgar Stalinist while still trying to pretend to "like Trotsky".

The truly ridiculous thing is that she tries to invoke Lenin in defense of Stalin. Obviously she is clueless to the whole situation. It was Lenin who called on Stalin to be removed from his position, it was Lenin who was "planning a bomb for Stalin" at the 1923 Congress etc. etc.

I know you as well try to "turn Lenin against Stalin and Trotsky", but at least you don't lean towards Stalin in that respect.

Reading her posts it seems as though you are reading the "official history of the Bolshevik Party", not only because of the historical falsifications and inaccuracies, but also due to the poor, crude, writing style, which is reminiscent of old Stalinist texts.