Results 1 to 20 of 46
no damn point in talking about stalinism
having spend some time reading this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/off-topic-...314/index.html
i have reached the conclusion that there is no damn point in talking about 'stalinism'.
In USSR there was a revolution, and there are different opinions regarding HISTORY, on what actually happened there.
The truth is one,objective.Either it was a workers' democracy or it was not.
I do not know,because personally, it eventually comes down to believing if it was or it wasn't, both sides provide sources
supporting their claims,and i do not know what the fuck i am supposed to believe.
The POINT is that no communist supports a 'stalinist' sytem of organization and governance,meaning a dictatorship of the communist
party, a ruling bureaucratic clique, etc.If someone does that,then he/she should be Fing banned from here, and be ashamed calling
himself a communist.
No need for hatred,fights and sectarianism, because we are talking about history.
I agree Stalinists should not be on this forum because they don't support a socialist society and their ideas of revolution are very different from those of genuine society. However, using a staunch denial of history and distortion and twisitng of facts they somehow manage to defend their slavish hero-worshipping of the 'strong man' that was Uncle Joe and the big tough system he implemented. In 50 years or so they'll be forgotten.
Ivan "Bonebreaker" Khutorskoy16.11.2009"We won't forget, we won't forgive"
Completely missed my point.
When i say stalinists i mean it in the sense of supporters of what the anti-stalinists accuse them of.
The people you call stalinists do not support that,they do not support a ruling clique and they are not against workers' democracy.
They say that it didnt happened that way.they have a different view on the historical events.
Of course, the historical events cannot be subjective, or we are all idealist kindergarten attendants.One group is right, and the other group is wrong.
But we all are pro-working class, with just a dispute of what actually happened in Stalin's era in the USSR.
Your point wasn't made very clearly, you didn't structure it well with poor grammar throughout but regardless, the I think anyone who defends the USSR once Stalin took over (and indeed against Kronstadt) is a muppet and a bit of a confused 'revolutionary socialist'.
Ivan "Bonebreaker" Khutorskoy16.11.2009"We won't forget, we won't forgive"
I think anti-Stalininists shouldn't be on this forum because they're unable to distinguish between capitalist propaganda and historical facts. Their ideas of revolution are very different from those that have been shown to work all throughout the 20th century and are also very different from those of 'genuine society'.
By simply ignoring and making up facts they always manage to walk hand in hand with their bourgeois companions, mindlessly and loudly demonising Stalin.
Sure, ignoring terrible mistakes made in history is the best way to not repeat them.
For a Palestinian Workers' State from the Jordan to the Sea!
For a Socialist Federation of the Middle East!
For the World Socialist Revolution!
Rebuild the Fourth International!
“The Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both physically and spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness of social obligation, knows no order nor discipline.” ~Hashomer HaTzair, Zionist "Marxist" movement
NEW! ISL Website ISL-LRP Statement on Discussions
Remember Basem Abu Rahme, anti-Apartheid wall protester murdered by Zionist army
LMAO, ok, the revolutionary left forum will ban Trotskyists, Left Communists, Anarchists, etc so only people who support Stalin are allowed to post, because being critical of a dictator who killed many communists workers and carried out ethnic cleansing is the same as walking side by side with the bourgeoisie.You have to love people who buy into the shit of worshipping dictators because they're too dense to see that if you kill communists and workers and implement anti-semitic policies, you're probably not a communist.
Do I even have to go on to mention the crushing of the revolutionary movement in Spain and working alongside fascists?
You're a doghnut my tankie friend.
Ivan "Bonebreaker" Khutorskoy16.11.2009"We won't forget, we won't forgive"
For an advocate of freedom of speech, you sure seem to be pretty opposed to letting people speak their mind. If a Stalinist came onto these forums and could partake in a civilized discussion with proper respect paid to those opposing them, I see no reason to ban them. Now, in all honesty, most of the ones we see come on here act immature and they should be restricted/banned, but let's judge this on a case-by-case basis.
The basic ideas of Marxism, upon which alone a revolutionary party can be constructed, are continuous in their application and have been for a hundred years. The ideas of Marxism, which create revolutionary parties, are stronger than the parties they create, and never fail to survive their downfall. They never fail to find representatives in the old organizations to lead the work of reconstruction. These are the continuators of the tradition, the defenders of the orthodox doctrine. The task of the uncorrupted revolutionists, obliged by circumstances to start the work of organizational reconstruction, has never been to proclaim a new revelation – there has been no lack of such Messiahs, and they have all been lost in the shuffle – but to reinstate the old program and bring it up to date.
- James P. Cannon, 'The Degeneration of the Communist Party'
My ideas on freedom of speech are in line with the boards policy on restricting members with opposing ideologies. I consider supporters of Stalin and the USSR to be opposed to the revolutionary left and working class.
Ivan "Bonebreaker" Khutorskoy16.11.2009"We won't forget, we won't forgive"
I agree completely, but where do some people draw the line? Some people could say Maoists are under the same category, along with Hoxhaists. I don't see anything wrong with showing respect and seeing that respect is returned in kind.
The basic ideas of Marxism, upon which alone a revolutionary party can be constructed, are continuous in their application and have been for a hundred years. The ideas of Marxism, which create revolutionary parties, are stronger than the parties they create, and never fail to survive their downfall. They never fail to find representatives in the old organizations to lead the work of reconstruction. These are the continuators of the tradition, the defenders of the orthodox doctrine. The task of the uncorrupted revolutionists, obliged by circumstances to start the work of organizational reconstruction, has never been to proclaim a new revelation – there has been no lack of such Messiahs, and they have all been lost in the shuffle – but to reinstate the old program and bring it up to date.
- James P. Cannon, 'The Degeneration of the Communist Party'
It was clear to me, and clear that you missed it.
I agree with the OP that studying history should not mean dividing ourselves primarily up on the basis of it. Much of the debate over the tactics of Lenin and Stalin seems to come down to a disgreement over whether what they did was necessary or not. I think we can come to a lot of agreement today over what we would ideally like to build: let's argue over what is necessary when we get there.
That's a recurring theme with some "libertarian" leftists on this board (I use quotes to indicate that the word doesn't really refer to them, not that the word is meaningless).
There was another thread in which some supposed anarchist was calling for the banning or otherwise silencing of DPRK defenders.
Its not really as simple as that though. Don't get me wrong here, if they actually think that his great terror was a good thing, then they are totally wrong, but sometimes it good to hear what these people have to say, if only to try and come to conclusions as to why they see things the way the do.
The problem with history is that it has been twisted and turned so much to suit different nations that it actually is hard to know what is fact and what is fiction nowadays. I mean if you look at things, a British person is generally taught to believe that they had the most influence in WW2, whereas some Americans have claimed that they (USA) had the most influence, yet both play down the USSR,s role in it (how i dont know), yet i'm very sure that in Russia nowadays they probably believe that they had the most important role. How do you determine the truth? they all played a very big role. This is biggest example i can think of and the same thing applies to alot of other events in history.
The problem with Stalin is that there are a lot of things that he did that you cannot justify, but there will always be people who will contest this history or take a different viewpoint. It happens at every end of the political spectrum.
This is true, but the underlying point is that Stalin was a mass murderer of working class people. Even if we leave the antisemitism and other highly questionable aspects of his rule aside, we simply cannot attempt to logically associate the two together (i.e. to be a Stalinist).
- August
If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
- Karl Marx
But again,such a claim is debatable by stalinist's sources.
Exactly.Since you cannot find out the objective truth, you keep on trying to find it,but in the meantime you do not fight with others who have reached a different conclusion, because you are both subjective.
YS
Those terrible mistakes are your (not personally your, you understand what i mean) own subjective conclusion over a fact that is controversial of how,why,if it happened.
HLVS
Jesus, ok dont bite. I am not really talking about stalinism and antistalinism, i am talking about history.Stalinism is an example.
Regarding controversial views of history,you cannot go ahead and punch teeth down the throats of people who disagree with you.They may be wrong,and you may be wrong.Both sides have brought forth evidence and sources, the one side rejects them as bourgeoisie propaganda, the other side rejects them as party propaganda.
0 progress.
but AGAIN,the fighting is pointless,because anti-revisionists today, do believe that USSR under Stalin was a workers' democray, AND the important thing is that since they believe that, they aim for a workers democracy too,not a dictatorship of the party (which is what anti-stalinists believe was happening THEN).
And HLVS, that is why a stalinist is your COMRADE.
Stalin was just as bad as any right wing dictator. Not everything is a vast and intricate right-wing conspiracy to cover shit up.
Dictator=Dictator in my book.
That said, Bulk Sheep, I agree 100% with the original post.
NorthEastnti-Fascists.
I want liberty.
There's no damn point in talking about anarchism either.
There is no freedom of speech on this forum. That's a fact. Certain people are allowed to post freely while others are removed or restricted. In the past Stalinists were restricted.
“Where the worker is regulated bureaucratically from childhood onwards, where he believes in authority, in those set over him, the main thing is to teach him to walk by himself.” - Marx
"It is illogical and incorrect to reduce everything to the economic [socialist] revolution, for the question is: how to eliminate [political] oppression? It cannot be eliminated without an economic revolution... But to limit ourselves to this is to lapse into absurd and wretched ... Economism." - Lenin
"[During a revolution, bourgeois democratic] demands [of the working class] ... push so hard on the outer limits of capital's rule that they appear likewise as forms of transition to a proletarian dictatorship." - Luxemburg
“Well, then go forward, Tower of Bebel! [August] Bebel is one of the most brilliant representatives of scientific international socialism. His writings, speeches and works make up a great tower, a strong arsenal, from which the working class should take their weapons. We cannot recommend it enough… And if the [International] deserves to be named Tower of Bebel... well, then we are lucky to have such a Tower of Bebel with us.” - Vooruit
Define Stalinists.If someone thought that all the stuff according to "stalin's crimes" was bourgeoisie propaganda he was to be restricted?
What was meant by "Stalinists are restricted", was something like, if you think that Stalin was the man, and that he did good by gutting the army, signing up with Germany to split Poland, crushing all opposition to him, the whole "Stalin is a our father", and the other imperialism (Finland, and other parts of Eastern Europe), then you aren't a comrade of ours, so fuck you.
People who say, Stalin was a man of his times, and there wasn't really and crushing of opposition, because everyone loved him, and the bureaucracy didn't have anything to do with the whole father thing, and people spontaneously set up statues to Stalin in the occupied countries, and they weren't really occupied, because the people wanted the USSR there, etc. Well those people are fucking deluded in my opinion, but they don't think that Stalin was an evil monster, as opposed to the first sort which support the evil monster.
AM:
Yeah, i think the 1sts should be restricted, for undermining the whole point of workers' democracy.
The 2nds just have a different view of history.Either you are wrong or they are.
Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? We're massive advocates of free speech and liberty, yet we'd repress the speech of someone trying to have a friendly discussion? Do you not see the irony and the flaw in this argument? Err, or maybe you're being sarcastic and agreeing with me. Hard to tell.
And do tell me what constitutes a Stalinist because I have been called that on here on multiple occasions and multiple times in real life, due to the fact that I subscribe to Marxism-Leninism. Who's going to decide what Stalinism means?
We should practice what we preach. If a Stalinist can come in here and be civil, I don't see a problem with him. Still, not my decision.
The basic ideas of Marxism, upon which alone a revolutionary party can be constructed, are continuous in their application and have been for a hundred years. The ideas of Marxism, which create revolutionary parties, are stronger than the parties they create, and never fail to survive their downfall. They never fail to find representatives in the old organizations to lead the work of reconstruction. These are the continuators of the tradition, the defenders of the orthodox doctrine. The task of the uncorrupted revolutionists, obliged by circumstances to start the work of organizational reconstruction, has never been to proclaim a new revelation – there has been no lack of such Messiahs, and they have all been lost in the shuffle – but to reinstate the old program and bring it up to date.
- James P. Cannon, 'The Degeneration of the Communist Party'
