Communism

[matt romney]

bolivarianism> marxism leninism> capitalism on the democratic scale

and stalin's power in the party really took off in his increased role in the invasion of georgia

[The Vegan Marxist]

(05-11-2011 02:12 AM)Amaru Zion Wrote:  bolivarianism> marxism leninism> capitalism on the democratic scale

That doesn't even make sense, since the fact that the Soviet Union achieved socialism under Stalin's leadership. Cuba is a socialist country and they're Marxist-Leninists. Every ML-led country has achieved socialism, or is on the verge of achieving socialism (and at least achieved the DotP).

(05-11-2011 02:12 AM)Amaru Zion Wrote:  and stalin's power in the party really took off in his increased role in the invasion of georgia

The Georgia-conflict, although I'm not particularly too educated on this event, this invasion was consented, not by Stalin, but by Vladimir Lenin. During that time in Georgia, there was a workers and peasants rebellion taking place. Here, led by both Joseph Stalin and Grigoriy Ordzhonikidze, the Red Army came in and aided the workers and peasants in their rebellion against the Georgian bourgeois state.

Some would consider this "social-imperialism", but I find the term quite contradictory. I say this because, according to Vladimir Lenin, who basically set out the understanding of imperialism under a class analysis, it states that imperialism is the highest form of capitalism - the invading of sovereign countries and taking of control over their markets; thus, to begin super-profit accumulation.

This didn't take place in Georgia. Instead, it set out the ground work for Georgia's rise to socialism, because the bourgeois state was abolished and then replaced with the proletarian state.

[matt romney]

bolivarianism and leninism are just different types of socialism. i like bolivarianism. and you cant achieve socialism, its just a process

im aware of the georgia situation. here is when it ceases to become a peoples revolution and becomes imperialism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Affair

[The Vegan Marxist]

(05-11-2011 03:16 AM)Amaru Zion Wrote:  im aware of the georgia situation. here is when it ceases to become a peoples revolution and becomes imperialism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Affair

I don't see how this then leads to it being imperialism. It didn't lead to more profit-accumulation, or the destabilization of a sovereign nation. Instead, the contrary happened. If anything, this was a bureaucratic error committed by that of Lenin, but not imperialism.

[matt romney]

the original bolshevik revolutionaries were in conflict with their international superiors about their sovereignty.

[The Vegan Marxist]

That wikipedia page on the Georgian Affair is quite interesting - and by interesting, I mean misleading.

1) It doesn't go into how the dispute was concluded through a somewhat democratic process (more along the lines of a centrally-democratic process through top officials, instead of the country as a whole). This led to the favoring of Stalin-Ordzhonikidze's line of governance over Georgia (meaning, not Stalin being the ruler lol, but that Georgia would then turn into a Transcaucasian SFSR.

2) The wikipedia page claims that, because of this decision made, it then led to Lenin's testament. This creates two false errors on wikipedia's part.

a) this decision concluded in Georgia did not lead to Lenin writing his testament. Wikipedia seems to wanna claim it does, but then it also disregards certain other conflicts that were taking place as well. Which then leads us to (b);

b) many seem to claim, most of them being that of Trotskyists and Khrushchevites, that Lenin wanted someone opposite of that of Stalin. Which isn't true at all. Yes, Lenin did state that Stalin resign his post, but Lenin only wanted someone to replace Stalin that was everything like him [Stalin] except for his rudeness. Stalin accepted Lenin's words and called for his own resignation. Of course, those of the Party declined and instead wished for Stalin to remain attaining his post, in hopes that he would learn his lesson.

To really get into this particular period, Prof. Grover Furr does a great job in pulling out all the facts, and debunks all the misleading claims by those who wish to conceal the truth:

"Khrushchev Lied" by Grover Furr | Chapter 1

Lenin's "Testament" (p. 11-20)

Khrushchev:

Quote:Fearing the future fate of the party and of the Soviet nation, V.I. Leinin made a completely correct characterization of Stalin, pointing out that it was necessary to consider the question of transferring Stalin from the position of the Secretary General because of the fact that Stalin is excessively rude, that he does not have a proper attitude toward his comrades, that he is capricious and abuses his power.

In December 1922, in a letter to the Party Congress, Vladimir Ilyich wrote: 'After taking over the position of Secretary General, Comrade Stalin accumulated in his hands immeasurable power and I am not certain whether he will be always able to use this power with the required care.'

We must interrupt this quotation to note an important fact. Khrushchev here attributes to Lenin the accusation that Stalin "abuses his power." In reality, Lenin wrote only that he was "not certain whether he [Stalin] will be always able to use this power with the required care." There is nothing in Lenin's words about accusing Stalin of "abusing his power."

Khrushchev continues:

Quote:This letter - a political document of tremendous importance, known in the party history of Lenin's "testament" - was distributed among the delegates to the 20th Party Congress. You have read it and will undoubtedly read it again more than once. You might reflect on Lenin's plain words, in which expression is given to Vladimir Ilych's anxiety concerning the party, the people, the state, and the future direction of party policy.

Vladimir Ilyich said:

Quote:Stalin is excessively rude, and this defect, which can be freely tolerated in our midst and in contacts among us Communists, becomes a defect which cannot be tolerated in one holding the position of the Secretary General. Because of this, I propose that the comrades consider the method by which Stalin would be removed from this position and by which another man would be selected for it, a man who, above all, would differ from Stalin in only one quality, namely, greater tolerance, greater loyalty, greater kindness and more considerate attitude toward the comrads, a less capricious temper, etc.

This document of Lenin's was made known to the delegates at the 13th Party Congress who discussed the question of transferring Stalin from the position of Secretary General. The delegates declared themselves in favor of retaining Stalin in this post, hoping that he would heed the critical remarks of Vladimir Ilyich and would be able to overcome the defects which caused Lenin serious anxiety.

Comrades! The Party Congress should become acquainted with two new documents, which confirm Stalin's character as already outlined by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin in his "testament." These documents are a letter from Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaia to [Lev B.] Kamenev, who was at that time head of the Political Bureau, and a personal letter from Vladimir Ilyich Lenin to Stalin.

I will now read these documents:

Quote:LEV BORISOVICH!

Because of the short letter which I had written in words dictated to me by Vladimir Ilyich by permission of the doctors, Stalin allowed himself yesterday an unusually rude outburst directed at me. This is not my first day in the party. During all these 30 years I have never heard from any comrade one word of rudeness. The business of the party and of Ilyich are not less dear to me than to Stalin. I need at present the maximum of self-control. What one can and what one cannot discuss with Ilyich I know better than any doctor, because I know what makes him nervous and what does not, in any case I know better than Stalin. I am turning to you and to Grigorii [E. Zinoviev] as much closer comrades of V.I. and I beg you to protect me from rude interference with my private life and from vile invectives and threats. I have no doubt as to what will be the unanimous decision of the Control Commission, with which Stalin sees fit to threaten me; however, I have neither the strength nor the time to waste on this foolish quarrel. And I am a living person and my nerves are strained to the utmost."

N. KRUPSKAIA

Nadezhda Konstantinovna wrote this letter on December 23, 1922. After two and a half months, in March 1923, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin sent Stalin the following letter:

Quote:TO COMRADE STALIN:

COPIES FOR: KAMENEV AND ZINOVIEV

Dear Comrade Stalin!

You permitted yourself a rude summons of my wife to the telephone and a rude reprimand of her. Despite the fact that she told you that she agreed to forget what was said, nevertheless Zinoviev and Kamenev heard about it from her. I have no intention to forget so easily that which is being done against me; and I need not stress here that I consider as directed against me that which is being done against my wife. I ask you, therefore, that you weigh carefully whether you are agreeable to retracting your words and apologizing or whether you prefer the severance of relations between us.

SINCERELY: LENIN

MARCH 5, 1923

(Commotion in the hall.)

Comrades! I will not comment on these documents. They speak eloquently for themselves. Since Stalin could behave in this manner during Lenin's life, could thus behave toward Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaia - whom the party knows well and values highly as a loyal friend of Lenin and as an active fighter for the cause of the party since its creation - we can easily imagine how Stalin treated other people. These negative characteristics of his developed steadily and during the last years acquired an absolutely insufferable character." (3-5/52)

The document in question was not widely "known in the party history as Lenin's 'Testament'". Khrushchev took this term from Trotsky, who wrote a book with that title in 1934. It had never been known as such in the Bolshevik Party except among oppositionists. In fact there is a history to the very use of the term "Lenin's Testament" - one that does not reflect well on Khrushchev.

In 1925 Trotsky, in a sharp criticism of Max Eastman's book Since Lenin Died, had explicitly repudiated Eastman's lie that Lenin left a "testament" or "will." Along with the other members of the Politburo, Trotsky said that Lenin had not done so. And that appears to be correct: there is no evidence at all that Lenin intended these documents as a "testament" of any kind. Then, in the 1930s, Trotsky changed his mind begain writing about "Lenin's Testament" again, this time as a part of his partisan attack on Stalin. Therefore Khrushchev or, more likely, one of his collaborators, must have taken this usage from Trotsky - though they would never have publicly acknowledged doing so.

Other aspects of Khrushchev's speech are similar to Trotsky's writings. For example, Trotsky viewed the Moscow Trials as faked frame-ups - naturally enough, because he was an absent co-defendant in them. Although the first Moscow Trial defendant, Akbal Ikramov of the March 1938 "Bukharin" Trial, was not officially "rehabilitated" until May 1957, after the 20th Party Congress [1], Khrushchev did deplore the executions of Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Trotskyites in the Secret Speech. This constituted at least an implicit declaration of their innocence, since their punishment would not be considered too harsh for anyone really guilty of the crimes to which they confessed in 1936.

But in fact the whole tenor of Khrushchev's speech, which blamed Stalin alone for derailing socialism through immense crimes of which Khrushchev held him alone responsible, was identical to Trotsky's demonized portrait of Stalin. Trotsky's widow recognized this fact, and applied for the rehabilitation of her late husband and within a day of the "Secret Speech". [2] The fact that Natalia Sedova-Trotskaia learned of the supposedly "secret" speech immediately it happened suggests that the Trotskyites may have still had high-level informants in the CPSU.

There are good reasons to suspect that Lenin's letter to Stalin of March 5, 1923 may be a forgery. Valentin A. Sakharov has published a major scholarly book on this subject on this thesis with Moscow University Press. His general argument is outlined in several articles of his and in reviews of the book. [3]

There is no question that at the time Stalin himself, and everybody who knew about it, believed that it was genuine. But even if genuine, Lenin's letter to Stalin of March 5, 1923 does not show what it has often been assumed to show - that Lenin was estranged from Stalin. For less than two weeks later his wife Nadezhda Konstantinova Krupskaia (called "c(omrade) Ul'ianova (N.K.)" in this exchange) told Stalin that Lenin had very insistently asked her to make Stalin promise to obtain cyanide capsules for him, in order to end his great suffering. Stalin agreed, but then reported to the Poliburo on March 23 that he could not bring himself to do it, "no matter how humane it might be."

These documents were quoted by Dmitrii Volkogonov in his very hostile biography of Lenin. [4] Copies of them remain in the Volkogonov Papers in the Library of Congress. There is no doubt about their authenticity. Lidia Fotieva, one of Lenin's secretaries, had made a note in 1922 that Lenin had told her he would request cyanide capsules if his illness progressed beyond a certain point. [5]

Therefore, even if Lenin's letter of March 5, 1923 be genuine - and Sakharov's study calls this into serious question - Lenin still trusted and relied upon Stalin. There was no estrangement between them.

According to Volkogonov (and others),

Quote:In the morning of December 24 Stalin, Kamenev and Bukharin discussed the situation. They did not have the right to force their leader [Lenin] to be silent. But care, foresight, the greatest possible quite, were essential. A decision was taken:

1. Vladimir Ilich is given the right to dictate daily for 5-10 minutes, but this must not be in the form of correspondance, and Vladimir Ilich must not expect answers to these notes. No meetings are allowed.

2. Neither friends nor family are permitted to communicate anything of political life to Vladimir Ilich, so as not to thereby present materials for consideration and excitement. [6]

According to Robert Service (Lenin), Lenin suffered serious "events" (probably strokes) on the following dates:

Quote:

May 25, 1922 - a "massive stroke" (p. 443);

December 22-23, 1922 - Lenin "lost the use of his whole right side" (p.461);

The night of March 6-7, 1923 - Lenin "lost the use of the extremities of the right side of his body." (pp. 473-4).

On December 18 the Politburo put Stalin in charge of Lenin's health and forbid anyone to discuss politics with him. Krupskaia violated this rule and was reprimanded for it by Stalin, on December 22. That very night Lenin suffered a serious stroke.

On March 5, 1923 Krupskaia told Lenin that Stalin had spoken rudely to her back in December. Incensed, Lenin wrote Stalin the famous note. According to Krupskaia's secretary V. Dridzo, whose version of this event was published in in 1989, it happened this way:

Quote:Now, when Nadezhda Konstantinovna's name and Stalin's relationship with her is more frequently mentioned in some publications, I wish to tell about those matters I know for certain.

Why was it only two months Stalin's rude conversation with Nadezhda Konstantinovna that V.I. Lenin wrote him the letter in which he demanded that Stalin excuse himself to her? It is possible that I am the only one who really knows how it happened, since Nadezhda Konstantinova often told me about it.

It happened at the very beginning of March 1923. Nadezhda Konstantinovna and Vladimir Ilich were talking about something. The phone rang. Nadezhda Konstantinovna went to the phone (in Lenin's apartment the phone always stood in the corridor). When she returned Vladimir Ilich asked her: 'Who called?' - 'It was Stalin, he and I have reconciled.' - 'What do you mean?'

And Nadezhda Konstantinovna had to tell everything that had happened when Stalin called her, talked with her very rudely, and threatened to bring her before the Control commission. Nadezhda Konstantinovna asked Vladimir Ilich to pay it no mind since everything had been settled and she had forgotten about it.

But Vladimir Ilich was adamant. He was deeply offended by I.V. Stalin's disrespectful behavior towards Nadezhda Konstantinovna and on March 5, 1923 dictated the latter to Stalin with a copy to Zinoviev and Kamenev in which he insisted that Stalin excuse himself. Stalin had to excuse himself, but he never forgot it and did not forgive Nadezhda Konstantinovna, and this had an effect on his relationship with her." [7]

The next day Lenin had a further serious stroke.

In each case Lenin had a stroke shortly after Krupskaia discussed political matter with him - something that, as a Party member, she was not supposed to do. This cannot have been a coincidence, for Lenin's doctors had specifically warned against getting Lenin upset about anything. So it seems more than possible that, in fact, it was Krupskaia's actions that precipitated Lenin's last two serious strokes.

As one of Lenin's long-time secretaries Lidia Fotieva said,

Quote:Nadezhda Konstantinovna did not always conduct herself as she should have done. She might have said too much to Vladimir Ilich. she was used to sharing everything with him, even in situations when she should not have done that at all...For example, why did she tell Vladimir Ilich that Stalin had been rude to her on the telephone?... [8]

Incidentally, when Stalin's wife committed suicide in 1932, Krupskaia wrote the following letter of consolation to Stalin, which was published in Pravda on November 16, 1932:

Quote:Dear Iosif Vissarionych:

These days everything somehow makes me think about you, makes me want to hold your hand. It is hard to lose a person who is close to you. I keep remembering those talks with you in Ilich's office during his illness. They gave me courage at that time.

I press your hand yet again. N. Krupskaia. [9]

This letter shows once again that Stalin was not estranged from Lenin's wife after the December 1922 dispute.

Stalin was held in very high esteem by all those in Lenin's household. The writer Aleksandr Bek wrote down the reminiscences of Lidia Fotieva, in which she said:

Quote:You do not understand those times. You don't understand what great significance Stalin had. Stalin was great... Maria Il'inichna [Ul'ianova, Lenin's sister] during Vladimir Ilich's lifetime told me: 'After Lenin, Stalin is the most intelligent person in the party... Stalin was an authority for us. We loved Stalin. He was a great man. Yet he often said: 'I am only a pupil of Lenin's.' (In Bek, op.cit.)

Khrushchev was simply trying to make Stalin "look bad," rather than transmit any understanding of what went on.

It is obvious that Khrushchev took Lenin's letter to Stalin out of context, and in so doing he seriously distorted the situation. He omitted the fact that the Central Committee had instructed Stalin to make sure Lenin was isolated from political issues for the sake of his health. This prohibition explicitly mentioned "friends" and "domestic persons." Since Lenin's secretaries were not likely to violate a Central Committee directive, probabaly the term "domestic persons" was specifically intended to include Lenin's sister and Krupskaia, his wife. Stalin had criticized Krupskaia for violating this isolation.

Nor did Khrushchev mention Stalin's reply of March 7, 1923 to Lenin's note, or Lenin's later request to Stalin for poison. By omitting these facts, Khrushchev seriously distorted the context in which Lenin's note to Stalin of March 5 1923 occurred, and deliberately distorted Lenin's relationship with Stalin.

Khrushchev omitted the accounts of Lenin's sister Maria Il'inichna. Lenin's secretaries Volodicheva and Fotieva; and Krupskaia's secretary Dridzo, were still alive, but their testimony was not sought. He omitted the evidence that Krupskaia's actions in violating the CC's prohibition about getting Lenin upset may well have been the cause of two Lenin's strokes. He omitted the fact that, far from making any break with Stalin, two weeks later Lenin trusted only Stalin with the secret request to be given poison if he asked for it. Finally, he omitted Krupskaia's reconciliation with Stalin.

Khrushchev strove to depict Stalin in a bad light in this affair at all costs. He showed no interest in what had really happened or an understanding of the events in their context.

Notes

1. Ikramov was rehabilitated on June 3, 1957. See Reabilitatsiia. Kak Eto Bylo. Febral' 1956 - nachalo 80-kh godov. Moskva: "Materik", 2003. (hereafter RKEB 2), 851. See also http://www.memo.ru/memory/communarka/chapter5.htm

2. Aimermakher, I., V.IU. Afiani, et al. eds. Doklad Khrushcheva o kul'te lichnosti Stalina na XX s"ezdt KPSS. Dokumenty. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2002. (hereafter Doklad Khrushcheva) Razdel IV, Dok. No. 3, p. 610. The editors of this official volume note that the letter must be dated on or after February 25; that is, they relate it to Khrushchev's Speech, which was delivered the same day. Another possibility is that Sedova's letter was written in response to Mikoian's speech to the Congress on February 16. A facsimile of Sedova's letter to the Presidium of the 20th Party Congress is at http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/r...022856.jpg

3. V.A. Sakharov, "Politicheskoe zaveshchanie" V.I. Lenina: real'nost' istorii i mify politiki. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo MGU [Moscow State University], 2003.

4. A facsimile of Stalin's letter to the Politburo of March 23, 1923 is published in D.A. Volkogonov, Lenin. Politicheskii portret. V 2-kh knigakh. Kn. II. Moscow: Novosti, 1994, pp. 384-385. Stalin's letter to the Politburo of March 23, 1923 is reproduced, with commentary, at http://www.hrono.ru/libris/stalin/16-67.html and in Appendix 1 of the present book.

5. This note was published in 1991 and can be consulted at http://www.hrono.ru/libris/stalin/16-9.html

6. Volkogonov, Dmitri. Stalin. Vol. I. M., 1992, Ch. 2, par. 156; cited at http://militera.lib.ru/bio/volkogonov_dv/02.html

7. V.S. Dridzo, "Vospominania." Kommunist 5 (1989).

8. L. Fotieva. Cited in A. Bek, "K istorii poslednikh leninskikh dokumentov. Iz arkhiva pisatelia, besedovavshego v 1967 s lichnymi sekretariami Lenina." Moskovskie Novosti No. 17, April 23, 1989, pp. 8-9.

9. Cited in E.N. Gusliarov, Stalin v zhizni. Sistematizirovannyi svod vospominanii sovremennikov, dokumentov zpokhi, versii istorikov. Moscow: OLMA-Press, p. 237. Online at http://www.stalin.su/book.php?action=pag..._book_id=1 Also cited in Novoe Vremia No. 46, Nov. 14, 2004.

[matt romney]

hmm i have yet to read a book about that whole thing, ive just been going off of internet articles. glad you brought that to my attention.

my main issue with him is that he sought to implement communism in such a large, culturally divided area. it doesnt make him a bad man, just not a great manager.

i believe that the best way to accomplish socialism is to lead a people's revolution in a small area with unanimous support of the proletarian land owners to set a successful precedent. no preemptive attacks or seizure of land (unless the land was originally stolen and you get the consent of the previous owners, like a foreclosure), but self defense is a must. then, you set a successful precedent without belligerence which could inspire more revolutions. the best current example is the ezln.

my second biggest issue with him was the nkvd. seems fascist to me.

and just curious, what nationality are those in your sig?

[The Vegan Marxist]

(05-11-2011 04:30 AM)Amaru Zion Wrote:  my second biggest issue with him was the nkvd. seems fascist to me.

and just curious, what nationality are those in your sig?

The NKVD had its good and bad moments. When the NKVD was under the command of Ezhov, one of Khrushchev's favoring comrades, so many repressive measures were implemented, torturing, etc.

Then, when Beria came under command over the NKVD in December of 1938, thousands that were repressed and imprisoned were released, the torturing stopped, and those who weren't innocent - thus, why they remained in the Gulag - were given privileges to ensure their health and safety.

Beria was one of Stalin's closest comrades; one that Khrushchev was never a fan of - hence why Khrushchev attacked both Stalin and Beria throughout his speech. Though, I pointed all this out in my "Stalin, Gulag, and the Katyn Massacre" thread.

As for my signature, the picture was taken in Nepal. It's a picture of the Nepali Maoist's PLA. The Maoists and Marxist-Leninist party are now the two unifying leading parties over the Nepali govt. Nepal's most revolutionary govt. they've ever attained. It just formed this year.

[matt romney]

thats terrific. is the dalai lama socialist?

ya i agree with all that. my perception on stalin is that his image is greatly distorted by babylon propaganda, but he was neither a great man nor a great manager. are you pro-stalin?

and ive been reading that thread

[The Vegan Marxist]

hah! The Dalai Lama likes to claim he's a socialist (a Marxist to be more exact), and has at times spoken out against capitalism. Though, his background seems to say otherwise. Whether it be his hand with the CIA against our Chinese comrades, in the hopes of overthrowing the Chinese Communist Party, or even his own words, which contradict that of Marxism and all socialist ideals:

"It is a good thing to be rich... Those are the fruits for deserving actions, the proof that they have been generous in the past."

and

"There is no good reason to become bitter and rebel against those who have property and fortune... it is better to develop a positive attitude."

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

[marioalosangeles]

You know I don't believe true communism has been achieved yet. What they were fighting all along was not true communism, it was a form of aristocracy(read the definition of this and tell me if it doesn't apply to the USSR). However, the idea of Communism is what they feared because it is contradictory of capitalism (they economic system in which the U.S runs).
They had fear that the the so called Communism was spreading too far and would eventually have greater influence, too hard to stop. I've heard lots of conservatives say that they have the same fear for the Muslim based governments. I'm not making this up!
As far as NAZI Germany... Lets not even go there. There was nothing socialist of the NAZI party. The CIA did some retarded shit to "fight off communism" they had governments overthrown. In Guatemala, there was a president who was democratically elected by the people (Jacobo Arbenz Guzman). They claimed that he had a communist agenda, only because he wanted to recuperate property that was left unused by American corporations to help the people of Guatemala. Read about it please, don't take my word for it. Marx's idea was that Man is a social animal. Non of these so called communists Gvt prove that. Not China, not the USSR, not any of them!

To finish this off... America exaggerated the situation, and labeled it communism. Now they call it terrorism... I'm open for debate...

Remember, we are only giving you observations, opinions, perspectives and so forth. We are giving you an overall idea of the subject. Now that you have a better idea of communism, read more and create your own idea of it brotha. Please share it with us

[ClichéGuevara]

How can you not achieve Socialism?