Joseph Stalin: Good guy or a Bad guy?

[Gezus]

(07-28-2012 02:38 AM)Aidan Xavier Wrote:  As far as the obnoxious comment which couples Joseph Stalin in with those Imperialist pigs Hitler, Mussolini, Churchill, Roosevelt and Hirohito, who either led their countries to turmoil, or made their countries "better" only by destroying and colonizing sovereign neighboring countries of theirs, I would have to argue that Joseph Stalin did entirely the opposite. His industrialization of Russia doubled the living Standard of the average Soviet citizen, his policies turned Russia, and with it the rest of the countries within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from a backwater country, into a country surely tempered from a fine Steel. Joseph Stalin represents the fierce opposition to world Imperialism and Western hegemony within the early 20th Century, deserving due respect. Need I remind you that the man we speak of, Adolf Hitler, would be photographed on our walls if it was not for that Great Georgian, Joseph Stalin. I will not respond further to any unnecessary, emotionalist agitations from you or anyone else concerning Joseph Stalin, unless you decide to respond from a factual, rational perspective concerning Joseph Stalin, and his policies.

(07-28-2012 03:00 AM)Laz Wrote:  

(07-28-2012 02:38 AM)Aidan Xavier Wrote:  As far as the obnoxious comment which couples Joseph Stalin in with those Imperialist pigs Hitler, Mussolini, Churchill, Roosevelt and Hirohito, who either led their countries to turmoil, or made their countries "better" only by destroying and colonizing sovereign neighboring countries of theirs, I would have to argue that Joseph Stalin did entirely the opposite. His industrialization of Russia doubled the living Standard of the average Soviet citizen, his policies turned Russia, and with it the rest of the countries within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from a backwater country, into a country surely tempered from a fine Steel. Joseph Stalin represents the fierce opposition to world Imperialism and Western hegemony within the early 20th Century, deserving due respect. Need I remind you that the man we speak of, Adolf Hitler, would be photographed on our walls if it was not for that Great Georgian, Joseph Stalin. I will not respond further to any unnecessary, emotionalist agitations from you or anyone else concerning Joseph Stalin, unless you decide to respond from a factual, rational perspective concerning Joseph Stalin, and his policies.

:lickslips:

stalin had russia starving with his bureaucratization. he didn't double the living standard, the planned economy established by lenin did. stalinism hindered the economy and eventually destroyed the revolution. stalin indirectly helped hitler come to power with his sectarian feud with the german social democrats and his rejection of internationalism was a boon to imperialists.

(07-28-2012 02:38 AM)Aidan Xavier Wrote:  Need I remind you that the man we speak of, Adolf Hitler, would be photographed on our walls if it was not for Soviet worker armies.

fixed.

If it weren't for Stalin (and the other sects in Germany), Hitler's electoral victory would've been cockblocked by a social democratic-Soviet coalition.

(07-28-2012 03:03 AM)Younes Wrote:  ^
Oh Stalin, yeah he who send his soldiers under equipped and under armed against the Finnish ,sacrificing his soldiers as if they where nothing? he who transported several million people to the Gulags and Siberia to work in labor camps under disgusting circumstances that led to several hundred thousands dying? Kaityn massacre anybody? murdering his own party members, was ready to make peace with Hitler even though Hitler fucking gassed fellow communists? Stalin only acted against Hitler in self interest, it was because Hitler started the Blitzkrieg against him.

(07-28-2012 03:04 AM)Laz Wrote:  younes-laz coalition against stalinism lets go

(07-28-2012 03:15 AM)Aidan Xavier Wrote:  

(07-28-2012 03:00 AM)Laz Wrote:  

(07-28-2012 02:38 AM)Aidan Xavier Wrote:  As far as the obnoxious comment which couples Joseph Stalin in with those Imperialist pigs Hitler, Mussolini, Churchill, Roosevelt and Hirohito, who either led their countries to turmoil, or made their countries "better" only by destroying and colonizing sovereign neighboring countries of theirs, I would have to argue that Joseph Stalin did entirely the opposite. His industrialization of Russia doubled the living Standard of the average Soviet citizen, his policies turned Russia, and with it the rest of the countries within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from a backwater country, into a country surely tempered from a fine Steel. Joseph Stalin represents the fierce opposition to world Imperialism and Western hegemony within the early 20th Century, deserving due respect. Need I remind you that the man we speak of, Adolf Hitler, would be photographed on our walls if it was not for that Great Georgian, Joseph Stalin. I will not respond further to any unnecessary, emotionalist agitations from you or anyone else concerning Joseph Stalin, unless you decide to respond from a factual, rational perspective concerning Joseph Stalin, and his policies.

:lickslips:

stalin had russia starving with his bureaucratization. he didn't double the living standard, the planned economy established by lenin did. stalinism hindered the economy and eventually destroyed the revolution. stalin indirectly helped hitler come to power with his sectarian feud with the german social democrats and his rejection of internationalism was a boon to imperialists.

(07-28-2012 02:38 AM)Aidan Xavier Wrote:  Need I remind you that the man we speak of, Adolf Hitler, would be photographed on our walls if it was not for Soviet worker armies.

fixed.

If it weren't for Stalin (and the other sects in Germany), Hitler's electoral victory would've been cockblocked by a social democratic-Soviet coalition.

I do enjoy your sourcing from Wikipedia, of all places. Anyhow, I find your statement concerning the Soviet Union supposedly "starving in bureaucracy" Peculiar. If you knew even an elementary amount of information about Joseph Stalin, you would know that he spent a vast amount of time criticizing the bureaucracy that had worked its way into the party, of which he was eventually overtaken by (i.e. Khrushchev). Trotsky invented the infamous term `Stalinist bureaucracy' While Lenin was still living, late in 1923, he was already maneuvering to seize power within the Party. Of all the criticism's Trotsky could make of the Soviet Union, his biggest, and his prime, was simply that he did not have control. Makes sense. The man had a bronze statue of himself in his office! Stalin had no such portraits, statues, or any of those types of things in his office.

As for Cde. Lenin, I would argue that Russia remained State-Capitalist under the temporary New Economic Policy of Lenin's which Stalin ended and replaced with collectivization. The New Economic Policy was a policy which enacted State-Capitalism within Russia with the intent of development within the country, and bringing people out of Feudalism within the countryside. the Planned Economy wasn't really established until around the time Joseph Stalin came to power, but, as Lenin said, the implementation of the Market did not change the nature of the Workers State within Russia under the NEP.

Try again, and this time, do a wee bit more research, hopefully not from such bourgeois sources as Wikipedia.

Gezus Wrote:Joseph Stalin... isn't that Mario's taller brother?

Hahah jokes aside, Stalin did do some great things for his country but you can't really allow that to cover up all the bad that he did do; also being anti-capitalist doesn't automatically make you the good guy. I wouldn't compare him to Hitler like a lot of people do; but he still does not deserve any sort of respect what so ever imho.

---

Let the shitstorm begin...

[Aidan Xavier]

Some interesting points made. I'll start off by reposting what I said previously in response to user "Laz":


"I do enjoy your sourcing from Wikipedia, of all places. Anyhow, I find your statement concerning the Soviet Union supposedly "starving in bureaucracy" Peculiar. If you knew even an elementary amount of information about Joseph Stalin, you would know that he spent a vast amount of time criticizing the bureaucracy that had worked its way into the party, of which he was eventually overtaken by (i.e. Khrushchev). Trotsky invented the infamous term `Stalinist bureaucracy' While Lenin was still living, late in 1923, he was already maneuvering to seize power within the Party. Of all the criticism's Trotsky could make of the Soviet Union, his biggest, and his prime, was simply that he did not have control. Makes sense. The man had a bronze statue of himself in his office! Stalin had no such portraits, statues, or any of those types of things in his office.

As for Cde. Lenin, I would argue that Russia remained State-Capitalist under the temporary New Economic Policy of Lenin's which Stalin ended and replaced with collectivization. The New Economic Policy was a policy which enacted State-Capitalism within Russia with the intent of development within the country, and bringing people out of Feudalism within the countryside. the Planned Economy wasn't really established until around the time Joseph Stalin came to power, but, as Lenin said, the implementation of the Market did not change the nature of the Workers State within Russia under the NEP.

Try again, and this time, do a wee bit more research, hopefully not from such bourgeois sources as Wikipedia."

Now to cover some of the obvious responses that will be hitting this thread as quickly as possible:

For a period that lasted over 30 years, in a Union of countries that covered more than 12% of the earth, that every misfortune this country endured, despite its horrific circumstances in the international arena, and with it's internal battle with the old Feudal relations, Joseph Stalin is blamed for everything other than the bad weather. Cde. Stalin is being accused of fabricating the evidence behind every trial that ever reached a verdict in the Soviet Union, of which the ruling Mafia elites of today deem instantly, unfair and staged, in a country of 200 million, and 2 million convicts.

Stalin did not flood the gulags with innocents, the longest prison sentence within a gulag, which is essentially a work prison with the intent of reforming the criminal, was only 10 years. With that, only around 10 - 30 percent of the prisoners within the gulags were there for political reasons, for example, Solzhenitsyn was there for political reasons, he was arrested for passing out Nazi Propaganda in the Soviet Union, and was imprisoned, only to be propped up by the west later on.

The Katyn massacre is really a joke, anyone who believes the Soviets committed this is insane. Firstly, these Polish officers worked at Auchwitz, so I am already inclined to say "Fuck it!" but I will continue. The fact is that the bodies were shot by the Nazis and with German bullets. These bullets were still in the bodies when they were exhumed.

Goebbels, who masterminded the campaign to put the blame on the Soviets in order to cause trouble between the Soviet Union and Poland in a vain attempt to save the German fascist empire, wrote in his diary on 8 May 1943: “Unfortunately, German ammunition has been found in the graves at Katyn … It is essential that this incident remains top secret. If it were to come to the knowledge of the enemy the whole Katyn affair would have to be dropped.” The Soviets had not the time to take the prisoners along, and certainly not the time to kill them all. The Germans had in fabricating their story decided to embellish it with an anti-Semitic twist by claiming to be able to name Soviet officials in charge of the massacre, all of whom had Jewish names. On 19 April Pravda responded:

"Feeling the indignation of the whole of progressive humanity over their massacre of peaceful citizens and particularly of Jews, the Germans are now trying to arouse the anger of gullible people against the Jews. For this reason they have invented a whole collection of 'Jewish commissars' who, they say, took part in the murder of the 10,000 Polish officers. For such experienced fakers it was not difficult to invent a few names of people who never existed - Lev Rybak, Avraam Brodninsky, Chaim Fineberg. No such persons ever existed either in the 'Smolensk section of the OGPU' or in any other department of the NLVD…"

Stalin was not a dictator, example of this is Yezhov, the Corrupted officer, tried to build a phony case against Stalin at one point, with the intent of taking Stalin's position within the party, and bringing Stalin to court.

The Ukranian Famine was not the fault of Stalin, There was a famine harvest in the USSR in 1932. Famine harvest means the crop failed. That’s what happened. Now, we can argue about why the crop failed, but the truth is that it failed. One of the reasons was a wheat rust epidemic that spread through the area all the way to Bulgaria. The crop failed all over the country, and people starved all over, including 1 million in Siberia. The USSR took less grain from the Ukraine than they have ever taken before or since. The state faced a terrible choice of whether to feed the cities of the villages. It’s true that there was more starvation in the Ukraine than in most other places, but that is because the crop failed worse there than anywhere else. Anyway, there was just as much starvation in the Lower Volga. The starving there were Russian peasants, and they had not been resisting collectivization. Do the Holodomor liars wish to say that the evil Communists deliberately starved Russian peasants in the Volga. What on Earth for? Further, the Ukrainians killed 50% of the livestock in the USSR. This made the famine much worse because they lacked horses to work the fields. Also, the Ukrainians tried to starve the whole country by destroying the grain crop. They set it on fire and left it to rot in the fields. In addition, a lot was being diverted to the black market. This is why the state went in and grabbed the crop. Most people died of disease, not starvation. They were weakened by lack of food. People started fleeing the famine zones, and it is true that after a while, the state tried to stop them from fleeing, because they needed people to stick around to harvest the grain crop the next year. If they would have let everyone flee the famine zones, there would have been no one around to harvest the crop in the next year. It was damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

The next year, the crop was good.

Figures of 7-10 million dead in the Ukraine alone are routinely tossed around by the Ukrainian liars. It was a terrible time to be a Soviet citizen. As noted, many people died, mostly of disease, not starvation, but they died nevertheless. The 7 million figure was invented after World War 2 by Ukrainian nationalists, many of whom had fought with the Nazis and killed many Jews by participating in the Holocaust. The 7 million figure was invented by these people to be higher than the 6 million Jews killed by Hitler in the Holocaust. In other words, Stalin was worse than Hitler, and Hitler was right to go to war against Judeo-Bolshevism. Get it? (credit to Robert Lindsay)

---

The Civil Rights Movement and Stalin are tied together very tightly. Paul Robeson, a Black man, sang a very nice rendition of the Soviet anthem. He sang, in his deep, soulful voice: ".. And Stalin our leader, with faith in the people" and so on. Harry Haywood, Black Civil rights leader, father of the Black Nation thesis, learned from Joseph Stalin the most. Along with that, the Civil rights movement had strong ties to the Communist movement abroad, from Huey P. Newton's ties to North Korea and Kim Il Sung, or China and Mao Tse-Tung. The history of Civil Rights is enriched with Communism, and especially with Joseph Stalin's example, and teachings.

---

“In the so called mistakes of Stalin lies the difference between a revolutionary attitude and a revisionist attitude. You have to look at Stalin in the historical context in which he moves, you don’t have to look at him as some kind of brute, but in that particular historical context . . . I have come to communism because of daddy Stalin and nobody must come and tell me that I mustn’t read Stalin. I read him when it was very bad to read him. That was another time. And because I’m not very bright, and a hard-headed person, I keep on reading him. Especially in this new period, now that it is worse to read him. Then, as well as now, I still find a series of things that are very good.” – Ernesto Che Guevara

[Asshole]

(07-28-2012 03:38 AM)Aidan Xavier Wrote:  "I do enjoy your sourcing from Wikipedia, of all places. Anyhow, I find your statement concerning the Soviet Union supposedly "starving in bureaucracy" Peculiar. If you knew even an elementary amount of information about Joseph Stalin, you would know that he spent a vast amount of time criticizing the bureaucracy that had worked its way into the party, of which he was eventually overtaken by (i.e. Khrushchev). Trotsky invented the infamous term `Stalinist bureaucracy' While Lenin was still living, late in 1923, he was already maneuvering to seize power within the Party. Of all the criticism's Trotsky could make of the Soviet Union, his biggest, and his prime, was simply that he did not have control. Makes sense. The man had a bronze statue of himself in his office! Stalin had no such portraits, statues, or any of those types of things in his office.

Your criticism that my source is from Wikipedia is the most valid you've posted. But Wikipedia is factually correct here, so it doesn't matter. I have no qualms about posting Wikipedia on an online debate if its factually correct. They just had the best graphic I could find.

Stalin established the bureaucracy son.
the show trials
and the purges
and the forced collectivization....

Trotsky mainly criticized the Soviet Union for being a deformed worker's state. Here is the best text to read if you're interested in his criticisms:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/

My friend has a bobblehead of himself in his room. I think its pretty fucking cool. Anyway, every political leader has a statue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statues_of_Stalin

(07-28-2012 03:38 AM)Aidan Xavier Wrote:  As for Cde. Lenin, I would argue that Russia remained State-Capitalist under the temporary New Economic Policy of Lenin's which Stalin ended and replaced with collectivization. The New Economic Policy was a policy which enacted State-Capitalism within Russia with the intent of development within the country, and bringing people out of Feudalism within the countryside. the Planned Economy wasn't really established until around the time Joseph Stalin came to power, but, as Lenin said, the implementation of the Market did not change the nature of the Workers State within Russia under the NEP.

Ah the theory of state capitalism. It defies the Marxist definition of the state. The idea that from 1991 to 1993, nothing happened. I believe Trotsky puts it best.

Quote:Theoretically, to be sure, it is possible to conceive a situation in which the bourgeoisie as a whole constitutes itself a stock company which, by means of its state, administers the whole national economy. The economic laws of such a regime would present no mysteries. A single capitalist, as is well known, receives in the form of profit, not that part of the surplus value which is directly created by the workers of his own enterprise, but a share of the combined surplus value created throughout the country proportionate to the amount of his own capital. Under an integral “state capitalism”, this law of the equal rate of profit would be realized, not by devious routes – that is, competition among different capitals – but immediately and directly through state bookkeeping. Such a regime never existed, however, and, because of profound contradictions among the proprietors themselves, never will exist – the more so since, in its quality of universal repository of capitalist property, the state would be too tempting an object for social revolution.

also
http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/appendix2.html

(07-28-2012 03:38 AM)Aidan Xavier Wrote:  Stalin did not flood the gulags with innocents, the longest prison sentence within a gulag, which is essentially a work prison with the intent of reforming the criminal, was only 10 years. With that, only around 10 - 30 percent of the prisoners within the gulags were there for political reasons, for example, Solzhenitsyn was there for political reasons, he was arrested for passing out Nazi Propaganda in the Soviet Union, and was imprisoned, only to be propped up by the west later on.

Nearly a third of the prisoners being of political nature is too much. Some of these prisoners were fascists and deserved their place there. Most however were Bolsheviks, former allies of Stalin, and miscellaneous leftish dissidents. They should've never been imprisoned.

(07-28-2012 03:38 AM)Aidan Xavier Wrote:  The Katyn massacre is really a joke, anyone who believes the Soviets committed this is insane. Firstly, these Polish officers worked at Auchwitz, so I am already inclined to say "Fuck it!" but I will continue. The fact is that the bodies were shot by the Nazis and with German bullets. These bullets were still in the bodies when they were exhumed.

I'm pretty sure I agree with you here I haven't studied it much. I've never heard a comrade use it to attack Stalin and the little I've read backs what you said.

(07-28-2012 03:38 AM)Aidan Xavier Wrote:  Stalin was not a dictator, example of this is Yezhov, the Corrupted officer, tried to build a phony case against Stalin at one point, with the intent of taking Stalin's position within the party, and bringing Stalin to court.

What?

(07-28-2012 03:38 AM)Aidan Xavier Wrote:  The Ukranian Famine was not the fault of Stalin, There was a famine harvest in the USSR in 1932. Famine harvest means the crop failed. That’s what happened. Now, we can argue about why the crop failed, but the truth is that it failed. One of the reasons was a wheat rust epidemic that spread through the area all the way to Bulgaria. The crop failed all over the country, and people starved all over, including 1 million in Siberia. The USSR took less grain from the Ukraine than they have ever taken before or since. The state faced a terrible choice of whether to feed the cities of the villages. It’s true that there was more starvation in the Ukraine than in most other places, but that is because the crop failed worse there than anywhere else. Anyway, there was just as much starvation in the Lower Volga. The starving there were Russian peasants, and they had not been resisting collectivization. Do the Holodomor liars wish to say that the evil Communists deliberately starved Russian peasants in the Volga. What on Earth for? Further, the Ukrainians killed 50% of the livestock in the USSR. This made the famine much worse because they lacked horses to work the fields. Also, the Ukrainians tried to starve the whole country by destroying the grain crop. They set it on fire and left it to rot in the fields. In addition, a lot was being diverted to the black market. This is why the state went in and grabbed the crop. Most people died of disease, not starvation. They were weakened by lack of food. People started fleeing the famine zones, and it is true that after a while, the state tried to stop them from fleeing, because they needed people to stick around to harvest the grain crop the next year. If they would have let everyone flee the famine zones, there would have been no one around to harvest the crop in the next year. It was damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

There were some factors beyond Stalin's control, but if he had not implemented the forced collectivization of farmland and then handled it so horrendously, the famine would be lessened tremendously.

Ted Grant:

Quote:After years of pandering to the kulaks, the Stalin/Bukharin leadership was taken completely by surprise by the crisis of 1927-28. All the warnings of the Left Opposition were proved entirely correct. Stalin panicked and ordered a complete turn around in policy. After eliminating the Left Opposition, Stalin leaned on the workers to launch a series of blows at the Right Opposition. By 1930, Stalin had the Right Opposition leaders Bukharin, Tomsky and Rykov removed from the Party leadership. These individuals - the head of the Communist International, the head of the Soviet government and the leader of the Russian trade unions - were now all denounced as agents of the counter-revolution! Taking up some of the points of the Left Opposition, but in a twisted and bureaucratic fashion, Stalin swung in a ultra-left direction. Had it not been for the campaign of the Left Opposition, Stalin would have continued his pro-kulak policy, leading to the liquidation of all the gains of the October Revolution.

As explained by Trotsky: "Without the Opposition's bold criticism and without the bureaucracy's fear of the Opposition, the course of Stalin-Bukharin toward the kulak would have ended up in the revival of capitalism. Under the lash of the Opposition the bureaucracy was forced to make important borrowings from our platform. The Leninists could not save the Soviet regime from the process of degeneration and the difficulties of the personal regime. But they saved it from complete dissolution by barring the road to capitalist restoration. The progressive reforms of the bureaucracy were the byproducts of the Opposition's revolutionary struggle. For us it is far too insufficient. But it is still something." (Trotsky, Writings 1935-36, p. 179.)

Lenin always advocated the collectivisation of agriculture gradually and by voluntarily means. But he certainly never entertained the mad idea that millions of scattered peasant holdings could be forced to collectivise overnight at gun-point. Collectivisation was to take place through example. The peasant was to be convinced by patient argument and through the setting up of model collective farms and the introduction of the latest modern technology, tractors, fertilizers, electricity, schools, etc. Such a perspective was obviously linked to the development of Soviet industry through five-year plans. The idea of collectivisation on the basis of wooden ploughs was a self-evident nonsense. As Trotsky explained, this problem "is far from settled by these general historical considerations. The real possibilities of collectivisation are determined, not by the depth of the impasse in the villages and not by the administrative energy of the government, but primarily by the existing productive resources - that is, the ability of the industries to furnish large-scale agriculture with the requisite machinery. These material conditions were lacking. The collective farms were set up with an equipment suitable in the main only for small-scale farming. In these conditions an exaggeratedly swift collectivisation took the character of an economic adventure". (Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed, p. 38.)

To safeguard and entrench itself as a privileged caste, the Stalinist bureaucracy was forced to lean on the workers to smash the incipient bourgeois counter-revolution. Armed detachments were now sent into the countryside to release the grain stocks to feed the cities. The Stalinists veered from opportunism to an ultra-left position. This led to the insane policy of "liquidation of the kulaks as a class" and the complete collectivisation of agriculture "at the earliest possible date". As a consequence, the proportion of collective farms rose in 1929 from 1.7 per cent to 3.9 per cent. In 1930 it increased dramatically to 23.6 per cent, in 1931 to 52.7 per cent, in 1932 to 61.5 per cent, in 1933 to 64.4 per cent, in 1934 to 71.4 per cent, in 1935 to 83.2 per cent, and in 1936 to 89.6 per cent. The percentage of crop area collectivised rose from 33.6 per cent in 1930 to 94.1 per cent in 1935.

The methods used by Stalin to collectivise the peasantry had nothing in common with the ideas of Lenin. "They collectivised not only horses, cows, sheep, pigs, but even new-born chickens," noted Trotsky. "They 'dekulakised,' as one foreign observer wrote, 'down to the felt shoes, which they dragged from the feet of little children.' As a result there was an epidemic selling of cattle for a song by the peasants, or a slaughter of cattle for meat and hides." (Ibid., p. 39.) By 1932 grain production fell by nearly 250 million hundredweights; sugar beet fell by half; the number of horses by 55 per cent; horned cattle fell by 40 per cent; the number of pigs by 55 per cent; and sheep by 66 per cent. "Stock was slaughtered every night in Gremyachy Log. Hardly had dusk fallen when the muffled, short bleats of sheep, the death-squeals of pigs, or the lowing of calves could be heard," writes Sholokhov in Virgin Soil Upturned. "Both those who had joined the kolkhoz and individual farmers filled their stock. Bulls, sheep, pigs, even cows were slaughtered, as well as cattle for breeding. The horned stock of Gremyachy was halved in two nights." (Quoted in Nove, An Economic History of the USSR, p. 174.) All forces were directed to procurements.

The human and economic consequences were appalling. Millions perished in the ensuing famine. The death-toll for the period 1931-33 has been estimated at around seven million. Unlike 1921, there was no relief for the starving. In fact, the existence of the famine was officially denied. Viktor Kravchenko, then an officer in the GPU (1), recalls the position:

"'I will not tell you about the dead,' she said. 'I'm sure you know. The half-dead, the nearly-dead are even worse. There are hundreds of people in Petrovo bloated with hunger. I don't know how many will die every day. Many are so weak that they no longer come out of their houses. A wagon goes around now and then to pick up the corpses. We've eaten everything we could lay our hands on - cats, dogs, field mice, birds - when it's light tomorrow you will see the trees have been stripped of their bark, for that too has been eaten. And the horse manure has been eaten.' I must have looked startled and unbelieving. 'Yes, the horse manure. We fight over it. Sometimes there are whole grains in it'." (Viktor Kravchenko, I Chose Freedom, p. 67.)

Part of this insane collectivisation were measures to liquidate "the kulaks as a class". According to N. Ivnitsky roughly 300,000 kulak households were deported. (Quoted in Alec Nove, An Economic History of the USSR, p. 167.) The whole of agriculture was reduced to a state of acute crisis. The bureaucracy was forced to beat a disorderly retreat. Consequently, they were forced to grant the peasantry, alongside the collective farms, small personal farm holdings. Nevertheless, Soviet agriculture was never fully able to recover from this debacle. This was a terrible consequence of the bureaucratic commandism of the Stalinist regime.

(07-28-2012 03:38 AM)Aidan Xavier Wrote:  “In the so called mistakes of Stalin lies the difference between a revolutionary attitude and a revisionist attitude. You have to look at Stalin in the historical context in which he moves, you don’t have to look at him as some kind of brute, but in that particular historical context . . . I have come to communism because of daddy Stalin and nobody must come and tell me that I mustn’t read Stalin. I read him when it was very bad to read him. That was another time. And because I’m not very bright, and a hard-headed person, I keep on reading him. Especially in this new period, now that it is worse to read him. Then, as well as now, I still find a series of things that are very good.” – Ernesto Che Guevara

Che was wrong. I love Che, but here he was wrong there. He read Trotsky quite a bit too and I wouldn't be surprised if his views changed. His focus was never economics or Marxism, it was always anti-imperialism. Only after the Cuban Revolution triumphed did Che and the Castros begin to understand the economics of imperialism.

[Aidan Xavier]

"Stalin established the bureaucracy son.
the show trials
and the purges
and the forced collectivization...."

I give you in depth analysis of the Soviet Union, and you respond with "Stalin established the Bureaucracy son"? ....

As far as the purges go, infiltrators overtook the party, from the West, from the Nazi's, many allied armies had purges at that time. The excess, those who were kicked out of the CPSU (purge does not mean simply kill, only a fool believes that) were released upon the discovery of Yezhov's abuse of power, replaced by Beria. Khrushchev also partook in this abuse of power during the great purge, if anyone abused power, its those two.

You continue to cite bourgeois sources, despite your supposed Communist convictions. this proves the point I make constantly:

Trotskyists call us Red Fascists, but Trotskyists are nothing more than Red Capitalists! I explained to you the Holodomor lie already, yet you respond with bourgeois sources.

... Erm, Lenin said himself the New Economic Policy created "State-Capitalism" Within Russia during that time. Look it up.

A third? Generally, it is argued near 10 - 20 percent were there for political reasons, 30 being the highest possible percentage. The majority were Fascists, but Stalin did not just Jail political competition, that's ridiculous, Stalin had a number of rivals within the party, one of which, Khrushchev, overtook him when he died.

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/201...nt-stalin/ This goes into Yezhov's phony case against Stalin.

Forced collectivization? Pff, the Kulaks were hoarding all the food during a famine, fuck the Kulaks, fuck em hard.

Ted Grant is supposed to be your source? If you are going to be biased, I'll be biased too.

Mario Sousa:



Ludo Martens:

[Asshole]

i'm citing marxist.com and marxists.org primarily. how is that bourgeois? i don't mind stalinist sources, i'll just attack their info. you can do the same with my marxist-bourgeois, or as i like to call them socialist-capitalist, websites. pretty much anything on economics is going to be biased, i recognize that.

oh shit i'm not watching 10 hours of audiobooks can i get that in text?

also i'm going to bed, you'll get an actual response in the morning this isn't it. i had a shitty response to you saying that stalin was anti-bureaucratic because i was stunned that people actually take that position.

[Aidan Xavier]

(07-28-2012 07:21 AM)Laz Wrote:  i'm citing marxist.com and marxists.org primarily. how is that bourgeois? i don't mind stalinist sources, i'll just attack their info. you can do the same with my marxist-bourgeois, or as i like to call them socialist-capitalist, websites. pretty much anything on economics is going to be biased, i recognize that.

oh shit i'm not watching 10 hours of audiobooks can i get that in text?

also i'm going to bed, you'll get an actual response in the morning this isn't it. i had a shitty response to you saying that stalin was anti-bureaucratic because i was stunned that people actually take that position.

This takes many of the important parts of the article "Lies concerning the history of the Soviet Union" and compiles it into a short video.

The first video is "Lies concerning the history of the Soviet Union" by Mario Sousa, which can be easily read and studied here:

http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm

The second is Comrade Ludo Martens daring book, "Another View of Stalin" Which presents a view of Stalin entirely separate from the bourgeois media:

http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Ludo%20Martens/


Please take the time to study these documents, and make sure to at least check out the Audiobooks, which I tend to find easier to read than plain internet documents. I made those myself actually, although the channel itself now belongs to a good Comrade and friend of mine.

[shakur420]

Just a quick question on Che. Didn't he say that an understanding of "dialectical materialism" was the backbone of being revolutionary? Understanding how material conditions affect things? If so, doesn't that mean his focus was socioeconomic organization and not "anti-imperialism"?

[Fuzzly Bear]

good/bad=irrelevant

[Aidan Xavier]

(07-28-2012 09:39 PM)shakur420 Wrote:  Just a quick question on Che. Didn't he say that an understanding of "dialectical materialism" was the backbone of being revolutionary? Understanding how material conditions affect things? If so, doesn't that mean his focus was socioeconomic organization and not "anti-imperialism"?

Imperialism IS produced from the material conditions of things. The Contradictions of Capitalism, caused Capitalism to evolve into Imperialism to survive. The Contradictions of Imperialism (Which Stalin outlined in his work, "The Foundations of Leninism") are as follows: The Contradiction between the Imperialist powers and various Financial groups raging lust for raw materials, and foreign territories, to use as sources of raw materials, further dividing the already divided world, which is associated with furious domination, fierce competition, and large amounts of needless bloodshed, the quest of the Imperialist powers to "Bring Civilization" to the Hundreds of Millions of people living in the Colonial and Dependent countries, in the end subjugating them to barefaced exploitation, and oppression. These contradictions, the contradictions ultimately between the Laborer and Capital, in which all of the Social-Democratic, Liberal solutions begin to lose their value (i.e. Trade Unions and the like) in defending the working class from the very barefaced exploitation their own Imperial powers subject the suffering Black, and Brown people of the world to, which, from a dialectical perspective, forces the Working Class to adopt a new weapon...

Imperialism brings the working Class, to Revolution.

The struggle against Imperialism, is very much a struggle that makes sense from the perspective of a student of the idea's and notion's of Dialectical-Materialism, and especially the Marxist understanding of Dialectical-Materialism.

[1871]

^
Oh look - another communistfascist holocaust denier.

















Holodomor Facts and History:

The following is a chronology of events that led to the “Holodomor”

Holodomor: approximate pronunciation: huh luh duh more

BRIEF SUMMARY

The Holodomor refers most specifically to the brutal artificial famine imposed on the Ukrainian people in 1932-33 by Stalin’s regime.


In its broadest sense, it refers to the Ukrainian genocide that began in 1929 with the massive waves of deadly deportations of Ukraine’s prospering peasant farmers as well as the deportations and executions of Ukraine’s religious, academic and cultural leaders, culminating in the devastating forced famine that killed millions more innocent men, women and children.


The genocide in fact continued for several more years with the further destruction of Ukraine’s political leadership, the resettlement of Ukraine’s depopulated areas with other ethnic groups, the blatant public denial of famine, and the prosecution of those who dared to speak of it publicly.

1917

The Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin take power in Russia.

1922

The Soviet Union is formed with Ukraine becoming one of the republics.

1924

After Lenin’s death, Joseph Stalin, one of the worst dictators in human history ascends to power.

1928

Stalin introduces a program of agricultural collectivization that forces peasants/farmers to give up their private land and livestock, and join state owned, factory-like collective farms. Stalin decides that collective farms would not only feed the industrial workers in the cities but would also provide a substantial amount of grain to be sold abroad, with the money used to finance his industrialization plans.

1929


A policy of enforcement is applied, using regular troops and secret police. Many Ukrainian peasants/farmers, known for their independence, still refuse to join the collective farms. Stalin decides to “liquidate them as a class” and accuses Ukrainians of “bourgeois nationalism.”

1930

Hundreds of thousands are expropriated, dragged from their homes, packed into freight trains, and shipped to Siberia where they are left, often without food or shelter. In the end, 1,000,000 Ukrainian peasants are seized and more than 850,000 deported to the frozen tundras of Siberia, where many perished.

1932-1933

The Soviet government increases Ukraine's production quotas by 44%, ensuring that they could not be met. Starvation becomes widespread. Secret decrees are implemented that allow arrest or execution of any starving peasant found taking as little as a few stalks of wheat or a potato from the fields he worked. By decree, discriminatory voucher systems are implemented, and military blockades are erected around Ukrainian villages preventing the transport of food into the villages and the hungry from leaving in search of food. Brigades of young activists from other Soviet regions are brought in to confiscate hidden grain, and eventually all foodstuffs from the peasants’ homes. Stalin states of Ukraine that “the national question is in essence a rural question” and he and his henchmen determine to “teach a lesson through famine” and ultimately, to deal a “crushing blow” to the backbone of Ukraine, its rural population.

1933

Ukrainians are dying at the rate of 25,000 a day, more than half were children. In the end, up to 10 million starve to death. Stalin denies to the world that there is any famine in Ukraine, and prevents international aid from entering the country.


Corpses of Famine Victims on the streets.
(Kharkiv, Ukraine)Uncovering the Truth:

“Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda. There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition.”
(as reported by the New York Times correspondent and Pulitzer-prize winner Walter Duranty)

Denial of the famine by Soviet authorities was echoed at the time of the famine by some prominent Western journalists, like Walter Duranty. It was the official policy of the Soviet Union to deny the existence of a famine and thus to refuse any outside assistance. Anyone claiming that there was in fact a famine was accused of spreading anti-Soviet propaganda. Inside the Soviet Union, a person could be arrested for even using the word ‘famine’ or ‘hunger’ or ‘starvation’ in a sentence.


Outside the Soviet Union, governments of the West adopted a passive attitude toward the famine, although most of them had become aware of the true suffering in Ukraine through confidential diplomatic channels.

In November 1933, the United States, under its new president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, even chose to formally recognized Stalin’s Communist government and also negotiated a sweeping new trade agreement. The following year, the pattern of denial in the West culminated with the admission of the Soviet Union into the League of Nations. Stalin’s Five Year Plan for the modernization of the Soviet Union depended largely on the purchase of massive amounts of manufactured goods and technology from Western nations. Those nations were unwilling to disrupt lucrative trade agreements with the Soviet Union in order to pursue the matter of the famine.


It was kept out of official history until 1991, when the country of 47 million finally won its independence.
Today it is recognized as genocide by less than two dozen countries out of 196. The famine is now the focus of books, exhibitions and documentaries marking the 75th anniversary of the tragedy.


Ukraine’s government is asking the United Nations to recognize the disaster as an act of genocide, worsening already frosty relations with Russia, which says the famine resulted from drought. Russian nationalists vandalized an exhibit at the Ukrainian embassy in Moscow in November. While the Russian government didn’t condone the attack, it called Ukraine’s depiction of the famine a “one-sided falsification of history.’’


In recent years then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko had ordered the release of old KGB records on the Famine. With this information it has become very apparent that this Famine was a deliberate act of Genocide, a method to ethnically cleanse Ukrainians from the territories of Ukraine and parts of Russia. At first only several thousand documents were released. Recently another batch of 25,000 documents is being declassified.


As more documents are released this event in Ukrainian history has taken on a very ominous tone. On November 28th 2006, the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament of Ukraine) had passed a decree defining the Holodomor as a deliberate Act of Genocide.




http://arhiv.ukranok.hu/holod/holod_foto...%2014.html

[Aidan Xavier]

YOU GAVE ME A LINK FROM DAVID DUKE'S HOLOCAUST DENYING, WHITE SUPREMACIST WEBSITE IN YOUR PICTURES. NAZI AND KKK MEMBERS LIKE HIM TOUT THE SUPPOSED ARTIFICIAL UKRAINIAN FAMINE TO MAKE STALIN SEEM "WORSE THAN HITLER" TO JUSTIFY HITLER'S OPPOSITION TO "JUDEO-BOLSHEVISM".

I have little, to NO, sympathy for those who sympathize with the Fascists.

YOU, my National-Socialist friend, are why the holodomor was not artificial. I already explained a few posts up, why the holodomor was not artificial, as if Stalin just went around making famines for the hell of it. The Kulaks, which hoarded grains during a famine, burned their crops, in retaliation to collectivization, to feed the starving in the Ukraine. Coupled with Agricultural sabotage, disease broke out.

You're fucking ridiculous. You give me these pictures without context. You give me a food deprived, or diseased Ukranian child and tell me it is the fault of Stalin, when I already went into GREAT detail over why Stalin was not to blame?

You give me lies from Hearst, and other Nazi sympathizers, who copied their lies over the holodomor lie from the Nazis! Oh look, the parliment of the Ukraine, those Nazi- I mean Nationalists, call it a genocide against Russia! So it must be true!

Get a brain, and read what I originally wrote, you twit.

The Ukranian Famine was not the fault of Stalin, There was a famine harvest in the USSR in 1932. Famine harvest means the crop failed. That’s what happened. Now, we can argue about why the crop failed, but the truth is that it failed. One of the reasons was a wheat rust epidemic that spread through the area all the way to Bulgaria. The crop failed all over the country, and people starved all over, including 1 million in Siberia. The USSR took less grain from the Ukraine than they have ever taken before or since. The state faced a terrible choice of whether to feed the cities of the villages. It’s true that there was more starvation in the Ukraine than in most other places, but that is because the crop failed worse there than anywhere else. Anyway, there was just as much starvation in the Lower Volga. The starving there were Russian peasants, and they had not been resisting collectivization. Do the Holodomor liars wish to say that the evil Communists deliberately starved Russian peasants in the Volga. What on Earth for? Further, the Ukrainians killed 50% of the livestock in the USSR. This made the famine much worse because they lacked horses to work the fields. Also, the Ukrainians tried to starve the whole country by destroying the grain crop. They set it on fire and left it to rot in the fields. In addition, a lot was being diverted to the black market. This is why the state went in and grabbed the crop. Most people died of disease, not starvation. They were weakened by lack of food. People started fleeing the famine zones, and it is true that after a while, the state tried to stop them from fleeing, because they needed people to stick around to harvest the grain crop the next year. If they would have let everyone flee the famine zones, there would have been no one around to harvest the crop in the next year. It was damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

The next year, the crop was good.

Figures of 7-10 million dead in the Ukraine alone are routinely tossed around by the Ukrainian liars. It was a terrible time to be a Soviet citizen. As noted, many people died, mostly of disease, not starvation, but they died nevertheless. The 7 million figure was invented after World War 2 by Ukrainian nationalists, many of whom had fought with the Nazis and killed many Jews by participating in the Holocaust. The 7 million figure was invented by these people to be higher than the 6 million Jews killed by Hitler in the Holocaust. In other words, Stalin was worse than Hitler, and Hitler was right to go to war against Judeo-Bolshevism. Get it? (credit to Robert Lindsay)

Ukrainian Nationalists are in the Government. They use the famine for Nazi sympathy, 7 million beats Hitlers 6 million, with their fake statistics.

http://history.wvu.edu/faculty_staff/cur...t_articles

Study that link. Ukranian Nazi-I mean Nationalist, even doctored photo's at points to make the famine appear worse than it was, a famous picture of a girl in the cold (dressed) and the photo is dark, was originally a photo of a girl by a sheep, and the photo was light, in the Ukraine. The Holodomor is a LIE.

[1871]

I give you these without context ? So you didnt read it? You dont know about the Holodomor ?

Sorry I posted before I read your post on the Homophobia thread. You are still an uneducated teen kid.
Now fuck off out of it.

Hearst? lol. Perhaps you need to read the work of Russian historians before you spout your bullshit.