RIP J.V. Stalin.

[Vox Populi]

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/coldwar/58455stalin.jpg
5th March, 1953.

[MarkyMark]

one of histories greatest monsters

[wherenow]

http://http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmSPYDb0FQ&feature=related

[Vox Populi]

I think western history has judged Stalin badly. We must remember that Conquest, Service, etc are all paid agents of imperialism. Robert Conquest is a Nazi collaborator, a former MI5 operative and helped Reagan's election campaign. His views on Stalin and the figures given for the number of dead in the Soviet Union are so absurd that even bourgeois historians such as Getty and Fitzpatrick are now calling them out.

[MarkyMark]

anybody who exiles an entire people to Siberia and leaves them to die is a monster in my book

[Vox Populi]

Or exiles them and leaves them to die for petty crime, if they don't get shot.

[ciaranxavier]

i think it would be fairer to say his ideologies and intentions looked and may have actually been good but his execution and means used to make those ideologies work was not by any means a good.

[Foyleview]

What a monster. i would rate this guy along with hitler and pol pot.
who allows these crazy posts anyway ?

[DublinRepublican]

RIP - Father of Freedom.

[Foyleview]

RIP - Father of Freedom.

go on then.... explain how you think this guy was a father of freedom.

[Hessian Peel]

What a monster. i would rate this guy along with hitler and pol pot.
who allows these crazy posts anyway ?

Even if you believe some of the outrageous claims made about Stalin by some historians and revisionists, you still can't compare him to degenerates like Hitler or Pol Pot. Their explicit intent was to murder millions of people with a very weak and perverted ideology to justify it. It is clear that Stalin was not such a 'monster'. He was a highly educated and highly intelligent comrade who was undoubtedly committed to Marxism-Leninism and the construction of Socialism.

He made many mistakes, I don't think anyone here is denying that, but they were exactly that: mistakes. I think it is fairly clear that the terrible excesses that did occur under his leadership of the USSR were largely perpetrated by those beneath him. Stalin is upheld by Marxist-Leninists, not because he was perfect, but because he made a genuinely progressive contribution to scientific Socialist theory and practice.

Here's to the fallen comrade! :beer2:

[Emiliano Zapata]

Even if allegations of cruelty and suppression towards ethnic groups under Stalin are historically inaccurate; even if those tens of millions of real people were nothing but actual 'war casualties' or 'fabricated statistics', this does not discredit the fact that over a million of political partisans of the October Revolution were unmercifully slaughtered - that economists, trade unionists, agitators, writers, teachers, workers, and intellectuals; from all different ages and cultural backgrounds, met their death through lies, forced confessions, fire squads, and deportations. This does not separate us from the fact that he killed the revolution.

Also if you want to read a good book about Stalin I suggest The Revolution Betrayed.

[RSF-Fianoglach]

vox ,its funny how you say rip stalin,when the man was an atheist.and did not believe he would be resting anywere in peace,he believed like you that all that was waiting for him was maggots chewing his mortol flesh and the ceasation of any life after death.

he was nothing but an oppressive tyrant like all communists that came to power.

[HimThere]

vox ,its funny how you say rip stalin,when the man was an atheist.and did not believe he would be resting anywere in peace,he believed like you that all that was waiting for him was maggots chewing his mortol flesh and the ceasation of any life after death.

he was nothing but an oppressive tyrant like all communists that came to power.

vox could have meant it in a way that, may he rest in hi grave in peace and not be disturbed by anyone, such as grave diggers etc

[RSF-Fianoglach]

vox could have meant it in a way that, may he rest in hi grave in peace and not be disturbed by anyone, such as grave diggers etc

but im sure he didnt mean it that way,as the expression is not commonly meant that way,and even if he did mean it that way,how would grave robbers disturb his peace,when he has no concious peace to disturb as he is dead as a door nail.as is the atheist standpoint.

[LDN_Irish]

but im sure he didnt mean it that way,as the expression is not commonly meant that way,and even if he did mean it that way,how would grave robbers disturb his peace,when he has no concious peace to disturb as he is dead as a door nail.as is the atheist standpoint.

Rest in Peace is commonly used to mean what JPUTRA said, theists won't be resting in peace. They will living it up in Heaven with no alcohol or sexual relationships.

[RSF-Fianoglach]

Rest in Peace is commonly used to mean what JPUTRA said, theists won't be resting in peace. They will living it up in Heaven with no alcohol or sexual relationships.

i beg to differ it is commonly used in the religious sence from whence it came,the reason for no sex or drink being,we will no longer have needs,we will be living in eternal bliss and happiness,while the non believer die an eternal death.

[LDN_Irish]

i beg to differ it is commonly used in the religious sence from whence it came,the reason for no sex or drink being,we will no longer have needs,we will be living in eternal bliss and happiness,while the non believer die an eternal death.

Rest in peace has now assimilated in to common language, religion is no longer a factor. It doesn't actually really have any meaning any more, like "blow it out your arse." I don't actually want you to blow anything out your arse, I wouldn't mind if you stopped posting though.

[belfast rep]

i beg to differ it is commonly used in the religious sence from whence it came,the reason for no sex or drink being,we will no longer have needs,we will be living in eternal bliss and happiness,while the non believer die an eternal death.

i do like to find my bliss and happiness in my drunken sex

[Foyleview]

I don t understand how anybody can regard the self named stalin as anything but a mass murderer. his purge period and the 5 year industrialisation plan was responsible for tens of millions of deaths.

[Vox Populi]

I don t understand how anybody can regard the self named stalin as anything but a mass murderer. his purge period and the 5 year industrialisation plan was responsible for tens of millions of deaths.Where are all these bodies, surely there must be mountains of bones? What is the source for this absurd claim?

I read a book lastnight called 'The death of Uncle Joe' by a former Morning Star journalist that put the claim at 40 million. The USSR's population was 130~ million in the 30s. The figure often given is 40 million dead during the 'purges' and a further 25 million during the war but this doesn't tally with the USSR's population in 1945. Furthermore, the people who orginally published these statistics, the likes of Robert Conquest are devoid of any understanding, didn't have acess to the archives and are even discredited in bourgeois academic circles by people like Getty and Fitzpatrick.

[Vox Populi]

Another view of Stalin - http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union - http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm

[FTA69]

Even if allegations of cruelty and suppression towards ethnic groups under Stalin are historically inaccurate; even if those tens of millions of real people were nothing but actual 'war casualties' or 'fabricated statistics', this does not discredit the fact that over a million of political partisans of the October Revolution were unmercifully slaughtered - that economists, trade unionists, agitators, writers, teachers, workers, and intellectuals; from all different ages and cultural backgrounds, met their death through lies, forced confessions, fire squads, and deportations. This does not separate us from the fact that he killed the revolution.

Also if you want to read a good book about Stalin I suggest The Revolution Betrayed.

Spot on. There is no denying the fact that a lot of the arguments directed toward Stalin are based on grossly skewed statistics (see Foyleview's post above mine), but the fact remains that having one man with a personality cult in complete control is inherently bad for any revolution. That is why I am often sceptical of Marxist-Leninism (while often defending it on anti-imperialist grounds), I can't grasp the notion of an all-prevalent party in complete control, in my opinion that simply leads to corruption and often the creation of a new ruling class.

[Foyleview]

next you s guys will be telling me that jews were not murdered under hitler, the mass graves discovered after pol pot were mass suicides. the irish gave up there food voluntarily in order to feed the english in 1845/46. cromwell had only the good of the irish people on his mind and that mi5 never killed onyone.

pull the other one and save you bs for your cronies.

[LDN_Irish]

next you s guys will be telling me that jews were not murdered under hitler, the mass graves discovered after pol pot were mass suicides. the irish gave up there food voluntarily in order to feed the english in 1845/46. cromwell had only the good of the irish people on his mind and that mi5 never killed onyone.

pull the other one and save you bs for your cronies.

I'm not with Vox on this one although he makes some very interesting points. But you are kind of derailing the discussion you are both having with the above post. Vox is asking if Stalin killed that many, where is the evidence?

[Tory]

uncle joe brought a backward, rural russian nation into the 20th century and rapidly industrialised bringing the soviet union to the status of a super power; he contributed more to the defeat of fascism than anybody else. to maintain power he was bloody, ruthless and calculating - but what power system isn't? my gripe with him would be he could have constructed a more positive image for socialism by being more socially conscious. unfortunately, power corrupts.................

[Foyleview]

I'm not with Vox on this one although he makes some very interesting points. But you are kind of derailing the discussion you are both having with the above post. Vox is asking if Stalin killed that many, where is the evidence?

i did not mean to derail the thread. i was just making the point that all with every person or regime that does extreme wrong there comes the defenders who claim the events or acts never happened.
i am not very computer literate , i cannot do the scan, post or paste thing. but if you google Stalin there are loads of refrence pages.

[RSF-Fianoglach]

since the start of the 20th century,there have been 188,000000 peaople killed in wars and and conflicts over man made ideologys mainly communism/marxism thats whitin 100 years..in all recorded history there have been 4 to 5 million deaths as a result of religious wars.

so take stock of that all you leftist types.

[Emiliano Zapata]

since the start of the 20th century,there have been 188,000000 peaople killed in wars and and conflicts over man made ideologys mainly communism/marxism thats whitin 100 years..in all recorded history there have been 4 to 5 million deaths as a result of religious wars.

so take stock of that all you leftist types.

:icon_lol:

[RSF-Fianoglach]

Communist Oppression: 110,286,000 the number of deaths attributed to communist institutions over the last 100 years.China (1900-87): 49,275,000

[LDN_Irish]

i did not mean to derail the thread. i was just making the point that all with every person or regime that does extreme wrong there comes the defenders who claim the events or acts never happened.
i am not very computer literate , i cannot do the scan, post or paste thing. but if you google Stalin there are loads of refrence pages.

Sorry mate, didn't mean you were derailing the thread, as you weren't what you said was completely valid to the thread, but I just meant you were moving away from the points of the actual discussion you were having with Vox. I see what you are saying, and I'm not Stalin's biggest fan but Vox made a valid point about where is the actual visual evidence?

Tomas, link to back up your claims please.

[quirk]

Spot on. There is no denying the fact that a lot of the arguments directed toward Stalin are based on grossly skewed statistics (see Foyleview's post above mine), but the fact remains that having one man with a personality cult in complete control is inherently bad for any revolution. That is why I am often sceptical of Marxist-Leninism (while often defending it on anti-imperialist grounds), I can't grasp the notion of an all-prevalent party in complete control, in my opinion that simply leads to corruption and often the creation of a new ruling class.

New evidence suggests that there was not in fact one man control in the Soviet Union and Stain was the main driving force pushing for democracy both within the Party and outside it. He sought to remove the Communist Party from the running of the state but was defeated on this issue by people such as Khrushchev. The best article on this is Stalin and the struggle for democratic reform by Grover Furr which I would recommend anyone read. Here is the link:

http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

[quirk]

Communist Oppression: 110,286,000 the number of deaths attributed to communist institutions over the last 100 years.China (1900-87): 49,275,000

Where did you get this figure from? This is ridiculous even compared to some crazy figures I have seen before.

[Hessian Peel]

New evidence suggests that there was not in fact one man control in the Soviet Union and Stain was the main driving force pushing for democracy both within the Party and outside it. He sought to remove the Communist Party from the running of the state but was defeated on this issue by people such as Khrushchev. The best article on this is Stalin and the struggle for democratic reform by Grover Furr which I would recommend anyone read. Here is the link:

http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

Great article.

[Hessian Peel]

since the start of the 20th century,there have been 188,000000 peaople killed in wars and and conflicts over man made ideologys mainly communism/marxism thats whitin 100 years..in all recorded history there have been 4 to 5 million deaths as a result of religious wars.

so take stock of that all you leftist types.

When I become leader there will be special camps for people like you.

[Hessian Peel]

Even if allegations of cruelty and suppression towards ethnic groups under Stalin are historically inaccurate; even if those tens of millions of real people were nothing but actual 'war casualties' or 'fabricated statistics', this does not discredit the fact that over a million of political partisans of the October Revolution were unmercifully slaughtered - that economists, trade unionists, agitators, writers, teachers, workers, and intellectuals; from all different ages and cultural backgrounds, met their death through lies, forced confessions, fire squads, and deportations. This does not separate us from the fact that he killed the revolution.

Also if you want to read a good book about Stalin I suggest The Revolution Betrayed.

http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1615650_metrotsky3.jpg

Revisionism decommissioned.

[ciaranxavier]

i beg to differ it is commonly used in the religious sence from whence it came,the reason for no sex or drink being,we will no longer have needs,we will be living in eternal bliss and happiness,while the non believer die an eternal death.

the fact that you think a statement so broad should be excluded for use by people unless their a certain religion shows a lot for your character.

[ciaranxavier]

i did not mean to derail the thread. i was just making the point that all with every person or regime that does extreme wrong there comes the defenders who claim the events or acts never happened.
i am not very computer literate , i cannot do the scan, post or paste thing. but if you google Stalin there are loads of refrence pages.

they arent debating that deaths happened they are debating the numbers used by popular western historians.

[ciaranxavier]

since the start of the 20th century,there have been 188,000000 peaople killed in wars and and conflicts over man made ideologys mainly communism/marxism thats whitin 100 years..in all recorded history there have been 4 to 5 million deaths as a result of religious wars.

so take stock of that all you leftist types.

can i ask where you got your statistics?

[Nijinsky]

can i ask where you got your statistics?

You can - but you can be sure that he wont answer you

[ciaranxavier]

You can - but you can be sure that he wont answer you

lol his most common response is that its common knowledge and i should know.

[Vox Populi]

since the start of the 20th century,there have been 188,000000 peaople killed in wars and and conflicts over man made ideologys mainly communism/marxism thats whitin 100 years..in all recorded history there have been 4 to 5 million deaths as a result of religious wars.

so take stock of that all you leftist types.

188,000000.... where?

[East Tyrone]

Stalin didn't eat at McDonalds.

[ciaranxavier]

Stalin didn't eat at McDonalds.

neither should any human being, its one of the largest contributors to child obesity these days, that and lazy parents.

[Erin_go_bragh]

Stalin didn't eat at McDonalds.

ET, stop provoking vox into arguements. Stalin loved his meat just as anyman on this board.

[lambhdeargh]

Look lets boil it down to facts, Stalin was a bad man, he killed lots of people and we think its wrong. So now thats cleared up, whats for dinner?

[East Tyrone]

ET, stop provoking vox into arguements. Stalin loved his meat just as anyman on this board.

Stalin didn't paternise the global, corporate franchise. And I think like myself he was strictly into cooked meat on a plate. He was still a genocidal meglomaniac, no matter what the f*cker ate.

[ciaranxavier]

Stalin didn't paternise the global, corporate franchise. And I think like myself he was strictly into cooked meat on a plate. He was still a genocidal meglomaniac, no matter what the f*cker ate.

it all comes out the same anyways.

[East Tyrone]

it all comes out the same anyways.

Spoken like somebody who has never had a chicken vindaloo after a feed of Smithwicks. Stalin didn't drink Smithwicks either, was more of a McCardles man.

[ciaranxavier]

Spoken like somebody who has never had a chicken vindaloo after a feed of Smithwicks. Stalin didn't drink Smithwicks either, was more of a McCardles man.

spoken by the guy who sees where it all goes:icon_laugh: and trust me its all the same.

[East Tyrone]

spoken by the guy who sees where it all goes:icon_laugh: and trust me its all the same.

For a man who rolls his own I'm surprised you're not familiar with old holburn.

[ciaranxavier]

For a man who rolls his own I'm surprised you're not familiar with old holburn.

i dont drink much though id be willing to have one with you when i can get the money together.

[East Tyrone]

Oh Jaysis, you wouldn't want to go drinking with me; I don't even want to do that.

[ciaranxavier]

Oh Jaysis, you wouldn't want to go drinking with me; I don't even want to do that.

your right i do want to have some sense of reality in the morning and working eardrums.....:icon_laugh::icon_lol:

[quirk]

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=vcqLlCg9Kzk

[lambhdeargh]

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=vcqLlCg9Kzk

Ahh, Such a change, communism that perfect ideal, which proved feck all really, except that communism is as open to corruption as capitalism is, except communism fecks you in a different way. Now thats progress!

[quirk]

Communism has never existed. Massive advances were however achieved under socialism both in the USSR (until 1956) and China (until 1976).

What makes you say that communism is open to corruption?

[lambhdeargh]

Communism has never existed. Massive advances were however achieved under socialism both in the USSR (until 1956) and China (until 1976).

What makes you say that communism is open to corruption?

I repeat above as argument! I shall leave Tibet as a sideline in this argument.
Its all for our own good eh!

[Hessian Peel]

Ahh, Such a change, communism that perfect ideal, which proved feck all really, except that communism is as open to corruption as capitalism is, except communism fecks you in a different way. Now thats progress!

You have no idea what you're talking about, so just stop.

[lambhdeargh]

You have no idea what you're talking about, so just stop.

LOL, yeah and you're so enlightened! Communisim is as corrupt as capitalism and you will not change this fact.

[OCoinnigh]

You have no idea what you're talking about, so just stop.

I wish you could ban communist's on this site. Their just like Nazi's. F-ck Stalin. You guys ever been to Russia, or even no anybody that lived through that monsters rule? I think this is just as offensive as the nazi/hilter crap.
Stalin killed more people than hilter. Its like telling the jews there was no holocaust. If somebody on here did that everybody would jump on them. But everybody can sing the praises of this murderous b-stard and hardly anybody says anything.

[Koneko]

in fairness everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as they follow the forum rules.

[ciaranxavier]

I wish you could ban communist's on this site. Their just like Nazi's. F-ck Stalin. You guys ever been to Russia, or even no anybody that lived through that monsters rule? I think this is just as offensive as the nazi/hilter crap.
Stalin killed more people than hilter. Its like telling the jews there was no holocaust. If somebody on here did that everybody would jump on them. But everybody can sing the praises of this murderous b-stard and hardly anybody says anything.

they came second in russias election people must still support them to be fair. and they rule cuba and cubas done really well for a third world country in south america. and stalin isnt communism he was a leader who claimed to be communist you should learn to not associate people with an ideology as you must remember bush claims to be a republican.

[lambhdeargh]

in fairness everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as they follow the forum rules.

Yes everyone is entitled to their opinion, mind you Enver claiming I know nothing when I have a history degree is somewhat absurd. Yes the principals of communism were fairer than capitalism, but ultimately they fell foul due to the one party system and the abuse this can engender, Stalin was a monster on a scale akin to Herr Hitler and yet many seem to think that this person is less offensive! If Stalin had his way Europe would be under the communist yolk and the rights of people to comment thus would be still denied. I do not think the capitalist system is any better but it does afford greater freedom than any other socialist/communist system, at least I can make my views known, rather than muttering them under my breath. I think that those of a pro socialist/communist view should think long and hard about what freedoms they would have under Stalinist rule and what the consequences of such a rule would have on the politicaly minded.

[ciaranxavier]

Yes everyone is entitled to their opinion, mind you Enver claiming I know nothing when I have a history degree is somewhat absurd. Yes the principals of communism were fairer than capitalism, but ultimately they fell foul due to the one party system and the abuse this can engender, Stalin was a monster on a scale akin to Herr Hitler and yet many seem to think that this person is less offensive! If Stalin had his way Europe would be under the communist yolk and the rights of people to comment thus would be still denied. I do not think the capitalist system is any better but it does afford greater freedom than any other socialist/communist system, at least I can make my views known, rather than muttering them under my breath. I think that those of a pro socialist/communist view should think long and hard about what freedoms they would have under Stalinist rule and what the consequences of such a rule would have on the politicaly minded.

I think that those of a pro socialist/communist view should think long and hard about what freedoms they would have under Stalinist rule and what the consequences of such a rule would have on the politicaly minded.

youd think with your degree that youd know not to associate everything socialist or communist with stalin. thats just absurd.

[lambhdeargh]

I think that those of a pro socialist/communist view should think long and hard about what freedoms they would have under Stalinist rule and what the consequences of such a rule would have on the politicaly minded.

youd think with your degree that youd know not to associate everything socialist or communist with stalin. thats just absurd.

Ahh but as this is mostly about Stalin I did. and all other communist leaders were saints?

[ciaranxavier]

Ahh but as this is mostly about Stalin I did. and all other communist leaders were saints?

the creators of the communist and socialist theories as we know it were never leaders at all.those who took the name werent saints but that doesnt mean they were the embodiment of an ideology.

[OCoinnigh]

they came second in russias election people must still support them to be fair. and they rule cuba and cubas done really well for a third world country in south america. and stalin isnt communism he was a leader who claimed to be communist you should learn to not associate people with an ideology as you must remember bush claims to be a republican.

Seriously

Didn't the people on this thread associate Stalin (who isn't even Russian) with
Socialism/communism. Especially in Ireland, the socialist/communist morons associate Stalin with socialism/communism.

On a side note
these hard line way left communist/socialist people are a TINY minority here in Ireland.

[ciaranxavier]

Seriously

Didn't the people on this thread associate Stalin (who isn't even Russian) with
Socialism/communism. Especially in Ireland, the socialist/communist morons associate Stalin with socialism/communism.

On a side note
these hard line way left communist/socialist people are a TINY minority here in Ireland.

some communists believe stalin to be communist some dont. some think lenin was some dont. some think communisms never existed some dont. it changes where you go but the facts are the guys credited for starting the theories associated with communism and socialism were never a leader in any country. stalin may have claimed to be communist and attempted to reform the country in a communist way but i dont think he should be considered the embodiment of communism and some dont think he should be considered a communist at all. and if you look at some of stalins theorys you would see that he wasnt all wrong in what he desired it was more the manners in which he carried them out.

[lambhdeargh]

the creators of the communist and socialist theories as we know it were never leaders at all.those who took the name werent saints but that doesnt mean they were the embodiment of an ideology.

One name, Lenin!

[ciaranxavier]

One name, Lenin!

2 great minds started it marx and engels. they are the accepted creators of the ideologies that communists and socialist claim to follow or take their ideas from. Lenin just coined the name and made it popular.

[lambhdeargh]

Yes we can all blather on about how communism was formed, from Marxism, Trotskism, Leninism and yes even Stalinism. This thread associates itself with Stalinism and that is what we debate. Many so called supporters of communism or socialism have on this thread defended Stalin and tried to claim that his excesses were over subscribed in modern historical circles. As much as some here wish this not to be the case, this is only denying what Stalin did and that is the mass genocide of his own populace. If anyone wishes to discuss communism on a seperate thread I am more than willing to do so. After Lenin suceeded leadership of the communist party to Stalin it all went to hell in a hand basket and no amount of socialist theory will rectify the fact.

[lambhdeargh]

Ohh, and I forgot it was the post war communist theory that spread i.e. Stalinism that percolated through the cold war and as much as the first concepts of socialism were of an ideolistic nature, post war they were deemed unsuitable to global domination.

[ciaranxavier]

Yes we can all blather on about how communism was formed, from Marxism, Trotskism, Leninism and yes even Stalinism. This thread associates itself with Stalinism and that is what we debate. Many so called supporters of communism or socialism have on this thread defended Stalin and tried to claim that his excesses were over subscribed in modern historical circles. As much as some here wish this not to be the case, this is only denying what Stalin did and that is the mass genocide of his own populace. If anyone wishes to discuss communism on a seperate thread I am more than willing to do so. After Lenin suceeded leadership of the communist party to Stalin it all went to hell in a hand basket and no amount of socialist theory will rectify the fact.

the numbers of dead are debatable both with hitler and stalin. theyre not denying it happened by debating that numbers have been inflated. and he industrialized russia quicker then anyone could have conceived so its not like he didnt have his accomplishments. those should not be overlooked.

[ciaranxavier]

Ohh, and I forgot it was the post war communist theory that spread i.e. Stalinism that percolated through the cold war and as much as the first concepts of socialism were of an ideolistic nature, post war they were deemed unsuitable to global domination.

communism and socialism are different and i agree the name of communism is tainted because of certain events but at the same time its people with the naive and closeminded outlook like you that human rights are become second priority and economics first.

[lambhdeargh]

communism and socialism are different and i agree the name of communism is tainted because of certain events but at the same time its people with the naive and closeminded outlook like you that human rights are become second priority and economics first.

So I'm now closeminded? where have I made a statement that closes my mind to any other fact? I point out the facts and all of a sudden I am naive? Well I would rather be me than stuck up some PC ar*ehole denying the facts, not pro conglomerate facts, just facts.

[lambhdeargh]

the numbers of dead are debatable both with hitler and stalin. theyre not denying it happened by debating that numbers have been inflated. and he industrialized russia quicker then anyone could have conceived so its not like he didnt have his accomplishments. those should not be overlooked.

He industrialised Russia at the cost of millions of peoples deaths, was it worth it?

[lambhdeargh]

For feck sake I fought the British forces and served time in respose to those actions and you protray me as some pro capatalist lacky! tell you what Feck you and go boil yer head! Ohh I'm a touch on the inrebreated side so I will appolpogise tommorow if needs be.

[ciaranxavier]

So I'm now closeminded? where have I made a statement that closes my mind to any other fact? I point out the facts and all of a sudden I am naive? Well I would rather be me than stuck up some PC ar*ehole denying the facts, not pro conglomerate facts, just facts.



Yes the principals of communism were fairer than capitalism, but ultimately they fell foul due to the one party system and the abuse this can engender

it is being naive to say they were as the principals of communism are those that created it not those that built onto it. im not saying communism is perfect i dont believe that but to say its principals were fair is being naive.

I do not think the capitalist system is any better but it does afford greater freedom than any other socialist/communist system, at least I can make my views known, rather than muttering them under my breath.

it is being closeminded to think that the communist and socialist systems are oppress the people and take away their right to an opinion. the swedish socialist democratic system would be my example given to you here.


I think that those of a pro socialist/communist view should think long and hard about what freedoms they would have under Stalinist rule and what the consequences of such a rule would have on the politicaly minded.

those would be pro stalinists not pro socialist or pro communists i thought you had a degree in this crap.

[OCoinnigh]

the numbers of dead are debatable both with hitler and stalin. theyre not denying it happened by debating that numbers have been inflated. and he industrialized russia quicker then anyone could have conceived so its not like he didnt have his accomplishments. those should not be overlooked.

I can't imagine talking about hilter's accomplishments. he also industrialized Germany quickly.

hilter
stalin

their probably related

[lambhdeargh]

it is being naive to say they were as the principals of communism are those that created it not those that built onto it. im not saying communism is perfect i dont believe that but to say its principals were fair is being naive.



it is being closeminded to think that the communist and socialist systems are oppress the people and take away their right to an opinion. the swedish socialist democratic system would be my example given to you here.


I think that those of a pro socialist/communist view should think long and hard about what freedoms they would have under Stalinist rule and what the consequences of such a rule would have on the politicaly minded.

those would be pro stalinists not pro socialist or pro communists i thought you had a degree in this crap.

the principals of communism were in themselves ok but they neglected to factor into the equasion the human element. also this was or is a pro stalinsit thread look at the headline so my comments stand. If you wish to debate communism do so on another thread I'm happy to do so. As for Sweden yeah sure its all fine and dandy for a country not a kick in the arse away from the Soviet Union to express a differing outlook after all Finland walked a thin line in establishing its own freedom to keep the soviet jackboot out of its country, pity they had to surrender some of their lands to facilitate such an agreement.

[ciaranxavier]

the principals of communism were in themselves ok but they neglected to factor into the equasion the human element. also this was or is a pro stalinsit thread look at the headline so my comments stand. If you wish to debate communism do so on another thread I'm happy to do so. As for Sweden yeah sure its all fine and dandy for a country not a kick in the arse away from the Soviet Union to express a differing outlook after all Finland walked a thin line in establishing its own freedom to keep the soviet jackboot out of its country, pity they had to surrender some of their lands to facilitate such an agreement.

you say debate communism elsewhere but yet you say I think that those of a pro socialist/communist view so what are you getting at when you tell me to go start a debate about it somewhere else. your the one clearly starting the debate by relating socialists and communists to stalinists.

[lambhdeargh]

Finally as bed does call, ask anyone from the former eastern bloc countries as to how they were treated, as I can ask many Polish and other eastern bloc emegries as how their lives were affected during their socialist experience. Mind you your synopsis would be bottom of their list, if not first amongst their complaints. If you had lived among one of the many countries sequestered during the cold war you would be lucky in the extreme to have survived with such an opinion as mine never mind yours and this from their mouths not mine. Tell ya what lets turn the clock back and you can live in Russia circa 1950 and lets see what happens! Siberia anyone!

[lambhdeargh]

Finally as bed does call, ask anyone from the former eastern bloc countries as to how they were treated, as I can ask many Polish and other eastern bloc emegries as how their lives were affected during their socialist experience. Mind you your synopsis would be bottom of their list, if not first amongst their complaints. If you had lived among one of the many countries sequestered during the cold war you would be lucky in the extreme to have survived with such an opinion as mine never mind yours and this from their mouths not mine. Tell ya what lets turn the clock back and you can live in Russia circa 1950 and lets see what happens! Siberia anyone!

[lambhdeargh]

you say debate communism elsewhere but yet you say so what are you getting at when you tell me to go start a debate about it somewhere else. your the one clearly starting the debate by relating socialists and communists to stalinists.

Because by calling Stalin a communist I was accused of labeling socalism theirfor if this Stalin thread is not acceptable then I will debate not go around and around as you seem to do. you seem to sound like Thomas, ma chara

[quirk]

LOL, yeah and you're so enlightened! Communisim is as corrupt as capitalism and you will not change this fact.

Evidence?? How can you make such a conclusion even when communism has never existed?

[lambhdeargh]

Evidence?? How can you make such a conclusion even when communism has never existed?

Yes thats right communism has never existed along with everything else, its all a big hoax! Hmmmmmmmm!:hmmm:

[quirk]

He industrialised Russia at the cost of millions of peoples deaths, was it worth it?

Many less lives were lost in the USSR's industrialisation than the industrial revolution in countries like Britain. Show me the statistics that say millions died during the industrialisation of the Soviet Union.

The Communist Party knew that industrialisation was necessary for the very survival of the USSR and so pushed ahead with it:

`Do you want our socialist fatherland to be beaten and lose its independence
`We are fifty to a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do this or they crush us.'

Stalin, The Tasks of Business Executives. Leninism, p. 200.

There were excesses but in my opinion it was necessary and indeed this was proven correct when the Nazi's invaded. If they had not been industrialised by then they would have been crushed.

[quirk]

Yes thats right communism has never existed along with everything else, its all a big hoax! Hmmmmmmmm!:hmmm:

Where has it existed?

[lambhdeargh]

Many less lives were lost in the USSR's industrialisation than the industrial revolution in countries like Britain. Show me the statistics that say millions died during the industrialisation of the Soviet Union.

The Communist Party knew that industrialisation was necessary for the very survival of the USSR and so pushed ahead with it:

`Do you want our socialist fatherland to be beaten and lose its independence
`We are fifty to a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do this or they crush us.'

Stalin, The Tasks of Business Executives. Leninism, p. 200.

There were excesses but in my opinion it was necessary and indeed this was proven correct when the Nazi's invaded. If they had not been industrialised by then they would have been crushed.

Yes you are so (ahem) right, keep up the bull and may you never have to lie in it.

[quirk]

Yes you are so (ahem) right, keep up the bull and may you never have to lie in it.

Present evidence to the contrary. You have throughout this thread asserted things repeatedly and provided not a shred of evidence. Do you suspect us just to believe it all because you say you have a history degree. Seems that that degree certainly wasn't on Soviet history.

[lambhdeargh]

Where has it existed?

Big thing, I know its difficult, but its called a encyclopedia! Try it some time.

[quirk]

Big thing, I know its difficult, but its called a dictionary! Try it some time.

Cant answer?

[lambhdeargh]

Yes your denial of recognised facts makes your argument so worthwhile.

[lambhdeargh]

Cant answer?

I would be now laughing down my sleeve, but im not that crass.

[quirk]

Communism has never existed except in its primitive form thousands of years ago. You are the one saying that it has existed since then yet refuse to say where. I am saying that it hasn't so the onus is on your to provide evidence to back your claim. So once more where has communism existed?

[Hessian Peel]

So I'm now closeminded? where have I made a statement that closes my mind to any other fact? I point out the facts and all of a sudden I am naive? Well I would rather be me than stuck up some PC ar*ehole denying the facts, not pro conglomerate facts, just facts.

You are close-minded. How many people do you believe were killed in the Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership? Can you present evidence to support your claims? Have you ever read any account of the period that wasn't written by a biased pro-capitalist historian? Saying you have a history degree doesn't make your opinion or analysis of the Soviet Union under Stalin any more valid.

[Emiliano Zapata]

Personally, I see Stalin as a bit barbaric and overbearing... too authoritarian.

I don't think Stalin knew the meaning of the word "trust". The way he switched from centre of the party to the Right and then to the Left after Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev had been dealt with shows he knew little about Marxism or loyalty for that matter.

Stalin was only concerned with coming to power and maintaining it. He cared little for Socialism or Communism and was far too nationalistic to ever be considered a true socialist. The murder and exile of many of his comrades wasn't because they were reactionary or counter-revolutionary, it was because they were a threat to the brutal totalitarianism which Stalin had set upon the USSR. He was afraid the likes of Trotsky and Bukharin might actually set Russia on the path to socialism.

[ciaranxavier]

I can't imagine talking about hilter's accomplishments. he also industrialized Germany quickly.

hilter
stalin

their probably related

well denying the things hitler did do right just as denying the things he did wrong is being naive.

[ciaranxavier]

Finally as bed does call, ask anyone from the former eastern bloc countries as to how they were treated, as I can ask many Polish and other eastern bloc emegries as how their lives were affected during their socialist experience. Mind you your synopsis would be bottom of their list, if not first amongst their complaints. If you had lived among one of the many countries sequestered during the cold war you would be lucky in the extreme to have survived with such an opinion as mine never mind yours and this from their mouths not mine. Tell ya what lets turn the clock back and you can live in Russia circa 1950 and lets see what happens! Siberia anyone!

again you fail to differentiate between communist and socialist ideals and those that built their own system around it. i cant see you being a teacher in this stuff. fidel doesnt send his prisoners to siberia so i dont get how come you cant make a relation with this any where else. what you speak of is stalinists not communists or socialists.

[ciaranxavier]

Because by calling Stalin a communist I was accused of labeling socalism theirfor if this Stalin thread is not acceptable then I will debate not go around and around as you seem to do. you seem to sound like Thomas, ma chara

im only debating it around and around because for someone who claims to be a teacher in the stuff your knowledge about it is very limited.

[lambhdeargh]

im only debating it around and around because for someone who claims to be a teacher in the stuff your knowledge about it is very limited.

I claimed to have a degree in history, not be a history teacher, there is a difference and I was drunk and tired, so whos making assumptions not me.

[ciaranxavier]

I claimed to have a degree in history, not be a history teacher, there is a difference and I was drunk and tired, so whos making assumptions not me.

an assumption or two may have been made. but nonetheless to attack socialism and communism by using stalinism is a grave mistake and only furthers to blur the line of what is socialism.

[quirk]

Personally, I see Stalin as a bit barbaric and overbearing... too authoritarian.

I don't think Stalin knew the meaning of the word "trust". The way he switched from centre of the party to the Right and then to the Left after Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev had been dealt with shows he knew little about Marxism or loyalty for that matter.

Stalin was only concerned with coming to power and maintaining it. He cared little for Socialism or Communism and was far too nationalistic to ever be considered a true socialist. The murder and exile of many of his comrades wasn't because they were reactionary or counter-revolutionary, it was because they were a threat to the brutal totalitarianism which Stalin had set upon the USSR. He was afraid the likes of Trotsky and Bukharin might actually set Russia on the path to socialism.

I think this is how Stalin has been painted by his enemies rather than how he actually was. If he was really so authoritarian then why would he have been the person pushing for the full implementation of the 1936 constitution?

We must remember that he was just a single person and at central committee meetings had a single vote just like all the other members. There is no doubting however that he had extra power which resulted from his popularity among the lower party members and the people of the USSR and it was this popularity which probably prevented the revisionists overthrowing him at an early stage. The enemies of Stalin built up a cult of personality in order to knock him down at a later stage but this was a double edged sword and meant that they had to wait until after his death to attack him as they did.

On your point about him going from the right to left this also is a misconception. He opposed Trotsky for example on the issue of collectivization yet later adopted this. This wasn't opportunism on his part but rather when Trotsky first proposed this the conditions just were not right as the civil war had just ended.

Also you seem to give to him super human powers which he did not have. He was not responsible for the excesses although he did play a part and in fact it was Stalin who put an end to the purges which had got out of hand.

[lambhdeargh]

I think this is how Stalin has been painted by his enemies rather than how he actually was. If he was really so authoritarian then why would he have been the person pushing for the full implementation of the 1936 constitution?

We must remember that he was just a single person and at central committee meetings had a single vote just like all the other members. There is no doubting however that he had extra power which resulted from his popularity among the lower party members and the people of the USSR and it was this popularity which probably prevented the revisionists overthrowing him at an early stage. The enemies of Stalin built up a cult of personality in order to knock him down at a later stage but this was a double edged sword and meant that they had to wait until after his death to attack him as they did.

On your point about him going from the right to left this also is a misconception. He opposed Trotsky for example on the issue of collectivization yet later adopted this. This wasn't opportunism on his part but rather when Trotsky first proposed this the conditions just were not right as the civil war had just ended.

Also you seem to give to him super human powers which he did not have. He was not responsible for the excesses although he did play a part and in fact it was Stalin who put an end to the purges which had got out of hand.

I think his actions prior to his death warranted enough condemnation, unfortunately the actions of Hitler and the Nazis overshadowed any condemnation and the world was futher embroiled in a Cold War to offer cold analysis. Stalin was never the hero you envisioned and his efforts pre WW11 were at best reprehensibile. To force many millions into virtual slavery to modernise a usless experiment was never going to make communism a worthwhile force (It failed). Communism was only an ideal, that had only ideas as a concept, and for the person who stated that it was thousands of years in inception, that was Communalism not Communism there is a difference. Socialism is also different to Communism it allows people a free vote whereas Communism allows the idea of a free vote.

[Hessian Peel]

I think his actions prior to his death warranted enough condemnation, unfortunately the actions of Hitler and the Nazis overshadowed any condemnation and the world was futher embroiled in a Cold War to offer cold analysis. Stalin was never the hero you envisioned and his efforts pre WW11 were at best reprehensibile. To force many millions into virtual slavery to modernise a usless experiment was never going to make communism a worthwhile force (It failed). Communism was only an ideal, that had only ideas as a concept, and for the person who stated that it was thousands of years in inception, that was Communalism not Communism there is a difference. Socialism is also different to Communism it allows people a free vote whereas Communism allows the idea of a free vote.

Socialism is a lower phase in the process of constructing Communism. It's debatable whether even Socialism has ever been established, but certainly the Soviet Union up until 1956 and China up until 1976 and (to a certain extent) Albania up until 1985 came pretty close. As for Communism; it has obviously never existed as it can only exist internationally on a world scale. No borders, no bosses and no governments. That's the ultimate goal.

[lambhdeargh]

Socialism is a lower phase in the process of constructing Communism. It's debatable whether even Socialism has ever been established, but certainly the Soviet Union up until 1956 and China up until 1976 and (to a certain extent) Albania up until 1985 came pretty close. As for Communism; it has obviously never existed as it can only exist internationally on a world scale. No borders, no bosses and no governments. That's the ultimate goal.

The socialism that you or I would claim to follow thrived and died around the 60's and any other claimant would be irrelevent. Comments on Stalin and his cronies are therefore, other. Although this other has limitations, the J.V. Stalin who you wish to R.I.P. has indulgded in mass genocide and any comment to the same would perhaps no doubt include such actions against the people, as mass migration, pogroms and the over used phrase of sectarianisim! Its nice to be polite. and please be so.

[lambhdeargh]

Socialism is a lower phase in the process of constructing Communism. It's debatable whether even Socialism has ever been established, but certainly the Soviet Union up until 1956 and China up until 1976 and (to a certain extent) Albania up until 1985 came pretty close. As for Communism; it has obviously never existed as it can only exist internationally on a world scale. No borders, no bosses and no governments. That's the ultimate goal.

No matter which way you look at it communism has existed, has it existed in your ideal is the question?

[Emiliano Zapata]

The socialism that you or I would claim to follow thrived and died around the 60's and any other claimant would be irrelevent. Comments on Stalin and his cronies are therefore, other. Although this other has limitations, the J.V. Stalin who you wish to R.I.P. has indulgded in mass genocide and any comment to the same would perhaps no doubt include such actions against the people, as mass migration, pogroms and the over used phrase of sectarianisim! Its nice to be polite. and please be so.

I am no fan of Stalin but he did not "indulge in mass genocide" and I highly doubt that mass deportations of ethnic groups occurred in the massiveness described by many historians. By the time of the German invasion, there was just under four to six million people in the Gulag, and a majority were were common criminals, kulaks, and bandits. The Chechens was an ethnic group that existed by the millions under the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, so the proposition that 'he sent them all to the Gulag' is ridiculous. They were one of the national minorities that benefited the most from the Bolshevik policy towards oppressed peoples within their borders.

Stalin did some good and some very bad things, during his years as General Secretary, agricultural production was raised between 13.1 billion rubles to 23.2 billion, industrial production increased by 16.2%, literacy jumped up dramatically, the infant mortality rate dropped, and the overall standard of living became higher than most other advanced capitalist countries.

He did, however, act maliciously towards his foes, and was not afraid to use force to bend the Party to his will. It is also obvious that he carried out collectivization too fast, and broke the worker-peasant alliance that was essential to carrying on socialist objectives in the countryside.

[Emiliano Zapata]

No matter which way you look at it communism has existed.

It has never existed. Do you know what communism is comrade?

[Hessian Peel]

No matter which way you look at it communism has existed, has it existed in your ideal is the question?

No, it doesn't matter which way you look at it. Communism has never existed.

[Hessian Peel]

The socialism that you or I would claim to follow thrived and died around the 60's and any other claimant would be irrelevent. Comments on Stalin and his cronies are therefore, other. Although this other has limitations, the J.V. Stalin who you wish to R.I.P. has indulgded in mass genocide and any comment to the same would perhaps no doubt include such actions against the people, as mass migration, pogroms and the over used phrase of sectarianisim! Its nice to be polite. and please be so.

What mass genocide? Do you have evidence to support your claims?

There are many genuine criticisms one could have of Stalin and his leadership, so why the need to regurgitate far right, pro-capitalist and anti-Communist propaganda? Because that's what the agenda behind these ridiculous claims is: anti-Communism. It has nothing to do with Stalin. If Lenin had lived on or someone else (such as Trotsky) had taken the reigns of power, they too would have (in my opinion) faced a similar smear campaign, even more likely if they were more successful in the application of Marxism-Leninism.

[Emiliano Zapata]

I think this is how Stalin has been painted by his enemies rather than how he actually was. If he was really so authoritarian then why would he have been the person pushing for the full implementation of the 1936 constitution?

We must remember that he was just a single person and at central committee meetings had a single vote just like all the other members. There is no doubting however that he had extra power which resulted from his popularity among the lower party members and the people of the USSR and it was this popularity which probably prevented the revisionists overthrowing him at an early stage. The enemies of Stalin built up a cult of personality in order to knock him down at a later stage but this was a double edged sword and meant that they had to wait until after his death to attack him as they did.

On your point about him going from the right to left this also is a misconception. He opposed Trotsky for example on the issue of collectivization yet later adopted this. This wasn't opportunism on his part but rather when Trotsky first proposed this the conditions just were not right as the civil war had just ended.

Also you seem to give to him super human powers which he did not have. He was not responsible for the excesses although he did play a part and in fact it was Stalin who put an end to the purges which had got out of hand.

It seems to me there are two ways to answer the question on Stalin:

1. Stalin was so awful that, if that is socialism....you dont want it !

2. Stalin's approach didnt work

I dont take the former view. If building a socialist society necessarily involves the decimation of the ranks of the revolutionary party and the (temporary) terrorisation of the whole population, if it requires slave labour, the frustration of foreign revolutionary movements, systematic lies and corruption well then bring it on...IF IT WORKS.

I take the second view. His approach did not and could not work. Stalin fundamentally misunderstood how a revolution needed to be built. His industrialization policy was not stolen from the Left Opposition, it was radically different from their program because it was based on forced expropriations and forced labour. It involved the destruction of the revolutionary party, the revolutionary State and the Revolutionary International and the replacement of the party by bureaucratic yes-men, the replacement of the revolutionary State by machine incapable of democracy in any form and comfortable only with the use of force and the replacement of the international by reformist parties around the world which were mere tools of soviet foreign policy.

It took a long time for what Stalin built to fall....but it was always going to fall. What he built was incapable of organising revolutions or of builidng participative planned economies.

Stalin gutted the international and Russian revolutionary movement created by the Russian Revolution to keep the USSR in place. Only the military victory in WW II delayed the fall of the USSR and made it unclear how chaotic and self-defeating this was...but in the end restoration happened and the whole cause of socialism was set back almost to where it had been in 1850, but now discredited as well as weak.

So I repeat: Stalin was a representative of the bureaucratic state bourgeoisie which had risen in Russia, a representative of the bourgeoisie who took back the political power from the proletariat and restored capitalism. Stalin was a counter-revolutionary and an imperialist. Stalin was not a product of the revolution: he was the gravedigger of the revolution.

[Hessian Peel]

So I repeat: Stalin was a representative of the bureaucratic state bourgeoisie which had risen in Russia, a representative of the bourgeoisie who took back the political power from the proletariat and restored capitalism. Stalin was a counter-revolutionary and an imperialist. Stalin was not a product of the revolution: he was the gravedigger of the revolution.

How do you account for his attempts to democratise the Soviet Union then?

[quirk]

I think his actions prior to his death warranted enough condemnation, unfortunately the actions of Hitler and the Nazis overshadowed any condemnation and the world was futher embroiled in a Cold War to offer cold analysis. Stalin was never the hero you envisioned and his efforts pre WW11 were at best reprehensibile. To force many millions into virtual slavery to modernise a usless experiment was never going to make communism a worthwhile force (It failed).

The was many problems with Stalin and the USSR during this period but until we move beyond all the propaganda we will never be able to make an objective assessment. To try to come to some kind of understanding here however you are going to have to point to particular issues rather than making a general sweep and concluding he was "bad".

You talk about the cold war but your analysis of the effect it has on our view of Stalin is inverted. It is cold war "history" which gives us the view of Stalin and the USSR which is still commonly held by the majority of people. This "history" started out with a particular world view and conveniently fitted the facts around it. It relied on opinion and propaganda rather than research and honesty.

Lets examine the issues of which you talk but first detail exactly what you are talking about as it is unclear. Where and when was millions of people forced into slavery? Where is your evidence to support this? If this did happen was its purpose to modernise a "usless experiment"? Again what are your sources?

Finally beside dealing with particular issues if we are to attribute blame to Stalin for everything that did happen (both positive and negative) we would have to be certain that he was indeed in total control. I don't think that this was the case and the Soviet archives support my view. You seem to differ however so again what do you base your opinion on? Can you provide evidence?

Let us try to put emotions and gut reactions to the side and really look into this as it is an important subject.

Communism was only an ideal, that had only ideas as a concept, and for the person who stated that it was thousands of years in inception, that was Communalism not Communism there is a difference. Socialism is also different to Communism it allows people a free vote whereas Communism allows the idea of a free vote.

You say communism was only an ideal yet at the same time you are saying that communism actually existed. Do you not see the contradiction here?

I really think you completely misunderstand what communism is so to move this debate forward could you give a short definition.

[quirk]

The socialism that you or I would claim to follow thrived and died around the 60's and any other claimant would be irrelevent. Comments on Stalin and his cronies are therefore, other. Although this other has limitations, the J.V. Stalin who you wish to R.I.P. has indulgded in mass genocide and any comment to the same would perhaps no doubt include such actions against the people, as mass migration, pogroms and the over used phrase of sectarianisim! Its nice to be polite. and please be so.

Where? When? Sources?

[quirk]

An Address to the Sarat Academy in London

on 30 April 1999

by Bill Bland.

I am grateful to the Sarat Academy for inviting me to speak to you on 'Stalinism'.

However, your choice of subject presented me with some difficulty, since I am a great admirer of Stalin and the word 'Stalinism' was introduced by concealed opponents of Stalin - in particular by Nikita Khrushchev - in preparation for later political attacks upon him.

Today, in fact, 'Stalinism' has become a meaningless term of abuse employed to denote political views with which one disagrees. The Conservative press sometimes even describes Tony Blair as a 'Stalinist' -- giving Stalin, were he still alive, ample grounds for a libel action!

Stalin always referred to himself modestly as 'a pupil of Lenin' and I shall follow his example and interpret the subject of 'Stalinism' as 'Marxism-Leninism.

Perhaps the nearest figure to Stalin in British history is Richard the Third, whom everybody 'knows' - and I put the word 'knows' in inverted commas - from their school history books and Shakespeare to have been a cruel, deformed monster who murdered the little princes in the Tower.

It is only comparatively recently that serious historians have begun to realise that the commonly accepted portrayal of Richard was drawn by his Tudor successors, who had seized the throne from him and killed him.

Naturally, they then proceeded to rewrite the chronicles to justify their usurpation of the throne - even altering his portraits to present him as physically deformed, as a physical as well as a moral monster. In other words, the picture of Richard which has become generally accepted today was the result not of historical truth, but of the propaganda of his political opponents.

It is, therefore, legitimate to ask: is the picture of Stalin presented to us by so-called 'Kremlinologists' historical fact or mere propaganda?

The 'Union of Socialist Soviet Republics' (the Soviet Union), which was constructed under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, no longer exists. Is it therefore true to say - as many people do - that this means that socialism in the Soviet Union failed?

I intend to quote here only one set of statistics. Tn his report to the 17th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in January 1939, Stalin cited figures from Western sources on the growth of industrial output in various countries as compared with 1913. These figures were:

Germany: —24.6%
Britain: —14.8%
USA: +10.2%
USSR: +291.9%

Indeed, it is an undisputed fact under the centrally planned economy instituted under Stalin, Russia was transformed in a few decades from a backward agrarian country into an advanced industrial country which by 1941— 45 had become powerful enough to defeat a German aggression able to draw upon the resources of the whole of Western Europe.

It is common to hear Stalin described as a 'dictator'.

The strongly anti-Soviet American writer Eugene Lyons once asked Stalin directly: 'Are you a dictator?' Lyons goes on (and I quote:)

'Stalin smiled, implying that the question was on the preposterous side.

"No", he said slowly, "I am no dictator. Those who use the word do not understand the Soviet system of government and the methods of the Communist Party. No one man or group of men can dictate. Decisions are made by the Party". '

The British Fabian economists Sidney and Beatrice Webb, in their comprehensive book 'Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation' categorically reject the notion of Stalin as a dictator. They say (and I quote):

"Stalin . . . has not even the extensive power . . . which the American Constitution entrusts for four years to every successive president. .

The Communist Party in the USSR has adopted its own organisation.

In this pattern individual dictatorship has no place. Personal decisions are distrusted and elaborately guarded against",

Certainly, in the time of Lenin and Stalin the Soviet regime was officially described as one of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. But this does not imply personal dictatorship. It means simply that political power is in the hands of working people, and that political activity aimed at taking political power away from the working people is illegal.

Of course, this latter is regarded in official circles in London and Washington as 'undemocratic' and 'a grave violation of human rights'

But the word 'democracy' means 'the rule of the common people', and in this sense- the Soviet -Union in Stalin's time was infinitely more democratic than any Western country.

As for 'human rights', the United Nations Human Rights Convention of 1966 lays down that states should guarantee to their citizens the 'right to work'.

But only in a socialist society can this right be put into effect, can unemployment be abolished (as it was in the Soviet Union in Stalin's time). A capitalist society requires what Marx called 'a reserve army of labour ' so that it can make labour readily available in times of boom.

Thus, for a socialist country to ban political activity aimed at the restoration of capitalism is fully in accord with the UN Convention on Human Rights.

In fact, talk about human rights is in most cases merely a propaganda weapon directed against socialism. In the eyes of Lombard Street and Wall Street, a corrupt central American 'banana republic' which sends out nightly death squads to murder homeless children in order to keep the streets tidy for the tourist trade counts as a 'free country' as long as it allows freedom of investment.

The Soviet traitors to socialism opened their attack upon socialism in 1956 at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party in February 1956 by charging Stalin with organising a 'cult of personality' around himself.

Certainly, there was a cult of Stalin's personality in the Soviet Union in the time of Stalin. But this was organised not by Stalin, but against his wishes. In fact, Stalin himself opposed and ridiculed this cult.

For example, when in February 1938 someone wanted to publish a book entitled 'Stories of the Childhood of Stalin', Stalin wrote typically:

"I am absolutely against the publication of 'Stories of the Childhood of Stalin'.

The book abounds with a mass of inexactitudes of fact, . . . of exaggerations and of unmerited praise. .

But… the important thing resides in the tendency to engrave on the minds of Soviet children (and people in general) the personality cult of leaders, of infallible heroes. This is dangerous and detrimental…I suggest we burn this book".

There was indeed a 'cult of personality' around Stalin. A leading communist cried at the 18th Congress of the Party in March 1939:

"The Ukrainian people proclaim with all their heart and soul, 'Long live our beloved Stalin!' .

Long live the towering genius of all humanity, . . . our beloved Comrade Stalin!"

The speaker was Nikita Khrushchev!

It was Khrushchev too who coined the term 'Stalinism' and began to call Stalin 'Vozhd" - the Russian equivalent of the German 'Fuhrer', Leader.

In other words, the 'cult of personality' around Stalin was built up not by Stalin and those who genuinely supported him, but by his political opponents as a prelude to attacking him later as a megalomaniac dictator.

Even though Stalin did not have the power to stop these alleged manifestations of 'loyalty' and 'patriotism', Stalin was no fool and was aware that their motives were, as he told the German writer Lion Feuchtwanger in 1937, 'to discredit him' at a later date.

Thus, the cult of personality around Stalin was contrary to Stalin's own wishes, and the fact that it went on demonstrates that in the last few years of his life Stalin - far from wielding dictatorial power - was in a minority within the Soviet leadership.

This explains many strange facts:

For example,

that after 1927 Stalin ceased to be active in the Communist International;

that Stalin's works, although incomplete, ceased to be published in the Soviet Union in 1949, three years before his death;

that, in breach of long-standing practice, Stalin - although General Secretary of the Party and in good health - failed to present the report at the 19th Party Congress in 1952.

Let me return to the question of the alleged 'failure of socialism'.

In an effort to prevent the building of socialism, in 1918 the new state was attacked by the armed forces of Britain, France, Poland and Japan. But despite the fact that the new Soviet state possessed at the outset neither an organised army nor experienced military men, the five-year War of Intervention ended in victory for the Soviets.

The opponents of socialism learned an important lesson from their defeat, namely, that socialism was most unlikely to be destroyed by direct offensive, but only from within, that is, by agents posing as socialists, working hard within the Communist Party so as to achieve positions of influence and then, in the name of 'modernising' socialism, using this influence to divert the Party along political lines which would undermine socialism and gradually forfeit the support of working people for the Party.

It is a programme which Marxists call revisionism, because while revising Marxism in significantly harmful ways, it claims to be merely modernising it.

Khrushchev became leader of the Soviet Communist Party shortly after Stalin's death in 1953. But it was not until 1956, three years later, that he felt it safe openly to attack Stalin - and then only in a secret speech which was never published in the Soviet Union until many decades later.

The attack upon Stalin was a necessary prelude to an attack upon, and a change to, the programme for building socialism put forward by Stalin.

One of the charges often levelled against Stalin is that while he was General Secretary of the Party many innocent people were falsely imprisoned for counter-revolutionary criminal offences. This allegation, unlike most of the others, is true. Between 1934 and 1938 the post of People's Commissar for Internal Affairs - in charge of the security police - was held successively by Genrikh Yagoda and Nikolai Yezhov. At Yagoda's public trial in 1938, he described to the court how he had used his authority to serve the conspiracy by protecting his fellow—conspirators from arrest, but arresting loyal communists on false charges.

It was Stalin who, suspecting something was terribly wrong, got his personal secretariat under Aleksandr Poskrebyshev to investigate what was going on in the security police.

It was as a result of these investigations that Yagoda and Yezhov were dismissed and arrested, that all cases of alleged political crimes were reinvestigated and thousands of miscarriages of justice were corrected.

It was more than anything this situation which led to the production of whole libraries of books accusing Stalin of responsibility for mass murder.

With every edition of such books as Robert Conquest's 'The Great Terror', his estimate of Stalin's 'victims' went up by several million to become farcical. When, after the counter—revolution had been completed, Boris Yeltsin published official figures of Soviet prisoners, they turned out to be less than in the United States, and the world press was strangely silent.

It was to Leonid Brezhnev - who succeeded Khrushchev as Party General Secretary in 1964 - that the dishonour fell of beginning the actual dismantling of socialism. Under Brezhnev's 'economic reforms', carried out under the cloak of 'decentralisation', moves were made to replace centralised planning, which is one of the bases of socialism, by the regulation of production by the profit motive, which is one of the bases of capitalism.

From this time on, it was all downhill.

What was abolished, along with the Soviet Union, in 1991 virtually without opposition, was not socialism, but a particularly corrupt and undemocratic form of capitalism.

Today, thanks to phoney communists like Khrushchev, Breznhnev and Gorbachev, the once united Soviet Union has split into a number of rival principalities, often at war with each other in spite of being bankrupt.

But, we are told, the people of the former Soviet Union are now 'free'.

free to be unemployed; if they are lucky enough to have a job, free to go months without wages because their employer's bank has gone into liquidation;

free to buy Rolls-Royce cars if they happen to be Mafia millionaires;

free to drink polluted water;

free to be mugged in any side street for the equivalent of a few pennies.

It should be no surprise that in Russian newsreels today we see demonstrators carrying portraits of Stalin! For to the demonstrators the picture of Stalin symbolises the socialism of which they have, temporarily, been deprived.

If, therefore, people call me a 'Stalinist' - as they sometimes do - I regard this as a compliment, even though an undeserved one.

I honour Stalin as a great progressive figure who struggled all his life for the ending of the capitalist and imperialist system which is the cause each year of the misery and death of countless millions of men, women and children, especially in the neo-colonial world.

I honour Stalin as one who struggled all his life for the greatest cause in the world - the liberation of mankind.


http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html?http%3A//www.oneparty.co.uk/html/stalin.html

[East Tyrone]

I honour Stalin as one who struggled all his life for the greatest cause in the world - the liberation of mankind.
The 18 million people who passed through the Gulags and the lead mines at Kolyma would beg to differ.

[Emiliano Zapata]

The 18 million people who passed through the Gulags and the lead mines at Kolyma would beg to differ.

18 million is an exaggeration, but yeah he was a piece of sh1t.

[quirk]

The number of people imprisoned at any time in the USSR during the life of Stalin never exceeded the number in prison in the USA today (per head of population), including during World War 2 when the USSR was engaged in a life and death struggle.

The following graphs from the American Historical Review show the number imprisoned at any one time:

http://www.uwm.edu/Course/448-343/372d7796.jpg

http://www.uwm.edu/Course/448-343/372dca5c.jpg

The following few paragraphs by Mario Sousa are also important as when we are told of the Gulag in the media it is usually a picture of a freezing cold labour camp. But there was in fact only 53 labour camps not the thousands we are made believe:

After 1930 the Soviet penal system included prisons, labour camps, the labour colonies of the gulag, special open zones and obligation to pay fines. Whoever was remanded into custody was generally sent to a normal prison while investigations took place to establish whether he might be innocent, and could thus be set free, or whether he should go on trial. An accused person on trial could either be found innocent (and set free) or guilty. If found guilty he could be sentenced to pay a fine, to a term of imprisonment or, more unusually, to face execution. A fine could be a given percentage of his wages for a given period of time. Those sentenced to prison terms could be put in different kinds of prison depending on the type of offence involved.

To the gulag labour camps were sent those who had committed serious offences (homicide, robbery, rape, economic crimes, etc.) as well as a large proportion of those convicted of counter-revolutionary activities. Other criminals sentenced to terms longer than 3 years could also be sent to labour camps. After spending some time in a labour camp, a prisoner might be moved to a labour colony or to a special open zone.

The labour camps were very large areas where the prisoners lived and worked under close supervision. For them to work and not to be a burden on society was obviously necessary. No healthy person got by without working. It is possible that these days people may think this was a terrible thing, but this is the way it was. The number of labour camps in existence in 1940 was 53.

There were 425 gulag labour colonies. These were much smaller units than the labour camps, with a freer regime and less supervision. To these were sent prisoners with shorter prison terms - people who had committed less serious criminal or political offences. They worked in freedom in factories or on the land and formed part of civil society. In most cases the whole of the wages earned from his labour belonged to the prisoner, who in this respect was treated the same as any other worker.

The special open zones were generally agricultural areas for those who had been exiled, such as the kulaks who had been expropriated during collectivisation. Other people found guilty of minor criminal or political offences might also serve their terms in these areas.
http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/lies.html

[East Tyrone]

Quirk
At the height of the Stalinist regime there were 476 Gulag camps. You constantly speak of proof in regard to the crimes of Stalin. Perhaps you should visit Levashovo forest on the outskirts of St Petersburgh; there is a mass grave containing over 20,000 victims of the 1930's purges there.

[East Tyrone]

18 million is an exaggeration, but yeah he was a piece of sh1t.

18 million is a figure collated from the actual Gulag records, it is total prisoners who passed through the system during the Stalin era. If those who passed through the gulags are added to those exiled then about 15% of the soviet population suffered some type of penal servitude under Stalin.

[quirk]

18 Million would seem to agree with the graphs I provided which are from the same records. However if you look closely the figure must be much lower as the records gave the number in the camps and colonies each year. If a person therefore was in for 5 years he would have been counted 5 times.

In relation t the number of camps you have to take into account that there was camps and colonies which made up the GULAG. Your figure takes into account both and this is taken from the same records you use to get 18 million.

[East Tyrone]

18 Million would seem to agree with the graphs I provided which are from the same records. However if you look closely the figure must be much lower as the records gave the number in the camps and colonies each year. If a person therefore was in for 5 years he would have been counted 5 times.

In relation t the number of camps you have to take into account that there was camps and colonies which made up the GULAG. Your figure takes into account both and this is taken from the same records you use to get 18 million.

Consider 140 mile Belomor Canal built to link the Baltic and White seas between sept 1931 and aug 1933. Up to 180,000 gulag inmates, mostly from Solovetsky labored to dig it by hand. It is believed that up to 40% of them died in the process of building a canal that was too narrow to be economically viable.
When Stalin opened the Moscow-Volga canal the project director made a speech. He was taken away and shot immeadietly on Stalin's orders. Over 200 other managers on the same project were shot for delays in production.

[OCoinnigh]

18 Million would seem to agree with the graphs I provided which are from the same records. However if you look closely the figure must be much lower as the records gave the number in the camps and colonies each year. If a person therefore was in for 5 years he would have been counted 5 times.

In relation t the number of camps you have to take into account that there was camps and colonies which made up the GULAG. Your figure takes into account both and this is taken from the same records you use to get 18 million.

you sound ridiculous
You really need to go to Russia

[quirk]

you sound ridiculous
You really need to go to Russia

Whats ridiculous about what I said?

[ciaranxavier]

you sound ridiculous
You really need to go to Russia

how is seeing russia now going to help show him stalinist rule? you are the one who sounds ridiculous.

[OCoinnigh]

how is seeing russia now going to help show him stalinist rule? you are the one who sounds ridiculous.

how about this

if you go to Ireland now, there are many different ways that you can tell that we were once an English colony.

My point is that Stalin and his fascist/communist/socialist regime ruined Russia's government, economy and so many other things you can still see it today.

Just shut up. you've never been there.

[OCoinnigh]

18 Million would seem to agree with the graphs I provided which are from the same records. However if you look closely the figure must be much lower as the records gave the number in the camps and colonies each year. If a person therefore was in for 5 years he would have been counted 5 times.

In relation t the number of camps you have to take into account that there was camps and colonies which made up the GULAG. Your figure takes into account both and this is taken from the same records you use to get 18 million.

I just meant that whether 1000 people or 20 million people were murdered by Stalin's government sounds silly. It was too many either way.

Socialism would be great if men were honest, but their not.

[larkin32]

Even if allegations of cruelty and suppression towards ethnic groups under Stalin are historically inaccurate; even if those tens of millions of real people were nothing but actual 'war casualties' or 'fabricated statistics', this does not discredit the fact that over a million of political partisans of the October Revolution were unmercifully slaughtered - that economists, trade unionists, agitators, writers, teachers, workers, and intellectuals; from all different ages and cultural backgrounds, met their death through lies, forced confessions, fire squads, and deportations. This does not separate us from the fact that he killed the revolution.

Also if you want to read a good book about Stalin I suggest The Revolution Betrayed.
:eusa_clap:...

[Emiliano Zapata]

how about this

if you go to Ireland now, there are many different ways that you can tell that we were once an English colony.

My point is that Stalin and his fascist/communist/socialist regime ruined Russia's government, economy and so many other things you can still see it today.

Just shut up. you've never been there.

The Soviet Union had immense population and economic growth under Stalin.

[Hessian Peel]

Socialism would be great if men were honest, but their not.

Ah the classic cop out.

So I guess you're content to stick with capitalism then?

A socio-economic structure that truly brings out the best in our species.

[ciaranxavier]

how about this

if you go to Ireland now, there are many different ways that you can tell that we were once an English colony.

My point is that Stalin and his fascist/communist/socialist regime ruined Russia's government, economy and so many other things you can still see it today.

Just shut up. you've never been there.

maybe i have been there so what now? how do you know so much about me? anyways i think blaming all that on stalin is a bad choice to make. and i doubt going to russia would be where id see his mistakes id have to go to eastern europe where he actually made most his mistakes.and he rapidly revolutionized his country so to say he ruined russias economy as some have already said is a lie as well.

[OCoinnigh]

maybe i have been there so what now? how do you know so much about me? anyways i think blaming all that on stalin is a bad choice to make. and i doubt going to russia would be where id see his mistakes id have to go to eastern europe where he actually made most his mistakes.and he rapidly revolutionized his country so to say he ruined russias economy as some have already said is a lie as well.

i don't think you have

[ciaranxavier]

i don't think you have

i havent but before you make it a statement you should at least ask and find out.

[larkin32]

was watching a program otherday bout marxists in hong kong opposed to beijing and its so called communism

[Red Revolutionary]

An Address to the Sarat Academy in London

on 30 April 1999

by Bill Bland.

I am grateful to the Sarat Academy for inviting me to speak to you on 'Stalinism'.

However, your choice of subject presented me with some difficulty, since I am a great admirer of Stalin and the word 'Stalinism' was introduced by concealed opponents of Stalin - in particular by Nikita Khrushchev - in preparation for later political attacks upon him.

Today, in fact, 'Stalinism' has become a meaningless term of abuse employed to denote political views with which one disagrees. The Conservative press sometimes even describes Tony Blair as a 'Stalinist' -- giving Stalin, were he still alive, ample grounds for a libel action!

Stalin always referred to himself modestly as 'a pupil of Lenin' and I shall follow his example and interpret the subject of 'Stalinism' as 'Marxism-Leninism.

Perhaps the nearest figure to Stalin in British history is Richard the Third, whom everybody 'knows' - and I put the word 'knows' in inverted commas - from their school history books and Shakespeare to have been a cruel, deformed monster who murdered the little princes in the Tower.

It is only comparatively recently that serious historians have begun to realise that the commonly accepted portrayal of Richard was drawn by his Tudor successors, who had seized the throne from him and killed him.

Naturally, they then proceeded to rewrite the chronicles to justify their usurpation of the throne - even altering his portraits to present him as physically deformed, as a physical as well as a moral monster. In other words, the picture of Richard which has become generally accepted today was the result not of historical truth, but of the propaganda of his political opponents.

It is, therefore, legitimate to ask: is the picture of Stalin presented to us by so-called 'Kremlinologists' historical fact or mere propaganda?

The 'Union of Socialist Soviet Republics' (the Soviet Union), which was constructed under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, no longer exists. Is it therefore true to say - as many people do - that this means that socialism in the Soviet Union failed?

I intend to quote here only one set of statistics. Tn his report to the 17th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in January 1939, Stalin cited figures from Western sources on the growth of industrial output in various countries as compared with 1913. These figures were:

Germany: —24.6%
Britain: —14.8%
USA: +10.2%
USSR: +291.9%

Indeed, it is an undisputed fact under the centrally planned economy instituted under Stalin, Russia was transformed in a few decades from a backward agrarian country into an advanced industrial country which by 1941— 45 had become powerful enough to defeat a German aggression able to draw upon the resources of the whole of Western Europe.

It is common to hear Stalin described as a 'dictator'.

The strongly anti-Soviet American writer Eugene Lyons once asked Stalin directly: 'Are you a dictator?' Lyons goes on (and I quote:)

'Stalin smiled, implying that the question was on the preposterous side.

"No", he said slowly, "I am no dictator. Those who use the word do not understand the Soviet system of government and the methods of the Communist Party. No one man or group of men can dictate. Decisions are made by the Party". '

The British Fabian economists Sidney and Beatrice Webb, in their comprehensive book 'Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation' categorically reject the notion of Stalin as a dictator. They say (and I quote):

"Stalin . . . has not even the extensive power . . . which the American Constitution entrusts for four years to every successive president. .

The Communist Party in the USSR has adopted its own organisation.

In this pattern individual dictatorship has no place. Personal decisions are distrusted and elaborately guarded against",

Certainly, in the time of Lenin and Stalin the Soviet regime was officially described as one of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. But this does not imply personal dictatorship. It means simply that political power is in the hands of working people, and that political activity aimed at taking political power away from the working people is illegal.

Of course, this latter is regarded in official circles in London and Washington as 'undemocratic' and 'a grave violation of human rights'

But the word 'democracy' means 'the rule of the common people', and in this sense- the Soviet -Union in Stalin's time was infinitely more democratic than any Western country.

As for 'human rights', the United Nations Human Rights Convention of 1966 lays down that states should guarantee to their citizens the 'right to work'.

But only in a socialist society can this right be put into effect, can unemployment be abolished (as it was in the Soviet Union in Stalin's time). A capitalist society requires what Marx called 'a reserve army of labour ' so that it can make labour readily available in times of boom.

Thus, for a socialist country to ban political activity aimed at the restoration of capitalism is fully in accord with the UN Convention on Human Rights.

In fact, talk about human rights is in most cases merely a propaganda weapon directed against socialism. In the eyes of Lombard Street and Wall Street, a corrupt central American 'banana republic' which sends out nightly death squads to murder homeless children in order to keep the streets tidy for the tourist trade counts as a 'free country' as long as it allows freedom of investment.

The Soviet traitors to socialism opened their attack upon socialism in 1956 at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party in February 1956 by charging Stalin with organising a 'cult of personality' around himself.

Certainly, there was a cult of Stalin's personality in the Soviet Union in the time of Stalin. But this was organised not by Stalin, but against his wishes. In fact, Stalin himself opposed and ridiculed this cult.

For example, when in February 1938 someone wanted to publish a book entitled 'Stories of the Childhood of Stalin', Stalin wrote typically:

"I am absolutely against the publication of 'Stories of the Childhood of Stalin'.

The book abounds with a mass of inexactitudes of fact, . . . of exaggerations and of unmerited praise. .

But… the important thing resides in the tendency to engrave on the minds of Soviet children (and people in general) the personality cult of leaders, of infallible heroes. This is dangerous and detrimental…I suggest we burn this book".

There was indeed a 'cult of personality' around Stalin. A leading communist cried at the 18th Congress of the Party in March 1939:

"The Ukrainian people proclaim with all their heart and soul, 'Long live our beloved Stalin!' .

Long live the towering genius of all humanity, . . . our beloved Comrade Stalin!"

The speaker was Nikita Khrushchev!

It was Khrushchev too who coined the term 'Stalinism' and began to call Stalin 'Vozhd" - the Russian equivalent of the German 'Fuhrer', Leader.

In other words, the 'cult of personality' around Stalin was built up not by Stalin and those who genuinely supported him, but by his political opponents as a prelude to attacking him later as a megalomaniac dictator.

Even though Stalin did not have the power to stop these alleged manifestations of 'loyalty' and 'patriotism', Stalin was no fool and was aware that their motives were, as he told the German writer Lion Feuchtwanger in 1937, 'to discredit him' at a later date.

Thus, the cult of personality around Stalin was contrary to Stalin's own wishes, and the fact that it went on demonstrates that in the last few years of his life Stalin - far from wielding dictatorial power - was in a minority within the Soviet leadership.

This explains many strange facts:

For example,

that after 1927 Stalin ceased to be active in the Communist International;

that Stalin's works, although incomplete, ceased to be published in the Soviet Union in 1949, three years before his death;

that, in breach of long-standing practice, Stalin - although General Secretary of the Party and in good health - failed to present the report at the 19th Party Congress in 1952.

Let me return to the question of the alleged 'failure of socialism'.

In an effort to prevent the building of socialism, in 1918 the new state was attacked by the armed forces of Britain, France, Poland and Japan. But despite the fact that the new Soviet state possessed at the outset neither an organised army nor experienced military men, the five-year War of Intervention ended in victory for the Soviets.

The opponents of socialism learned an important lesson from their defeat, namely, that socialism was most unlikely to be destroyed by direct offensive, but only from within, that is, by agents posing as socialists, working hard within the Communist Party so as to achieve positions of influence and then, in the name of 'modernising' socialism, using this influence to divert the Party along political lines which would undermine socialism and gradually forfeit the support of working people for the Party.

It is a programme which Marxists call revisionism, because while revising Marxism in significantly harmful ways, it claims to be merely modernising it.

Khrushchev became leader of the Soviet Communist Party shortly after Stalin's death in 1953. But it was not until 1956, three years later, that he felt it safe openly to attack Stalin - and then only in a secret speech which was never published in the Soviet Union until many decades later.

The attack upon Stalin was a necessary prelude to an attack upon, and a change to, the programme for building socialism put forward by Stalin.

One of the charges often levelled against Stalin is that while he was General Secretary of the Party many innocent people were falsely imprisoned for counter-revolutionary criminal offences. This allegation, unlike most of the others, is true. Between 1934 and 1938 the post of People's Commissar for Internal Affairs - in charge of the security police - was held successively by Genrikh Yagoda and Nikolai Yezhov. At Yagoda's public trial in 1938, he described to the court how he had used his authority to serve the conspiracy by protecting his fellow—conspirators from arrest, but arresting loyal communists on false charges.

It was Stalin who, suspecting something was terribly wrong, got his personal secretariat under Aleksandr Poskrebyshev to investigate what was going on in the security police.

It was as a result of these investigations that Yagoda and Yezhov were dismissed and arrested, that all cases of alleged political crimes were reinvestigated and thousands of miscarriages of justice were corrected.

It was more than anything this situation which led to the production of whole libraries of books accusing Stalin of responsibility for mass murder.

With every edition of such books as Robert Conquest's 'The Great Terror', his estimate of Stalin's 'victims' went up by several million to become farcical. When, after the counter—revolution had been completed, Boris Yeltsin published official figures of Soviet prisoners, they turned out to be less than in the United States, and the world press was strangely silent.

It was to Leonid Brezhnev - who succeeded Khrushchev as Party General Secretary in 1964 - that the dishonour fell of beginning the actual dismantling of socialism. Under Brezhnev's 'economic reforms', carried out under the cloak of 'decentralisation', moves were made to replace centralised planning, which is one of the bases of socialism, by the regulation of production by the profit motive, which is one of the bases of capitalism.

From this time on, it was all downhill.

What was abolished, along with the Soviet Union, in 1991 virtually without opposition, was not socialism, but a particularly corrupt and undemocratic form of capitalism.

Today, thanks to phoney communists like Khrushchev, Breznhnev and Gorbachev, the once united Soviet Union has split into a number of rival principalities, often at war with each other in spite of being bankrupt.

But, we are told, the people of the former Soviet Union are now 'free'.

free to be unemployed; if they are lucky enough to have a job, free to go months without wages because their employer's bank has gone into liquidation;

free to buy Rolls-Royce cars if they happen to be Mafia millionaires;

free to drink polluted water;

free to be mugged in any side street for the equivalent of a few pennies.

It should be no surprise that in Russian newsreels today we see demonstrators carrying portraits of Stalin! For to the demonstrators the picture of Stalin symbolises the socialism of which they have, temporarily, been deprived.

If, therefore, people call me a 'Stalinist' - as they sometimes do - I regard this as a compliment, even though an undeserved one.

I honour Stalin as a great progressive figure who struggled all his life for the ending of the capitalist and imperialist system which is the cause each year of the misery and death of countless millions of men, women and children, especially in the neo-colonial world.

I honour Stalin as one who struggled all his life for the greatest cause in the world - the liberation of mankind.


http://www.oneparty.co.uk/index.html?http%3A//www.oneparty.co.uk/html/stalin.html

Great read, cheers Quirk :eusa_clap:

[larkin32]

yeh..

[lambhdeargh]

It has never existed. Do you know what communism is comrade?

Communism is the theory of goverment that assumes control of all property and means of production also pertaining to Marxism. Now since the ruling elite since the so called Glorious October Revolution called themselved Communists, we can safely presume Communism existed. How many people did stalin kill? Well the numbers are debatable, even a low estimate is in the millions so therefor the answer is an unnacceptable amount. Did Stalin kill them? Not nessessarily so, but did Hitler personally kill his millions? Either way they were both the same in that respect. Were Russians enslaved? Well if you were forced to build roads dams etc through force and not free will and the only payment was minimal food, well we can safely call this slavery, especially when refusal meant certain death. Finally did Communists commit genocide? Well the Don Cossacks seem to think so as out of 1 million, 400 thousand were killed by the ruling Communist elite and their henchmen. Is Capitalism any better? Not really, but it is better than this vision of equality.

[smashthestate]

Communism is the theory of goverment that assumes control of all property and means of production also pertaining to Marxism.

Communism is the expropriation of the means of production by the workers, creating a classless society under their own control.

It has never happened. A marxist-leninist idea of transition to communism has failed every time as the revolutions degenerated into state-capitalist bureaucracy. The emancipation of the proletariat is the work of the proletariat - not the vanguard party.

You don't know what communism is, embarrassing.


Now since the ruling elite since the so called Glorious October Revolution called themselved Communists, we can safely presume Communism existed.

But even lenin/stalin/trotsky all said that their society was moving towards communism and not communist. The wage-labour relationship and private property still existed thus the society was state-capitalist.

If I look like a