Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Stalin - A mass murder?

POST REPLY
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 21 Mar 2012, 03:22
I've already talked about this subject in other topics but i want to expose it with much more relevance in order to see if someone can give me a valid and coherent explanation about the truth of the numbers surrounding Stalin's legacy. As you all know Stalin is accused of the murder of more than 20 million people (some of these figures reach 50 M and even 100 M) and i always accepted these numbers since everybody was unanimous around it. However, some time ago i started to make my own research and went directly to the demographic statistics of the time.

For my surprise, the demographic figures showed me that the number of deaths in USSR during the "Great Terror" (1934-39) was actually much more lower than the period before Stalin came into power (1924-1928). Obviously, the death rate was lower as well and stabilized during 1935-39. If the numbers are lower than the previous years how the mass murders fit in? We don't see any substantial increase in any year, except during the famine of 1933. Here are some of those statistics:

Deaths in USSR (M)


1927 4.0
1928 3.9
1929 4.1
1930 4.3
1931 4.5
1932 4.8
1933 11.5
1934 3.4
1935 3.3
1936 3.2
1937 3.6
1938 3.5
1939 3.8

Source: E. Andreev, L. Darsky & T. Khar'kova, 'Opyt otsenki chislennosti naseleniya SSSR. 1926-1941 gg

Deaths in Russia (M)

1927 2,705,000
1928 2,589,000
1929 2,819,000
1930 2,738,000
1931 3,090,000
1932 3,077,000
1933 5,239,000
1934 2,659,000
1935 2,421,000
1936 2,719,000
1937 2,760,000
1938 2,739,000
1939 2,600,000

Source: E.Andreev, L.Darski, T. Kharkova "Histoire démographique de la Russie. 1927–1959"

Deaths in Ukraine

1924 485.0
1925 531.8
1926 518.7
1927 522.6
1928 495.7
1929 538.7
1930 578.1
1931 514.7
1932 668.2
1933 2104.0
1934 462.0
1935 341.9
1936 359.5
1937 428.4
1938 430.8
1939 412.6

Source: A New Estimate of Ukrainian Population Losses during the Crises of the 1930s and 1940s, Jacques Vallin, France Meslé, Serguei Adamets and Serhii Pyrozhkov
Population Studies
Vol. 56, No. 3 (Nov., 2002), pp. 249-264



As we are able to see there is no evidence of mass murdering according to the real numbers and we cannot doubt about the impartiality of the sources. Two different sources, none of them connected to any kind of communist organization or sympathy.

I am mentioning these numbers for a long time in internet forums and other cyberspaces and no one has been able to counter the numbers yet or give me some reasonable explanation. Can someone here come up with some idea or we are seeing a major political fraud of history?
Unless, of course, that Stalin was committing mass murders since 1924...
Last edited by JAM on 21 Mar 2012, 06:35, edited 4 times in total.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 21 Mar 2012, 03:38
JAM wrote:
Deaths
Males Females Total
1924 252.1 232.9 485.0
1925 277.9 253.9 531.8
1926 273.8 244.9 518.7
1927 276.0 246.6 522.6
1928 264.3 231.4 495.7
1929 286.0 252.7 538.7
1930 287.5 250.6 578.1
1931 274.1 240.6 514.7
1932 368.2 300.0 668.2
1933 1,284.1 819.9 2104.0
1934 242.2 219.8 462.0
1935 179.3 162.5 341.9
1936 186.9 172.6 359.5
1937 225.9 202.5 428.4
1938 224.5 206.3 430.8
1939 215.0 197.6 412.6
Quick question: is this in thousands or what. You haven't said. The other thing is that the totals usually are meant to be overall and not just the Ukraine (as far I understood them).

If you want to challenge these sorts of things you really need to be very specific, have lots of details and references if possible.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5153
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 21 Mar 2012, 03:45
I thought it's common knowledge by now that Stalin's excesses didn't amount to more than several hundred thousand executions and a couple million in the gulag.

Regardless the question isn't numbers, it never really was. It's about who was targeted, why, and how this affected the issue of socialism at home and abroad. Stalin and his faction without a doubt dramatically transformed the party and the state through purges and government levies. This resulted in a complete bureaucratic dictatorship that had little connection to bolshevik party and its important figures, though it tended to appropriate their strategies and ideas. It was one step forward to complete capitalist restoration that would eventually be brought around by bureaucracy itself.

That's the socialist complaint. As far as the views of liberals and their states go, who gives a frag? They've been spreading fear and lies since day one, and it was unfortunately all western people had until the archives were opened and REAL research was done, by authors a bit more intellectually honest than robert conquest and co.
Image
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 21 Mar 2012, 03:53
The numbers aren't only from Ukraine but rather from all USSR. I can't tell you if it's in thousands or not but i can give you the link of the study to check more details: http://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/drm/009/2.pdf. (page 16)
Last edited by JAM on 21 Mar 2012, 04:30, edited 1 time in total.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 21 Mar 2012, 04:28
Conscript wrote:
I thought it's common knowledge by now that Stalin's excesses didn't amount to more than several hundred thousand executions and a couple million in the gulag.


If almost 1 million of people were executed during that why the death rates actually dropped comparing with the pre-Stalin era? People were being executed already back then?

Conscript wrote:
Regardless the question isn't numbers, it never really was. It's about who was targeted, why, and how this affected the issue of socialism at home and abroad. Stalin and his faction without a doubt dramatically transformed the party and the state through purges and government levies. This resulted in a complete bureaucratic dictatorship that had little connection to bolshevik party and its important figures, though it tended to appropriate their strategies and ideas. It was one step forward to complete capitalist restoration that would eventually be brought around by bureaucracy itself.


The question of the death numbers is crucial. Stalin is regarded as one of the biggest monsters of human's history and it is not by chance. He was the most successful communist leader and there are multiple reasons for spoil his legacy. Besides, it is a matter of justice to the man's life and accomplishments. Don't you see that the mass murder question is a way of shadow all the extraordinary things he accomplished under socialist ideals.

The party was already bureaucratic when Stalin assumed full control of it, everybody knows that. If you want to blame somebody for the bureaucratization of the USSR blame Lenin, he started it.

If it was one step forward to complete capitalist restoration why the capitalism only came in 1991?

He renewed the Bolshevik party because the party was being teared apart due to the permanent faction struggling which took over the party since Lenin's death. He wanted unity in the party in order to run USSR in a more efficiently way and no doubt that it worked well. That faction struggling could have led to the dissolution of the entire party and the communist leadership in Russia could very well have been crushed by this events. He preserved the party and the socialist system by doing so. I don't blame him for have done that. He knew that USSR would be attacked by a major capitalist power sooner or later, so he needed to build unity around him in order to defend successfully the USSR from that attack and he did it.

I'm not saying that i support executions or something like that but at the time the things were run that way, specially in Russia.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 21 Mar 2012, 05:08
The Czarist state was heavily bureaucratic, and so the USSR, though it wasn't this state, still inherited part of these forms, these practices.

I wouldn't say that "Lenin started it", considering this, and considering that he criticized this bureaucratization many times.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 21 Mar 2012, 05:55
praxicoide wrote:
The Czarist state was heavily bureaucratic, and so the USSR, though it wasn't this state, still inherited part of these forms, these practices.

I wouldn't say that "Lenin started it", considering this, and considering that he criticized this bureaucratization many times.


I'm not saying he wished for but it was a reality under his leadership. In 1921, Lenin himself defined the Soviet Russian State as a workers' state with 'bureaucratic deformations. I just pointed out to prove that the bureaucratization of the USSR was not a creation of Stalin. It's just another myth created around his legacy.

But i agree with you as far as the czarist state is concerned.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 21 Mar 2012, 06:20
OK, then let's look at it this way.

Let's leave wishes out, since that isn't much of an argument. Let's focus instead on policies (btw, I'm completely ignorant in this regard, so these are honest questions):

Did Lenin carry out actions to try to curb this bureaucratization or was this seen as a necessary evil? Was it?

What about Stalin, did he work to rid the state of these bureaucratic deformations? Or was this again seen as a necessary evil? Was it still a necessary evil?
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 21 Mar 2012, 06:51
Lenin once said: "It will take decades to overcome the evils of bureaucracy. It is a very difficult struggle, and anyone who says we can rid ourselves of bureaucratic practices overnight by adopting anti-bureaucratic platforms is nothing but a quack with a bent for fine words."

I think this is enough to absolve Stalin from the bureaucracy controversy. Even him argued against the evils of bureaucracy during his ruling.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5153
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 21 Mar 2012, 14:56
JAM wrote:
If almost 1 million of people were executed during that why the death rates actually dropped comparing with the pre-Stalin era? People were being executed already back then?


Never met someone that disputes that number, too. I don't know because I don't know anything about these figures, how they were arrived to, etc. Do they even include unnatural deaths? If so, does that include gulag deaths?

Do you want me to link the archival study? You'd find it very interesting, it details the nature of sentencings (a lot were surprising apolitical), the worse years for gulag deaths, etc.

Quote:
The question of the death numbers is crucial. Stalin is regarded as one of the biggest monsters of human's history and it is not by chance. He was the most successful communist leader and there are multiple reasons for spoil his legacy. Besides, it is a matter of justice to the man's life and accomplishments. Don't you see that the mass murder question is a way of shadow all the extraordinary things he accomplished under socialist ideals.


No doubt a heap of dirt has been placed on his grave, but it's not all untrue either. Stalin is demonized both because he was the face of a self-proclaimed communist state (it's bound to happen), and because he made it very easy after purging all those party members, and was eventually a victim to that bureaucratic process itself. If stalin didn't gut the party, you'd just hear different names.

There is little need to rehabilitate him. Regardless of scale, we know what he did to socialists in the USSR and abroad. We know of his questionable dealings with party factions from the 20s into the 30s, and we know what formed his power base. As a result, there is very little socialism to be found, just an isolated revolutionary state performing rapid capital accumulation, introducing a new patriotism, and solidifying its own position in the imperialist world often at the expense of outside communists.

In fact, I don't see why you'd feel the need to 'clear' his name unless you're some kind nationalist. Everything he did was for the soviet state, which embodied capitalism under the guise of SIOC.

Quote:
The party was already bureaucratic when Stalin assumed full control of it, everybody knows that. If you want to blame somebody for the bureaucratization of the USSR blame Lenin, he started it.


Yes, but stalin took it a step forward and emptied it of any remnants of the bolshevik party, purged all the factions except his hown, and levied a bunch of a faceless, apolitical bureaucrats to replace him. It is for this reason Stalin's MLism was so unchallenged within the party and the comintern and contrasts so much with the party and the state up to the late 20s.

Quote:
If it was one step forward to complete capitalist restoration why the capitalism only came in 1991?


Liberal capitalism came in 1991, at the ushering of the bureaucracy sick of 'state' capitalism. The USSR was state capitalist in its entire history, but Stalin's morphing of the party and state created weaknesses and inclinations for the very 'revisionism' that destroyed it and led it down a liberal path. This is demonstrated in the 1965 economic reforms, which would be unthinkable in Stalin's time, yet quite acceptable for the deeply conservative bureaucrats.

Quote:
He renewed the Bolshevik party because the party was being teared apart due to the permanent faction struggling which took over the party since Lenin's death. He wanted unity in the party in order to run USSR in a more efficiently way and no doubt that it worked well.


He didn't 'renew' the party and was quite happy with distancing himself and the CPSU from the bolshevik party (there's a 'no point in calling ourselves bolsheviks' quote somewhere). The factionalism was always there, it was merely suppressed by lenin. But by his death, factionalism created opportunity for Stalin. He would make factional alliances, switching from policy to policy, and eventually draw a lot from the right opposition. When he came out on top of this Frag, he purged the oppositions yet used some of their policies in his schemes for the USSR. He had no plan for unity, he just wanted to subdue the whole thing and shape it in preparation for compatibility for a huge bureaucratic machine.

Quote:
I'm not saying that i support executions or something like that but at the time the things were run that way, specially in Russia.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not some liberal. I'm not opposed to suppressing reaction and shooting counter-revolutionaries, I just feel Stalin's more troubling relationship with the party and state is not quite that, and instead much closer to being mentioned reaction.
Image
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 21 Mar 2012, 16:18
Conscript wrote:

Never met someone that disputes that number, too. I don't know because I don't know anything about these figures, how they were arrived to, etc. Do they even include unnatural deaths? If so, does that include gulag deaths?

Do you want me to link the archival study? You'd find it very interesting, it details the nature of sentencings (a lot were surprising apolitical), the worse years for gulag deaths, etc.


Some studies already disputed that numbers. I am remembering of Mario Sousa's "Lies concerning the history of the soviet union" for instance. I gave you the sources of the figures, you can check the credibility of them. Those studies include all deaths occurred concerning those years, weather is natural or unnatural. They don't specify the numbers of deaths in Gulag but that's not the point here.

What do you call the archival study? Robert Conquest studies? This man was already telling that Stalin killed 50 million of people even before the archives were open. I guess this says it all. The numbers were heavily manipulated by these studies conducted by former communists. Its another interesting point to verify that the majority (if not the total) of these "historians" were all communists. I think its not a coincidence.

Conscript wrote:

No doubt a heap of dirt has been placed on his grave, but it's not all untrue either. Stalin is demonized both because he was the face of a self-proclaimed communist state (it's bound to happen), and because he made it very easy after purging all those party members, and was eventually a victim to that bureaucratic process itself. If stalin didn't gut the party, you'd just hear different names.

There is little need to rehabilitate him. Regardless of scale, we know what he did to socialists in the USSR and abroad. We know of his questionable dealings with party factions from the 20s into the 30s, and we know what formed his power base. As a result, there is very little socialism to be found, just an isolated revolutionary state performing rapid capital accumulation, introducing a new patriotism, and solidifying its own position in the imperialist world often at the expense of outside communists.

In fact, I don't see why you'd feel the need to 'clear' his name unless you're some kind nationalist. Everything he did was for the soviet state, which embodied capitalism under the guise of SIOC.


I think there is much need to rehabilitate him. After all, he was by far the most successful socialist leader in history. I could give you the numbers, the achievements and so on but i guess everyone already knows that and there is no point in repeat that again. I am not trying to say that Stalin was a saint, he committed several errors, mainly the expansion of the soviet zone of influence after the war but still he was successful. I strongly disagree that Stalin betrayed the communist ideals and entered in some new form of nationalism and patriotism. I don't see what is your point here. Is to say that Stalin was some kind of counter revolutionary? Imperialism? That's trotskyst talking. Give me examples of patriotism And don't talk about the war period because that was pure strategy to unite the all country.

Lenin introduced NEP. Do you regard him as a traitor too?

I am not nationalist and i don't see how Stalin was more nationalist than Castro or Mao for instance. By the contrary, he supported more socialist revolutions outside USSR than anyone of these men. So, what is your point?

Conscript wrote:

Yes, but stalin took it a step forward and emptied it of any remnants of the bolshevik party, purged all the factions except his hown, and levied a bunch of a faceless, apolitical bureaucrats to replace him. It is for this reason Stalin's MLism was so unchallenged within the party and the comintern and contrasts so much with the party and the state up to the late 20s.


I will repeat what i stated in my previous post. Lenin once said: "It will take decades to overcome the evils of bureaucracy. It is a very difficult struggle, and anyone who says we can rid ourselves of bureaucratic practices overnight by adopting anti-bureaucratic platforms is nothing but a quack with a bent for fine words."

But i agree with you in one point: the men he recruited in the 30's were very weak. You just need to look at his successors. Kruschev is a perfect example of imbecility.

Conscript wrote:

Liberal capitalism came in 1991, at the ushering of the bureaucracy sick of 'state' capitalism. The USSR was state capitalist in its entire history, but Stalin's morphing of the party and state created weaknesses and inclinations for the very 'revisionism' that destroyed it and led it down a liberal path. This is demonstrated in the 1965 economic reforms, which would be unthinkable in Stalin's time, yet quite acceptable for the deeply conservative bureaucrats.


That's a matter of definition. Some people define the soviet state as state capitalism, others don't. I do not have a firm opinion in this one but that was the closest model you ever had of socialism from my point of view. Honestly, i never saw any other model applied so successfully.

Once again i ask you, Lenin implemented NEP in USSR. Was he also a traitor?

Conscript wrote:

He didn't 'renew' the party and was quite happy with distancing himself and the CPSU from the bolshevik party (there's a 'no point in calling ourselves bolsheviks' quote somewhere). The factionalism was always there, it was merely suppressed by lenin. But by his death, factionalism created opportunity for Stalin. He would make factional alliances, switching from policy to policy, and eventually draw a lot from the right opposition. When he came out on top of this Frag, he purged the oppositions yet used some of their policies in his schemes for the USSR. He had no plan for unity, he just wanted to subdue the whole thing and shape it in preparation for compatibility for a huge bureaucratic machine.


You have your own opinion on the matter and i have mine. I still believe he acted that way to unity the party and the country in order to accomplish those difficult goals like catching the levels of industrialization of the most advanced capitalist economies. Otherwise, he might would not have been so successful since many prominent figures within the party strongly disagreed with the way things were been managed by Stalin. It was pure strategy once again and nothing more. Some of them remained with him like Kaganovich, Molotov or Kalinine.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 21 Mar 2012, 16:59
lol conscript you're awesome.

Quote:
This resulted in a complete bureaucratic dictatorship that had little connection to bolshevik party and its important figures, though it tended to appropriate their strategies and ideas. It was one step forward to complete capitalist restoration that would eventually be brought around by bureaucracy itself.


Don't you think it's a bit risky to attribute the "degeneration" of the Soviet project merely to such superstructural events as Stalin's bureaucratic intrigues?

Let's have a look at the material basis instead. The Russian relations of production brought forth their appropriate superstructure. The productive forces of Russia were not yet capable of supporting anything other than capitalism. The Bolsheviks had no choice but to manage that capitalism, whether they wanted (Stalin) or not (Lenin, Trotsky, Rubin). Lenin said something about a machine that doesn't obey the man at the steering wheel and has its own course.

Quote:
After all, he was by far the most successful socialist leader in history.


Yes. That doesn't mean there's any point at all in emulating or even liking him.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2012, 16:12
Ideology: Left Communism
Pioneer
Post 21 Mar 2012, 17:30
During the Great Purge, 700K folks were executed and some 3M people were sent to the Gulag.

During the entirety of the Stalin era? Unless you count all deaths at the Gulag as political murder (bad idea
) or pin famines wholesale on Uncle Joe (another bad idea), it might well reach between 5 and 10 million people "1924-1953, not 20 millions in the Thirties.

You've gotta remember that, not all prisoners in the Gulag were political prisoners (common thugs commonly made more than half), and not all deaths in the Gulag were "excess deaths": Prisons (especially labor camps and penal colonies) naturally have death rates above those of the general population (even in absence of deliberate murderous malice on part of the captors). All Gulag Deaths is a disingenuous statistic.

It would make much more sense, from a historical perspective, to count excess deaths. You take the Gulag's death rates. You then compare them to the death rates of camps in similar material conditions where mass murder is known not to take place. (POW camps in non-genocidal nations are a good comparative). The difference between death rates can be attributed to shortages, incompetence and/or malice. Applying proper research, perhaps 5-10% of those in the Gulags died to deliberate mistreatment or murder, not the whopping 35-45% commonly used as a bludgeon by bourgeois historians.


Stalin wasn't a nice guy. Yes, he had a whole goddamn lot of political opponents murdered. Yes, he was a harsh leader, and the death penalty was common. But Stalin wasn't some sort of supernatural evil force causing every death ever to happen in the USSR either.
Cm'on baby, eat the rich!!! - Motörhead
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 224
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Sep 2011, 11:23
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 21 Mar 2012, 19:22
JAM wrote:


Source: E. Andreev, L. Darsky & T. Khar'kova, 'Opyt otsenki chislennosti naseleniya SSSR. 1926-1941 gg

Deaths in Russia (M)

1927 2,705,000
1928 2,589,000
1929 2,819,000
1930 2,738,000
1931 3,090,000
1932 3,077,000
1933 5,239,000
1934 2,659,000
1935 2,421,000
1936 2,719,000
1937 2,760,000
1938 2,739,000
1939 2,600,000

Russian population in the end of the 1930's was about 170m. Today is 143.
The annual death rate in modern russia is: 16.04 deaths/1,000 population (July 2011 est.) that makes about 2,226,000 deaths a year. for 170m woud make 2,720,000, with the modern life expectancy.

I don't find something weird in these statitics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhQKmixO8MA
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2012, 16:12
Ideology: Left Communism
Pioneer
Post 21 Mar 2012, 21:27
Long story short, if you count all deaths in the Gulag (and POW-emigré filtering camps) and all repressions as Stalin's murders, you could easily get between 10 and 15 million. If you count only excess deaths in the Gulag and executions, I'd be honestly surprised if the figure exceeded 5-8M.

A chunk of the excess deaths died in the filtering camps: That's where the Soviet Union put Soviet POWs and Soviet civilians repatriated after the GPW. Many of them arrived at the camps in a deplorable condition after being deliberately starved and exposed by the Nazis: It ain't a surprise that plenty didn't make it.

The overwhelming majority of those sent to filtering camps were released between weeks and months after arrival, once their identities were known and it was verified there weren't any charges against them. Some actual or suspected traitors, collaborationists and counterrevolutionaries were indeed sent to the actual Gulag, but it was a small fraction of those repatriated.

Those that actually collaborated with the Nazis were (rightfully) shot or sent to the Gulag. Bourgeois historians have the nerve to report those as "victims"!


Stalin's death toll is indeed in the millions (the Great Purge alone puts him near or above the million mark between executions and excess deaths in the Gulag) but not the tens of millions that the bourgeoisie like to claim. The overwhelming majority of the repressions were either during the Great Purge (which is inexcusable) or during the GPW, where iron discipline was actually needed to save the Soviet Union from the genocidal Nazis.
Cm'on baby, eat the rich!!! - Motörhead
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 21 Mar 2012, 22:54
Mabool wrote:
l


Yes. That doesn't mean there's any point at all in emulating or even liking him.


So who we should emulate? The failed ones like Mao or Kim Jong Il? I thought the logic was to follow the best examples and not the bad ones


I am not saying that all the socialist are forced to like him but at least recognize his legacy as the most successful one.

KlassWar wrote:
During the Great Purge, 700K folks were executed and some 3M people were sent to the Gulag.

During the entirety of the Stalin era? Unless you count all deaths at the Gulag as political murder (bad idea
) or pin famines wholesale on Uncle Joe (another bad idea), it might well reach between 5 and 10 million people "1924-1953, not 20 millions in the Thirties.

You've gotta remember that, not all prisoners in the Gulag were political prisoners (common thugs commonly made more than half), and not all deaths in the Gulag were "excess deaths": Prisons (especially labor camps and penal colonies) naturally have death rates above those of the general population (even in absence of deliberate murderous malice on part of the captors). All Gulag Deaths is a disingenuous statistic.

It would make much more sense, from a historical perspective, to count excess deaths. You take the Gulag's death rates. You then compare them to the death rates of camps in similar material conditions where mass murder is known not to take place. (POW camps in non-genocidal nations are a good comparative). The difference between death rates can be attributed to shortages, incompetence and/or malice. Applying proper research, perhaps 5-10% of those in the Gulags died to deliberate mistreatment or murder, not the whopping 35-45% commonly used as a bludgeon by bourgeois historians.


Stalin wasn't a nice guy. Yes, he had a whole goddamn lot of political opponents murdered. Yes, he was a harsh leader, and the death penalty was common. But Stalin wasn't some sort of supernatural evil force causing every death ever to happen in the USSR either.



KlassWar,

i'm not sure if i understood you correctly. I never gave any figure about the Gulags, the numbers of deaths that you see in those statistics include all of deaths in USSR during that period. My point is that we don't see any substantial increase in any of those years with the exception of the famine year. If mass murders occurred during the entire period of Stalin's ruling (1928-1953) we would still be able to detect them through some substantial increases in any of those years. Even 700k seems to me a very high number if we consider that the death rate dropped during those years The death rate also dropped significantly after the war and stabilized as well. I also would like to add a few points here:

- Firstly, the Stalin era began in 1928 and ended in 1953.
- Secondly, the Great Purge is commonly situated between the death of Kirov and the II WW (1935-1939).
- Thirdly, it is generally accepted even by the bourgeois historians that after the II WW no mass repression was taken by Stalin.
-Fourthly, the Ukrainian government recognizes the famine of 1933 as a human tragedy. As the statistics show the ucrainians were not the only ones who suffered during the famine.

When i am saying mass murders i am referring to murders directly ordered by Stalin for political or racial reasons. The holocaust is an example of a mass murder for instance. The jews were specifically targeted by the nazis and killed in millions in gas chambers.
In Stalin's case, i cannot find any evidence of something similar.

So, how can you fit 5 M or 10 M in those figures? You simply can't.

ckkomel wrote:

Russian population in the end of the 1930's was about 170m. Today is 143.
The annual death rate in modern russia is: 16.04 deaths/1,000 population (July 2011 est.) that makes about 2,226,000 deaths a year. for 170m woud make 2,720,000, with the modern life expectancy.

I don't find something weird in these statitics


These statistics are only applied to Russia and not the all USSR. The Russian population in 1939 was 108,785,000 M. You can check it with more details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia

But i also gave a statistic covering all the soviet republics.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 86
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2012, 23:00
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 21 Mar 2012, 23:31
Great stats! I agree Stalin isn't the best example to follow but he isn't Hitler either.
Also could you link, if possible, the DTM of the USSR during that time.
“It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.“-Che Geuvara
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 22 Mar 2012, 00:19
The Mighty O wrote:
Great stats! I agree Stalin isn't the best example to follow but he isn't Hitler either.
Also could you link, if possible, the DTM of the USSR during that time.


I will provide you the links containing the entire stats:


USSR - http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/ELM-Note_Famine.pdf

Ukraine - http://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/drm/009/2.pdf

Russia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2012, 16:12
Ideology: Left Communism
Pioneer
Post 22 Mar 2012, 00:21
Murders personally ordered by Stalin? I doubt it's more than a few thousands or tens of thousands.

As for the total death toll, I was dead wrong. I'd taken the regular estimate of 15 million and adjusted it down from total Gulag deaths to statistical excess deaths 'cause they pinned every single person ever to die in the Gulag as Stalin's victim.

Reviewing the figures, Gulag deaths were actually much lower, about 3 million total (J Otto Pohl's estimate), of which only one million or so are statistical excess deaths. I don't have execution figures for every single year. Excluding GPW-era executions (war is Hell, after all), Stalin's death toll is probably under 5 million total.

I'd assume that most of them weren't personally ordered dead by Stalin: No matter how damn paranoid you are, you can't have a personal beef against that many people.
Cm'on baby, eat the rich!!! - Motörhead
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5153
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 22 Mar 2012, 01:48
JAM wrote:

Some studies already disputed that numbers. I am remembering of Mario Sousa's "Lies concerning the history of the soviet union" for instance. I gave you the sources of the figures, you can check the credibility of them. Those studies include all deaths occurred concerning those years, weather is natural or unnatural. They don't specify the numbers of deaths in Gulag but that's not the point here.

What do you call the archival study? Robert Conquest studies? This man was already telling that Stalin killed 50 million of people even before the archives were open. I guess this says it all. The numbers were heavily manipulated by these studies conducted by former communists. Its another interesting point to verify that the majority (if not the total) of these "historians" were all communists. I think its not a coincidence.


Have you been reading my posts? I said the same thing about conquest, lol.

Anyway here is what I was talking about, and it's from the same site you picked out the 1933 famine pdf from:

http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/GTY-Penal_System.pdf

Quote:
I think there is much need to rehabilitate him. After all, he was by far the most successful socialist leader in history. I could give you the numbers, the achievements and so on but i guess everyone already knows that and there is no point in repeat that again.[


He was successful, but not at building socialism. It's a stalinist mistake to regard collectivization and the 5 year plans as anything else but intense capital accumulation, let alone socialism. We can all agree he succeeded at industrializing the USSR, but let's not start relabeling things.

Quote:
I am not trying to say that Stalin was a saint, he committed several errors, mainly the expansion of the soviet zone of influence after the war but still he was successful. I strongly disagree that Stalin betrayed the communist ideals and entered in some new form of nationalism and patriotism. I don't see what is your point here. Is to say that Stalin was some kind of counter revolutionary? Imperialism? That's trotskyst talking. Give me examples of patriotism And don't talk about the war period because that was pure strategy to unite the all country.


lol the history of the Stalin period is full of references to the 'socialist motherland' and the 'father of the world proletariat' and the subduing of constituent nations to the 'soviet' identity. It's just plain opportunism to do such things, it's not okay just because there's a 'socialist' prefix.
You can't discount war measures either, as it only proves my point that russia was firmly stuck in the capitalist stage, and how could it not? It was a peasant dominated country with a significant population of it up to the 50s/60s. It's just plain opportunism to do such things, it's not okay just because there's a 'socialist' prefix.

Quote:
Lenin introduced NEP. Do you regard him as a traitor too?


Lenin didn't rebrand it 'socialism' either. For him, socialism in one country was out of the question, and not even considered by the wider party until later by his death when factionalism had arrived on the scene.

Quote:
I am not nationalist and i don't see how Stalin was more nationalist than Castro or Mao for instance. By the contrary, he supported more socialist revolutions outside USSR than anyone of these men. So, what is your point?


Castro is certainly more of a nationalist than Stalin, I'm not too sure about Mao, though he was a terrible marxist. Stalin was a nationalist in the sense he wanted to create a new nation with an identity derived from the state which, in turn managed its own affairs of capital. While Lenin was supportive of a german-style state capitalism in the period before revolution in the advanced countries, he never called it socialism and denied it was their task to 'introduce' socialism. This also meant a significant difference in foreign policy, it's hard to imagine the crazy ideas of the third period comintern and the later popular front tactic ever taking place under Lenin.

Quote:
I will repeat what i stated in my previous post. Lenin once said: "It will take decades to overcome the evils of bureaucracy. It is a very difficult struggle, and anyone who says we can rid ourselves of bureaucratic practices overnight by adopting anti-bureaucratic platforms is nothing but a quack with a bent for fine words."

But i agree with you in one point: the men the recruited in the 30's were very weak. You just need to look at his successors. Kruschev is a perfect example of imbecility.


Obviously not weak enough to do pretty much what Stalin did to the past oppositions. Stalin became a victim of his own machine, what does that say?

I don't understand what the lenin quote is supposed to prove, he also said communists becoming bureaucrats would destroy them (the communists). It has nothing to do with relabeling state capitalism 'socialism', calling the revolutionary state in russia a 'socialist fatherland', or other such deviations.

Quote:
That's a matter of definition. Some people define the soviet state as state capitalism, others don't. I do not have a firm opinion in this one but that was the closest model you ever had of socialism from my point of view. Honestly, i never saw any other model applied so successfully.

Once again i ask you, Lenin implemented NEP in USSR. Was he also a traitor?


It's hardly a matter of definition as if capitalism is somehow a relative term. The USSR arose out of backwards, isolated conditions with an admitted original plan to have a period of state capitalism. Some like to describe Stalin's industrialization and its results as 'socialism' but it doesn't make any sense from a marxist perspective. Capital accumulation, wage labor, and generalized commodity production defined the soviet economy. It doesn't suddenly transform into something else because a Communist Party is heading it.

Quote:
Don't you think it's a bit risky to attribute the "degeneration" of the Soviet project merely to such superstructural events as Stalin's bureaucratic intrigues?

Let's have a look at the material basis instead. The Russian relations of production brought forth their appropriate superstructure. The productive forces of Russia were not yet capable of supporting anything other than capitalism. The Bolsheviks had no choice but to manage that capitalism, whether they wanted (Stalin) or not (Lenin, Trotsky, Rubin). Lenin said something about a machine that doesn't obey the man at the steering wheel and has its own course.


But I don't, I only dispute that such things were socialism or the state's practices were somehow a 'correct line' as M-Ls have it. I have little doubt that the USSR could build anything else but modern, calculated state capitalism unless there was outside assistance from advanced revolutionary states. However I do disagree in the specific ways it was carried out and how M-Ls shaped the state by pretty much eradicating the bolshevik. Factionalism was a problem, and it was suppressed for far too long, but the solution to it wasn't purging everyone but the 'centrists'. That is nothing else but blatant thermidor.

More importantly, the state that managed that capitalism domestically under the guidance of Stalin and the M-Ls had a tremendously detrimental influence on the outside movement. As bureaucrats, the party had no interest in outside revolution, it would spell doom to their power and influence. That is where a material basis arrived at through abandonment of world revolution and industrialization through 'socialism in one country' causes the final collapse of any hopes for socialism in the USSR. At least, that's my opinion, but I have yet to hear convincing arguments proving otherwise.
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.