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
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 22 Mar 2012, 02:40
Quote:
It's a stalinist mistake to regard collectivization and the 5 year plans as anything else but intense capital accumulation, let alone socialism.

What was all this about then?
Accumulating capital just because or accumulating capital in order to build the material foundations for socialism?

Quote:
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.

Why would the expansion of socialism (or people's democracy) in E.Europe post-WW2 be regarded as a "mistake".
Also, Conscript, i don't understand what's wrong with "socialist motherland".
Furthermore, the "subduing of nations" to the Soviet identity happened simultaneously with certain peoples being "built" as a nation, mostly under directions from Moscow. Dozens of peoples in Asia didn't even have their own grammar and so on.
Besides, these nations were "subdued" to the Soviet identity in a way that the peculiar national identities were recognized and encouraged. See Korenitsiya. That was , if anything, integration rather than "subduing".
I don't see why would you object any of this.

Quote:
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.

Russia had a significant urban population by 1940 and,besides, these were not individual peasants of 1917 but kolkhozniks.

Quote:
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.

No. Lenin's quotes from 1923:
Quote:
The power of the state over all large-scale means of production, political power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured proletarian leadership of the peasantry, etc. --- is this not all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society out of co-operatives.

Quote:
NEP Russia will become socialist Russia.


Quote:
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.

Yes, Turks murdering communists while still getting full support of the USSR was "a significant difference", but the blunders the Comintern made were "crazy ideas".

Quote:
As bureaucrats, the party had no interest in outside revolution, it would spell doom to their power and influence.

What? Why?
How would,let's say, a socialist ( under a Bolshevik-Leninist leadership!) revolution in Poland in 1932 spell doom to the CPSU?
JAM
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Mar 2012, 02:37
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 22 Mar 2012, 03:21
Conscript wrote:


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.


According to 62% of the users, USSR under Stalin's leadership was socialist. Only one person voted your definition. viewtopic.php?f=123&t=52202

Isn't socialism the state owning the means of production, the abolition of any sort of capitalist activity and the elimination of social classes?
The war communism is your economic model of socialism?

Conscript wrote:

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.


Since the USSR was the socialist reference for all workers around the world it was quite normal to name it "motherland" and "father". A communist leader cannot use words like "motherland" or "father"? I don't see any kind of nationalism here. Che Guevara once said: "Fatherland or Death". I don't see your point.

During the war some national references were made in order to motivate and unite the entire russian people, and this strategy was essential to win the war against germans. You called it opportunism but don't forget one thing: due to that opportunism Stalin was able to preserve the USSR against the nazi attacks. Would you preferred to see USSR crushed at the hands of the nazis? I know that the trotskyts would do...

Conscript wrote:

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.


I've already talked about the socialism in one country but i can do it again. USSR was in no condition of supporting revolutions abroad in 1926 without putting everything accomplished at risk. Not only it had no economic conditions due to the Civil War but political ones as well since the international context was strongly unfriendly towards the USSR. It was a rational decision to preserve the socialist accomplishments in USSR. When the conditions arrived Stalin supported some revolutions abroad, as the revolution in China for instance.


Conscript wrote:

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?


Are you saying that Stalin was weak? LOL He proved to be the strongest socialist leader in history. I think everyone agrees with me. At least when i said weak i was referring to the weakness of the man's qualities and not the man's position.



Conscript wrote:
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.


You are certainly confused here. We were talking about bureaucratization, not nationalism. That quote was meant to prove that Stalin didn't start the bureaucratization of the USSR.

Conscript wrote:
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.


First, you say it's hardly a matter of definition, then you say "some like to describe...". If it's hardly a matter of definition why it's not consensual?

I ask you again, was any model applied during the xx century closest to marxism than that?
"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 22 Mar 2012, 03:41
KlassWar wrote:
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.


When i said directly i meant planned. If the 5 million of deaths weren't directly instructed by Stalin how you can blame him for the deaths?

I am counting the total number of deaths in the Gulag during the entire Stalin period and the number hardly reaches 1 million. The number of political prisoners in Gulag was lower during the period of the Great Purge than during the war and the post-war period.

I am also trying to find the real figures about the number of death sentences but i haven't found anything yet.
"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 23 Mar 2012, 00:24
I've found the numbers of USSR custodian population during Stalin years and is curious to notice that between 1934 and 1939 the number of political prisoners never surpassed 200.000. In 1939 we see a substantial increase of the numbers which can be easy explained by the fact that the poles captured during the soviet occupation of Eastern Poland were trialed for treason and counter-revolutionary activities. The numbers can be checked here: http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm

The only piece of the puzzle missing is the number of death sentences during 1937-38. 681.000 is the figure presented by several sources citing official soviet records. This leads me to two questions: 1- how many were condemned to death for non-political crimes and how many for political reasons. 2 - How much was Stalin involved in these sentences.

This last doubt is associated to the fact that in some books and websites it is stated that Stalin personally signed 357 proscription lists in 1937 and 1938 that condemned to execution some 40,000 people, and about 90% of these are confirmed to have been shot. This statement is not backed by any soviet official source.
"If I could control Hollywood, I could control the world." -Joseph Stalin
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron