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

Che and stalin

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2693
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2006, 08:59
Party Bureaucrat
Post 13 Nov 2006, 08:23
Red Rebel wrote:
IIRC it was Commandante


Comandante is Spanish for "Major", as far as I know.

Josh wrote:
so why is this letter the end all be all.


Because Che is saying right there that he thinks Stalin's works should be emphasized, and that Trotsky is a revisionist. The year is 1965 - 2 years before his death.

Josh wrote:
It was claimed that my evidence was biased because it was an interview with a Trot.


Well, speaking for myself, your evidence is not so much biased as it is nonexistent.

Josh wrote:
I could say the same.


Uh... no. Are we even on the same page here? The one where Che is affirming Stalin and calling Trotsky "in the category of the great revisionists"?
How is the man's own word equivalent to J. Random Trotter's unsubstantiated claims? Face the facts, bro...

Josh wrote:
I will say this though, I don't so much think that Che became a Trot,


Duh.

Josh wrote:
I just feel that Che's thought developed over time and encompassed idea's laid out by trotsky. Che was no God he made mistakes like every other human on the planet. If he thought Trotsky was a revisionist then he was wrong plain and simple. I still think che was one of the greatest revolutionaries of the 20th century


Well, at least your being honest. But I don't see how you can show that Che became influenced by Trotsky. You haven't shown us anything to back up your claim. I can claim that the 1969 moon landing was faked, but nobody will take me serious unless I show some convincing evidence.
Image

"To know a thing you must study it." --Dagoth Ur
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 218
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jun 2006, 00:25
Pioneer
Post 13 Nov 2006, 09:30
Well, both Che and Cuba show the Ideas that Trotsky has put forward towards being fully international. That they have pushed for permanent revolution.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2693
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2006, 08:59
Party Bureaucrat
Post 15 Nov 2006, 01:44
Are you trying to make me bang my head against a wall? You are aren't you!
Image

"To know a thing you must study it." --Dagoth Ur
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 8108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 02:51
Embalmed
Post 15 Nov 2006, 02:38
Cuba hasn't pushed for permenant revolution; they have just tried to support working of the world, including supporting revolutions that have the support of the populace. This isn't permenant revolution.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 218
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jun 2006, 00:25
Pioneer
Post 15 Nov 2006, 22:33
Quote:
Cuba hasn't pushed for permanent revolution; they have just tried to support working of the world, including supporting revolutions that have the support of the populace. This isn't permenant revolution.


Well, Cuba has always been international they’ve kept sturring up revolutions and helping nations worldwide. They depend on socialism to arise in other countries in order to further the nation. Well in a nation who is the Populace… the proletariat, you don’t just pick and choose what revolutions to support and not support.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2693
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2006, 08:59
Party Bureaucrat
Post 16 Nov 2006, 02:41
Backtrack alert!
Image

"To know a thing you must study it." --Dagoth Ur
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 8108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 02:51
Embalmed
Post 16 Nov 2006, 03:12
Greggers, could you explain yourself a bit more than these one line posts?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 829
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Nov 2006, 20:19
Komsomol
Post 06 Dec 2006, 23:47
Quote:
so there is no difference whether it is capitalistic or socialistic. Imerialism is imperialism.

Imperialism is the extraction of super-profits from poor countries. Please explain how the Soviet Union was imperialist when the Eastern European Socialist countries universally enjoyed higher living standards than were to be found in USSR proper. The USSR carried out an Imperial projection of Socialism outside its own borders, not an imperialist extraction of profits from other nations. The USSR had a class imperative to as Lenin said, "probe Europe with the bayonets of the Red Army!"

The buffoonery of Khrushchev's anti-Stalinism, was ice water poured upon the sizzling glass stove of the proletariat. Not only did it turn down the heat on the capitalists, it spider cracked our once unified movement. These fissures remain today and in them flow all kinds of deviations, not only Trotskyites, but their inverse-image: the Nazbols. Not until we have another Stalin - a new faction against factionalism - can we ever achieve the unity and ferocity we had under his leadership.
Soviet cogitations: 80
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Jan 2007, 05:20
Pioneer
Post 23 Jan 2007, 08:15
deleted
Last edited by DylanF on 19 May 2007, 02:12, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3303
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Jan 2007, 06:03
Party Bureaucrat
Post 23 Jan 2007, 08:19
Explain to me how millions of workers loved Stalin immediately after WWII, before the Americans started using Nazi lies.

His "mass murders" never exceeded two to four millions. And that's if you consider the Holodomor as intentional. His "mass murders" removed all defeatist lines within the party, to help with war preprations in the oncoming war with Germany.

And on your last phrase, Stalin was always known for his austerity. He would never partake in such fancy things as caviar, Rolls-Royces. And there are no accounts of him drinking vodka at all either.
Soviet cogitations: 80
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Jan 2007, 05:20
Pioneer
Post 23 Jan 2007, 08:40
deleted
Last edited by DylanF on 19 May 2007, 02:13, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3303
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Jan 2007, 06:03
Party Bureaucrat
Post 23 Jan 2007, 08:53
Interesting, from all statistics, the people were generally happy with the amount of food they recieved before and after the war.

The gulag deaths, though around 1 million, is justifiable due to the fact that there was a real consipracy in overthrowing the soviet leadership.

The Baltic States were traditionally part of the Russian Empire. He was just getting back what the Soviets lost in Brest-Litovsk.

The Holodomor was not intentional:
http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam1.html
http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam2.html
http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/ukfam3.html
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node68. ... 0000000000
Any work by Stephen Wheatcroft

Bullshit on the setting up of troops:
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node130 ... 0000000000

There was nothing directed against ethnic minorities. Example:

ANTI-SEMITISM. Reply to an Inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States.

In answer to your inquiry:
National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.
Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them of the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism.
In the USSR anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under USSR law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.

J.V. Stalin

January 12, 1930

Source:J.V. Stalin Works, volume 13, page 30 (1950's English edition from the FLPH, Moscow)

There was very little collaboration with the Nazis on the Soviet part. Most of the collaboration was done by people who were once kulaks.

Dyland Figueiredo wrote:
Progressive partisans fighting the Nazis were often hunted down by Stalin because he was afraid that they would one day fight against him. NKVD agents shot countless thousands of ordinary Soviet soldiers because they refused to die in hopeless suicide charges with insufficient coverfire or weapons of their own.


The first sentence has nothing valid. There is absolutely no source that even states anything close to this.

There was no hopeless suicide charges. Read order #227.

http://www.stalingrad-info.com/order227.htm

Dylan Figuieredo wrote:
The eventual victory against Germany was carried out by the Soviet people in spite of, not because of, the Party bureaucracy's pathetic leadership.


The party's leadership was critical to the war, especially Stalin's leadership.

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node135 ... 0000000000

And you don't care about his austerity? Well, guess what then? You lied about the vodka, the caviar, the rolls-royce.

http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3303
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Jan 2007, 06:03
Party Bureaucrat
Post 23 Jan 2007, 09:07
Hmm, interesting, I was under the impression, that besides equality, communism is also about the liberation of the proleteriat and productivity?

You have not in any ways disproved any of the sources. Therefore, all your posts stand invalid as they are, lacking in sight and lacking in any purpose. You have made no serious conter argument to any of my posts. You stand, not even as a Trotskyist, but a hinderance to the analysis of the first socialist attempt.

[url=http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=28616]
Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union[/url]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 26 Jan 2007, 03:27
Chaz171-the last few comments were removed for their flaming intentions.

Dylan, you're wasting a lot of my time..
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 647
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Jun 2005, 18:01
Komsomol
Post 26 Jan 2007, 14:15
Quote:
The Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution is not a form of Revisionism, Cata. Revisionism is derived from the ideas of Eduard Bernstein in the 1890s. The Bible of Revisionism is Bernstein's book, Evolutionary Socialism. I suggest you read it; you clearly have no understanding of the ideological basis of Revisionism.


Incorrect. Permanent revolution is a revisionism of Marxism-Leninism as it claims the peasantry (its differing strata) is not an ally of the proletariat during the bourgeois or socialist revolutions.
Soviet cogitations: 4394
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jun 2004, 17:30
Politburo
Post 26 Jan 2007, 18:31
Quote:
Permanent revolution is a revisionism of Marxism-Leninism as it claims the peasantry (its differing strata) is not an ally of the proletariat during the bourgeois or socialist revolutions.


False.

Quote:
Not only the agrarian, but also the national question assigns to the peasantry—the overwhelming majority of the population in backward countries—an exceptional place in the democratic revolution. Without an alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry the tasks of the democratic revolution cannot be solved, nor even seriously posed. But the alliance of these two classes can be realized in no other way than through an irreconcilable struggle against the influence of the national-liberal bourgeoisie.


Source.

-TIG
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh Ar La; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 647
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Jun 2005, 18:01
Komsomol
Post 26 Jan 2007, 18:43
Trotsky wrote:

Quote:
The nature of our socio-historical relations, which lays the whole burden of the bourgeois revolution upon the shoulders of the proletariat, will not only create tremendous difficulties for the workers' government, but in the first period of its existence at any rate, will also given invaluable advantages. This will affect the relations between the proletariat and the peasantry.


Trotsky makes the claim that the bourgeois revolutions rests upon the proletariat solely!

Trotsky wrote this:

Quote:
...Lenin never regarded the peasants as a socialist ally of the proletariat; on the contrary, it was the overwhelming preponderance of the peasantry which led Lenin to conclude that the socialist revolution was impossible in Russia
J.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 605
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Apr 2003, 22:15
Komsomol
Post 26 Jan 2007, 20:01
Trotsky does not have a perspective of carrying out the democratic revolution under the dictatorship of the workers and peasantry. Trotsky sees only the following options:
a) Conditions for socialist revolution don't exist, and for as long as they don't, the democratic revolution is lead by the bourgeoisie.
b) The conditions for socialist revolution do exist and a dictatorship of the proletariat is formed, which means the launch of the socialist revolution (during which the tasks democratic revolution are completed, if there remain unfinished tasks).

So, democratic and socialist revolution for Trotsky are distinct stages only in as much the first is lead by the bourgeoisie and the latter by the proletariat.

This is what differentiates Trotsky's version of 'permanent revolution' from Marxism-Leninism.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 4394
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jun 2004, 17:30
Politburo
Post 26 Jan 2007, 23:01
Quote:
a) Conditions for socialist revolution don't exist, and for as long as they don't, the democratic revolution is lead by the bourgeoisie.


First, I can't think of an example where Trotsky said that a socialist revolution wasn't possible in his day and age. Now, that doesn't mean that it's not there, of course, but while leaving the possibility open he said:

Quote:
It is nonsense to say that stages cannot in general be skipped. The living historical process always makes leaps over isolated “stages” which derive from theoretical breakdown into its component parts of the process of development in its entirety, that is, taken in its fullest scope. The same is demanded of revolutionary policy at critical moments. It may be said that the first distinction between a revolutionist and a vulgar evolutionist lies in the capacity to recognize and exploit such moments.

Marx”s breakdown of the development of industry into handicraft, manufacture and factory is part of the A.B.C. of political economy, or more precisely, of historico-economic theory. In Russia, however, the factory came by skipping over the epoch of manufacture and of urban handicrafts. This is already among the syllables of history. An analogous process took place in our country in class relationships and in politics.


Source

He further hints at this when going over his prerequisites for a socialist revolution (I hope I'll be pardoned for cutting out everything but the conclusions he draws for brevity's sake):

Quote:
1. Socialism is not merely a question of equal distribution but also a question of planned production. Socialism, that is, co-operative production on a large scale, is possible only when the development of productive forces has reached the stage at which large enterprises are more productive than small ones. The more the large enterprises outweigh the smaller, i.e., the more developed technique has become, the more advantageous economically does socialized production become, and, consequently, the higher must the cultural level of the whole population be as a result of equal distribution based upon planned production.

This first objective pre-requisite of socialism has been in existence a long time—ever since the time when social division of labour led to the division of labour in manufacture. It has existed to an even greater extent since the time when manufacture was replaced by factory, machine production.


2. We now pass from the productive-technical pre-requisites of socialism to the social-economic ones.


...the growth of industry, the growth of large enterprises, the growth of the towns, and the growth of the proletariat in general and the industrial proletariat in particular—has already prepared the arena not only for the struggle of the proletariat for political power but for the conquest of this power.

3. Now we come to the third pre-requisite of socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat. Politics is the plane upon which the objective pre-requisites of socialism are intersected by the subjective ones. Under certain definite social-economic conditions, a class consciously sets itself a certain aim—the conquest of political power; it unites its forces, weighs up the strength of the enemy and estimates the situation.

If socialism aimed at creating a new human nature within the limits of the old society it would be nothing more than a new edition of the moralistic utopias. Socialism does not aim at creating a socialist psychology as a pre-requisite to socialism but at creating socialist conditions of life as a pre-requisite to socialist psychology.


In essence, everything seems to have been met it seems to me.
And secondly on point "a", I have yet to see anywhere that Trotsky advocates the bourgeoisie as a progressive force in the modern epoch. Trotsky again implies the same saying:


Quote:
With regard to countries with a belated bourgeois development, especially the colonial and semi-colonial countries, the theory of the permanent revolution signifies that the complete and genuine solution of their tasks of achieving democracy and national emancipation is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat as the leader of the subjugated nation, above all of its peasant masses


Further, and this is something I'm not going to bother getting too deep in as it's something of a side-track issue, Trotsky actively accused Stalin of the same reliance on the bourgeoisie when criticizing the Popular Front instead of the United Front.

Quote:
b) The conditions for socialist revolution do exist and a dictatorship of the proletariat is formed, which means the launch of the socialist revolution (during which the tasks democratic revolution are completed, if there remain unfinished tasks).


I have no real issues with point "b".

But here we run in to trouble again:

Quote:
So, democratic and socialist revolution for Trotsky are distinct stages only in as much the first is lead by the bourgeoisie and the latter by the proletariat.


This is simplistic and not exactly accurate. Trotsky lays out:

Quote:
One stage or another of the historical process can prove to be inevitable under certain conditions, although theoretically not inevitable. And conversely, theoretically “inevitable” stages can be compressed to zero by the dynamics of development, especially during revolutions, which have not for nothing been called the locomotives of history.

For example, in our country the proletariat “skipped” the stage of democratic parliamentarianism, granting the Constituent Assembly only a few hours, and even that much only in the back yard. But the counter-revolutionary stage in China can in no way be skipped over, just as in Russia the period of the four Dumas could not be skipped over. The present counter-revolutionary stage in China, however, was historically in no sense “unavoidable”.

Every attempt to skip over real, that is, objectively conditioned stages in the development of the masses, is political adventurism.


Source (Edited to remove Trotsky's trolling)

This, clearly, has some rather implications that are missing.

Some conclusions on my own part:

1. If you do have a piece where Trotsky is saying that a socialist revolution is impossible in some area, I'd be curious to see it if you have a chance.

2. In general, for people reading this and not necessarily the user I'm responding to, Trotsky's Permanent Revolution is to Marxists (of all stripes) as Uncle Tom's Cabin is to American university students; everyone has an opinion on what it means and why or why not it's important, but hardly anyone has ever actually bothered to read it.

The problem that develops, then, is that when someone - on either side - wants to support a point, it's an obvious place to do it. There was a poll here a few months back in which people gave their thoughts about the work. It had everything from Permanent Revolution being about weapon distribution to slavish pandering in its defence. Few responses on either side actually had anything to do with the theory.

While I'm not singling J. out in particular, as you may well have read it and I always think you have a good head on your shoulders even if there are times I disagree with it - people in general should at the very least read the last chapter where he bullet points things out and lists his main points.

There's flame-baiting on his part, sure, but I have trouble seeing how one can see the less Stalin-oriented points as not being legitimate.

...And I was going to say something else but I forget what it is and this post is long enough anyway.

-TIG
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh Ar La; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4177
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Sep 2004, 16:21
Politburo
Post 29 Jan 2007, 22:52
Quote:
Quote:
The Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution is not a form of Revisionism, Cata. Revisionism is derived from the ideas of Eduard Bernstein in the 1890s. The Bible of Revisionism is Bernstein's book, Evolutionary Socialism. I suggest you read it; you clearly have no understanding of the ideological basis of Revisionism.




Incorrect. Permanent revolution is a revisionism of Marxism-Leninism as it claims the peasantry (its differing strata) is not an ally of the proletariat during the bourgeois or socialist revolutions.

Revisionism =/= deviationism. Trotskyism is not a form of Revisionism, it is 'merely' a deviation from Marxism-Leninism. This may seem like semantic nit-picking, but it is actually quite important.
"Comrade Lenin left us a great legacy, and we fucкed it up." - Josef Stalin
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.