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

How could Stalin be called a socialist?

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 26
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Sep 2008, 19:48
Pioneer
Post 22 Oct 2009, 08:57
Stalin said: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

Source: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... 938/09.htm

Actually this is from the Bible:

2. Thessalonians, 3:10:

Quote:
For even when we were with you we gave you orders, saying, If any man does no work, let him not have food.


http://basicenglishbible.com/2_thessalonians/3.htm

Furthermore, Stalin was a priest!
This contradicts marxism, which rejects religion at all!

Source: http://www.pbs.org/redfiles/bios/all_bi ... stalin.htm

I therefore ask you: How can you admire Stalin, when he didn't think like a socialist, but was more like an aristocrat or cleric? He was anything but a socialist!
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 22 Oct 2009, 09:04
You, sir, are an idiot.

Quote:
Stalin said: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."


No, that was Lenin. And it's right. The principle of socialism is "From everybody according to his possibilities, to everybody according to his deeds." Socialism doesn't need social parasites. In fact, a great deal of socialism is about getting RID of social parasites (i.e. the bourgeoisie).

Quote:
Furthermore, Stalin was a priest!


Stalin was expulsed from the theological seminary because he skipped school in order to pursue revolutionary activities... he was never ordained. He may have been religious, though.

Quote:
This contradicts marxism, which rejects religion at all!


OH NOES! Marxism is a science. Every science rejects religion. Science NEEDS to reject religion because it concerns itself with material phenomena. Does this mean Christians shouldn't be biologists? No. Neither does it mean that Christians shouldn't be Marxists. It's exactly the same thing.

Quote:
How can you admire Stalin, when he didn't think like a socialist, but was more like an aristocrat or cleric? He was anything but a socialist!


How can you be so utterly stupid as to denounce Stalin because he quoted the Bible and was sent to a theological seminary by his mum? You're anything but intelligent.

EDIT: Oh lol, even the very article that you're using as a source contradicts you.

Sent by his mother to the seminary in Tiflis (now Tbilisi), the capital of Georgia, to study to become a priest, the young Stalin never completed his education, and was instead soon completely drawn into the city's active revolutionary circles. Never a fiery intellectual polemicist or orator like Lenin or Trotsky, Stalin specialized in the humdrum nuts and bolts of revolutionary activity, risking arrest every day by helping organize workers, distributing illegal literature, and robbing trains to support the cause, while Lenin and his bookish friends lived safely abroad and wrote clever articles about the plight of the Russian working class.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 26
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Sep 2008, 19:48
Pioneer
Post 22 Oct 2009, 09:49
Mabool wrote:
No, that was Lenin. And it's right. The principle of socialism is "From everybody according to his possibilities, to everybody according to his deeds." Socialism doesn't need social parasites. In fact, a great deal of socialism is about getting RID of social parasites (i.e. the bourgeoisie).


What about those who are unable to work because of medical conditions?
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 22 Oct 2009, 10:05
Those are an exception, obviously. As far as I know, the sick and the elderly weren't left to starve under Stalin.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 865
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2007, 06:42
Komsomol
Post 22 Oct 2009, 17:58
The Soviet Union during the year's of Stalin's General-Secretaryship had the most progressive and efficient system of pensions and social security the contemporary world had ever seen. Seniors and invalids were put to tasks that still allowed them to contribute, otherwise they were provided for by the surpluses of socialized labor.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 272
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Mar 2008, 02:58
Komsomol
Post 22 Oct 2009, 18:03
Quote:
Furthermore, Stalin was a priest!
This contradicts marxism, which rejects religion at all!


All the LOL and ROTFL of this statement aside...

Do you have any other evidence to provide, pertaining to the actual functioning of the Soviet state, that would allow us to be convinced Stalin was not a socialist?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10773
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 22 Oct 2009, 22:14
Socialism is from each according to their abilities to each according to their work. If you are able to work you get rewarded for that work you do. If you don't work, you don't get rewarded. Onto medical disabilites that is related to the first part of the statement, "from each according to their abilities" if people physically can't work they'll still be rewarded.

As for the Bible, some socialists are religious. Liberation theology is a great example of good comrades who where religious.

Marxism is not incompatible with religion. Although there are still clergy in the ruling class, the vast majority of priests aren't there.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 102
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Oct 2009, 14:21
Pioneer
Post 02 Nov 2009, 20:58
Thank you Comrades, for your thoughts on this matter. Joseph Stalin did say that will-power is everything - without that, nothing can be achieved or prevented. The Great Fatherland War was won by the might of the Soviets at great human cost. This is true, but we must not slip into bourgeois morality when judging these events.

Bourgeois morality makes Socialism weak and unattainable - just as Marx said that Judeo-Christian religions tend to put us into a 'haze', such as that experienced by the opium addict. Why? Because bourgeois morality (and outrage) is the product of Capitalist market forces, designed for one purpose only, the perpetuation of the Capitalist, exploitative, industrial complex.

Lenin said that religion was a private matter for the individual, but that religious bodies had no political place in a Communist country. This is not the same as saying that religions are bad par se. The point is that we all move forward TOGETHER, and no one is left behind, not even those who hold religious beliefs - they can still be good Socialists.

Stalin took on Capitalist Nazi Germany. Capitalist countries equate efficiency with profit - therefore, their discriminative and hatefilled military bodies, are trained to a maximum output, with a minimum cost ratio. A soldier's life is defined by his pay, his training and his equipment. Warfare for the Capitalist, is a business transaction in death - nothing more.

For the Socialist soldier, comradely feelings of love for the common people is the only motivation. Financial profit has no bearing, or indeed, no meaning. A Socialist soldier is the physical embodiment of the continuation of the Proletariat Revolution on the battlefield. Socialism must be defended, but only in self-defence. When Nazi Germany attacked the USSR, Stalin, I believe, was the only man that could make Socialist, self-defence warfare work against Capitalist aggression. As a result, the Red Army lost 20 million men and women, using Socialist self-defence against raw Capitalist aggression.

The fault for this lies within Capitalism, and not in its antedote.

Thank you
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 02 Nov 2009, 23:09
This is a hellza weak anti-stalin stance. C'mon there are so many legit reason to dislike his shit and his leadership of the USSR but calling him a clerical aristocrat is just dumb.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 258
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Oct 2009, 17:50
Komsomol
Post 08 Nov 2009, 15:29
If something good, correct and just is said by one of the funders of a religion, that does not mean that a Marxian atheist must not agree with it.
Stalin, who leveled many churches, was not a priest, but had studied to become a priest.
If you tremble at the slightest indignation done to a fellow human, then you are my comrade-in-arms. Commander E. Guevara de la Serna
Soviet cogitations: 272
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Feb 2010, 13:54
Komsomol
Post 09 Mar 2010, 16:12
Um i have an argument that shows that Stalin was kind of a bad socialist, if i am wrong or anything don't hesitate to tell me comrade
. When Stalin made his secrete deal with Hitler to divide Poland he defied the soviet constitution of 1918

CHAPTER THREE

4. Expressing its fixed resolve to liberate mankind from the grip of capital and imperialism, which flooded the earth with blood in its present most criminal of all wars, the Third Congress of Soviets fully agrees with the Soviet Government in its policy of abrogating secret treaties, of organizing on a wide scale the fraternization of the workers and peasants of the belligerent armies, and of making all efforts to conclude a general democratic peace without annexations or indemnities, upon the basis of the free determination of peoples.

You can find the whole document here

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/go ... ticle1.htm
Soviet cogitations: 272
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Feb 2010, 13:54
Komsomol
Post 09 Mar 2010, 16:31
Also after the Nazi Germany was taking over Europe Stalin took over a part of Finland for military reasons to secure themselves. this kind of goes agaisnt the 1918 soviet constitution as well.

CHAPTER THREE

6. The Third Congress of Soviets hails the policy of the Council of People's Commissars in proclaiming the full independence of Finland, in withdrawing troops from Persia, and in proclaiming the right of Armenia to self-determination.

What happened to the independence of Finland ? :P
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 09 Mar 2010, 16:36
Adhering to laws does not make you a good socialist.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 272
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Feb 2010, 13:54
Komsomol
Post 09 Mar 2010, 16:39
Ok so if i didn't work/ follow the laws to work and do what i can for the state then i'm not a bad socialist?
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 489
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Feb 2010, 15:15
Komsomol
Post 09 Mar 2010, 16:40
Uhm, one little thing is that the 1918's Constitution wasn't valid by 1939, as the 1936's Soviet Constitution automatically derogate the previous one (which was for the RSFSR).

Anyway, I'm sure that the 1936's should have a similar (if not equal) article, so he'd be still violating the Constitution. However, as much as I disagree with that decision, it was probably the best option to gain time to prepare the Red Army for the unavoidable war against the Wehrmacht, which was better prepared and equipped by then.

The Finland invasion was, if I remember correctly, because the common border was way to near to Leningrad, so the Soviets were afraid that Leningrad might suffer artillery attacks from the other side of the border. While this is a debatable measure, Finnish independence was never at risk.
"You're a pretty cool guy" - Mabool
"the social democrats don't give a frag about changing this capitalist system [...] so they can lick my greasy peanut buttered balls like the dog they are." - Greenanarchism
Soviet cogitations: 272
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Feb 2010, 13:54
Komsomol
Post 09 Mar 2010, 16:46
Quote:
Uhm, one little thing is that the 1918's Constitution wasn't valid by 1939, as the 1936's Soviet Constitution automatically derogate the previous one (which was for the RSFSR).

Anyway, I'm sure that the 1936's should have a similar (if not equal) article, so he'd be still violating the Constitution. However, as much as I disagree with that decision, it was probably the best option to gain time to prepare the Red Army for the unavoidable war against the Wehrmacht, which was better prepared and equipped by then.

The Finland invasion was, if I remember correctly, because the common border was way to near to Leningrad, so the Soviets were afraid that Leningrad might suffer artillery attacks from the other side of the border. While this is a debatable measure, Finnish independence was never at risk.


Thanks Valex. Know i need to find the 1936's constitution on marxists.org :P and what does RSFSR stand for ?
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 489
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Feb 2010, 15:15
Komsomol
Post 09 Mar 2010, 16:52
It's the Russian Soviet Federate Socialist Republic.
"You're a pretty cool guy" - Mabool
"the social democrats don't give a frag about changing this capitalist system [...] so they can lick my greasy peanut buttered balls like the dog they are." - Greenanarchism
Soviet cogitations: 272
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Feb 2010, 13:54
Komsomol
Post 09 Mar 2010, 17:05
They were the predecessors of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin right? or were they the other Revolution that happened before the Soviet one and they wanted to continue the war ?
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 09 Mar 2010, 17:07
They were the 1917 revolution. Similar revolutions happened in other states, and the Soviet Republics that had formed there, formed the Soviet Union in 1922.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 272
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Feb 2010, 13:54
Komsomol
Post 09 Mar 2010, 17:22
thanks Mabool. there a site with information on this subject that you could tell me about.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.