About being labeled a "Stalinist"

And that is why you are a Stalinist.

Ya. We all do this, don't we?
Even the most hardcore Stalinists and Maoists will say that something could have been done differently to prevent what happened (usually they suggest more intense ideological education).
Other Stalinists say more purges or, at least, there should have been a final purge of bureaucratic and criminalistic tendencies.
Some will say that more democratization is required, especially if the effects of the hypothetical final purge are to persist.
Soviet78 says more computerization. I agree and so do many others.
These are all good points, and it is good to hypothesize, as you say.
Trotskyists might focus too much on personalities, though.
Still, they do have some good things to say.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

And that is why you are a Stalinist.

If you say so.

The fact that I look at and analyze what actually happened in history (Stalin) as opposed to "dreaming" of something that didn't (Trotsky), just makes me a Stalinist?

Just because I regard what didn't happen as irrelevant to the bigger picture, does not mean that I disregard contributions Trotsky altogether. I tend not to dwell on what didn't happen. Shouldn't it be a good thing to recognize the pros and cons of what actually happened, and not dwell on the would have's or should have's too much?

However, yes, fact is, USSR was under the leadership of Stalin. That was the reality. And it it imprinted in history for us to dissect and analyze. And no, I don't shower my mind with thoughts such as what would it have been like under Trotsky's rule. Shoot me. (Perhaps I would be shot if I DID think such a thing under Stalin)

The USSR was a great learning experience, and its much more useful to look at it as such. It's almost pointless to discuss IN DEPTH (keywords, comrades) what it could have would have been if still existing etc. Overall conclusion, we DON'T KNOW.

But real question is, instead of would have should have, is what can be done DIFFERENTLY and what can be recognized as a great contribution that can be repeated and expanded upon. As of now there is no concrete situation for what I'm referring to. However its up to us to keep these ideas alive for when they will be, because as Marxists, we must recognize the inevitable.

I find it hard to support someone who killed all those people because of 'paranoia'......
But on the other han what he did outside of those purges was pretty comendable, turning a farming country into an industrial powerhouse deserves some respect and admiration.

No MiG you are a Stalinist because you uphold Stalin. That's it. That you dislike Trotsky [seemingly] doesn't hurt.

Also yeah the paranoia argument is designed to make Stalin seem unstable.

I'd prefer Marxist-Leninist but you'd say that's essentially Stalinism as well. It almost seems sweeping your designating me as a Stalinist. I'm not quite sure what to think.

Then are you a Trotskyist? What exactly are you?

Quote:

The social-democrat lackeys often call us “stalinists” and they think that in this way they insult the communists. But we are proud of this honorary appellation as we are proud of the appellation “leninists”. There is no greater honor for a revolutionary than being a true leninist, a true stalinist, a devoted disciple of Lenin and Stalin until the end. And there is no greater happiness for the communists than fighting under the guidance of Stalin for the triumph of the international proletariat's just cause. Not everybody can be a stalinist. The honorary appellation “leninist-stalinist” has to be won through bolshevik struggle, persistence and unlimited devotion to the cause of the working class.

(G. Dimitrov “Stalin and the international proletariat”, 1939).

Man In Grey wrote:

I'd prefer Marxist-Leninist but you'd say that's essentially Stalinism as well.

If upholding Stalin makes you a Stalinist then clearly all M-L's are Stalinists.

Man In Grey wrote:

It almost seems sweeping your designating me as a Stalinist. I'm not quite sure what to think.

It is a sweeping generalization just like Marxist or Communist.

Man In Grey wrote:

Then are you a Trotskyist? What exactly are you?

I am the Sharmat.

I don't really Stalin made enough addition to the principle of Marxist-Lennist to have his own ideology, whereas Trotsky changed parts of the 'basic' theory' enough to warrent a different ideology and his own following.

Explain how what Trotsky said changed basic parts while what Stalin said didn't.

Well i would say perminant revelution is bigger change to M-L compared to five year plans.

Trotsky agitated for five year plans when Stalin still supported the maintenance of the NEP. Also the idea of a revolution starting in Russia was a bigger break with Marx than any other committed by Trotsky or Stalin. Their particular ideas (stage-skipping and SIOC) have way more grounding in Marx that their revolution.

Quote:

Also the idea of a revolution starting in Russia was a bigger break with Marx than any other committed by Trotsky or Stalin.

I don't know about Marx but i do know that Engels explicitely said in 1870s that,to paraphrase, the "focal point of revolution is moving to the East", meaning Russia.

That was the focal point of bourgeois revolution and Engels was completely right.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Trotsky agitated for five year plans when Stalin still supported the maintenance of the NEP. Also the idea of a revolution starting in Russia was a bigger break with Marx than any other committed by Trotsky or Stalin. Their particular ideas (stage-skipping and SIOC) have way more grounding in Marx that their revolution.

Stalin only supported NEP because he wanted the support of the right-wing of the party and not because he believed in it. It was just a cynical political maneuver to isolate Trotsky even more and worked very well. If he had supported Trotsky he would not only lose the support of the right-wing but also help Trotsky to capture the leadership of the party. Since he was fighting with Trotsky for it that position wouldn't make any sense.

For a man that predicted way ahead of everybody (more the ten years) the invasion of Russia in 1941 Stalin's seems to be very underrated as a analyst and theoretician even within the communist world.

Stalin's leadership and ideology was motivated by several things Lenin or Marx would have never dreamed of, so it's safe to say that Stalinism is a separate ideology. The fact Stalin himself never thought so is irrelevant - we are all aware of what Trotskyism is, even though Trotsky insisted he was an orthodox marxist, yes?

Ofcourse stalinism is an ideology of its own - are you american? Here in Scandinavia we know of 3 bolshevik ideologys; trotskysim, leninism and stalinism, all variated. Stalinism is to be seen as the "scary" ism of communism, with the massmurder, that is to say, the gulisation of workingclass-enemies. Stalinism isnt most seen as Socialism in one country or anti-troskism as much as the fascist politburo-ideology called "dictatorship of the proletariat" where all proletarians enemies went to gulag by the police - a dictatorship of proletarian ruling culture. But as Lenin wanted that period of time to fade away, Stalin made it last forever, a dictatorship of the elite above mankinds head, since the workers wants a Leader. / Gabbe; http://joseph-stalin-church.blogspot.com

Diktatur, please provide some sources for these claims, for example the "never ending dictatorship of the proletariat" part, because this contradicts my information on the matter: see Stalin's Political Report of the Central Committee to the Sixteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.) on MIA.org (at the end of the page).

Quote:

We stand for the withering away of the state. At the same time we stand for the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the mightiest and strongest state power that has ever existed. The highest development of state power with the object of preparing the conditions for the withering away of state-power—such is the Marxist formula. Is this 'contradictory' ? Yes, it is 'contradictory'. But this contradiction is bound up with life, and it fully reflects Marx's dialectics.

Stalin in my opinion was a monster.. Trying to kill off all the old Bolsheviks for the simple reason they did not agree with his policies, dragging a cult of personality around himself, becoming a paranoid mad man, ordering the repression of millions of workers, making a pact with fascist Hitler, and the atrocities he committed. He was no "hero of the workers".