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

Can Somebody explain 'Socialism in One Country'?

POST REPLY
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 08 Feb 2012, 11:41
Quote:
Well, Trotsky was banned.

That Trotsky was "banned" (a claim which you haven't proved BTW) is a far cry from "Marxism being kept out of school".

Quote:
They read some Lenin and Trotsky but like all education they would be spoonfed what the teachers wanted them to hear.

What does this spoonfeeding talk even mean? What's your point? Pupils were taught (the basics of Marxism among all other things),that's how schools work.

Quote:
Trepper said he was taught by some of the leading Bolsheviks, and one of them said he shuddered ateach round of applause from students, knowing it brought his death closer.

?

Quote:
They knew something was wrong but they were unsure what to do.

And you "know" all this by...how? Trotsky's talks with the "average Soviet worker" in the 30s?


Quote:
Anyway, in the USSR the order of the day was lies and falsification, so any Marxist education would be carefully controlled.

Your deduction is most compelling.This doesn't mean anything and you should better come up with real arguments.

Quote:
Stalin did the opposite of what Lenin and Trotsky advised. He allowed the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor, did nothing about getting poor peasants into coops, did little about industrialisation. Look it up.

Source this,please.

Quote:
Communism is soviet power plus electrification of the entire country meant that electrification was vital to have any chance of getting communism.

My point when i brought this up was that Lenin understood the necessity for the industralization and modernization of the USSR and recognized that socialism is possible in one country.

Quote:
I dunno how many were fooled.

Wait,are you seriously saying that Stalin "fooled" the whole "Stalinist counterrevolutionary bureaucracy" into thinking that they were actually building Socialism but instead worked for Vozhd's plans of building...(what exactly?) ? You do understand that this sounds ridiculuous,right?

Quote:
There is a lot more to socialism than just being free from the possibility of attack or capitalist restoration.

No one claimed so.

Quote:
Socialism is what Stalin feared the most. He killed socialists in Russia and elsewhere, sabotaging all revolutions.

Repeat this in every post of yours and maybe i'll buy it.

Quote:
Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky were all internationalists, Stalin was not.

How was Stalin not an internationalist?

Quote:
"We know that we cannot establish a socialist order now—God grant that it may be established in our country in our children’s time, or perhaps in our grandchildren’s time."

This is from 1919.
But in late 1920 Lenin said:
Quote:
The generation of people who are now at the age of fifty cannot expect to see a communist society. This generation will be gone before then. But the generation of those who are now fifteen will see a communist society, and will itself build this society.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... oct/02.htm

Quote:
Well, you cant trust a word Stalin ever said.

I won't reply to this obvious slander,but let me just gives some quotes of Lenin on Mr.Bronshtein:

Quote:
There is also a letter from Kollontai who... has returned to Norway from America. N. Iv. and Pavlov... had won Novy Mir, she says,... but ... Trotsky arrived, and this scoundrel at once ganged up with the Right wing of Novy Mir against the Left Zimmerwaldists!! That's it!! That's Trotsky for you!! Always true to himself, twists, swindles, poses as a Left, helps the Right, so long as he can...


Btw,a list of names Lenin called Trotsky:
Quote:
"Pustozvon" ("bell", man who talks much and does nothing), "svin'ya" (pig), "podlec iz podlecov" (scoundrel of scoundlers), "iudushka" ("Judas"), "politicheskaya prostitutka" (political prostitute) and his most elegant phrase concerning Trotsky that became Russian proverb - "pizdit kak Trotskiy" - "lies like fragging Trotsky".



Quote:
Yes, but Stalin let it go too far, so when he realised he did a very rapid U-turn in which several million starved.

There was no "U-turn" but a tactical retreat,largely caused by overzealous local cadres.

Quote:
What? you must know of the Show Trials and Purges. I am very serious. Hundreds of thousands were expelled from the CP, tens of thousands were sent to the gulag and shot. This is all well known. The Show Trials were frame-ups. Read up on it if you dont know about it, it was political genocide of the left, the best socialists, why do you think all the original Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party were killed? Do some reading on this, I cant believe you dont know about it already. read Rogovin, Trepper, Khruschev's speech and so on. The Dewey commission, Trotsky.

Pfff,this deserves a thread of its own.
But Moscow trials were fair and the purges were good in principle,although mistakes and excesses happened.

Quote:
No you didnt, you said two survived. The fact is they went there to sabotage the revolution, killing Trotskyists and anarchists, and when they got back most were killed. Orlov escaped. Look it up. Why pretend that two people surviving a purge means the purge never happened? Did the tsumani never happen because some survived?

How many names of NKVD agents who came home from Spain do you want me to give you in order for you to correct your absurd claim? 15,20,30?

Quote:
what are you on about? Are you saying millions starving is of no importance?

No,i'm saying that the industrialization didn't come at the expense of famines,that it wasn't some calculated "price to be paid" the Party agreed to,which is what you're implying.

Quote:
Countries always perform 'economic miracles' in war.

Bullshit,Britan wasn't invaded,it only got bombed for a few months.The USSR lost some of the most developed parts to the invader.But anyway,your claims about "poor organization" and what not are clearly slanderous and dumb rubbish. All even bourgeois historians recognize that such a tremendous undertaking the transfer or industry in 1941 was would have been impossible with "poor organization" and without utmost discipline.

Quote:
In a socialist society there is no elite, no bureaucracy, no dictatorship. In fact the end goal is no government, no politicians, no state. Everyone is a part time planner.

Said who? Trotsky,the main proponent of military discipline over the workers?


Image
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 08 Feb 2012, 16:12
Loz wrote:
"Well, Trotsky was banned."

That Trotsky was "banned" (a claim which you haven't proved BTW) is a far cry from "Marxism being kept out of school".


Trotsky is a vital part of Marxist education. Stalin gave the masses lies, not history or theory. They were told that Stalin led the revolution, not Trotsky, that Lenin hated Trotsky, that Trotsky was a bad Marxist, a counter-revolutionary in fact. Each a bare faced lie.

Loz wrote:

They read some Lenin and Trotsky but like all education they would be spoonfed what the teachers wanted them to hear. "
What does this spoonfeeding talk even mean? What's your point? Pupils were taught (the basics of Marxism among all other things),that's how schools work.


Actually I think I meant to say Marx. They would not be allowed to read Trotsky, as then all Stalin's lies would be exposed. Pupils are usually spoonfed, taught what the teachers want them to learn. In the west they are taught a syllabus to pass exams. In Stalinist USSR if they studied any Marx or Lenin it would be selective bits twisted to suit Stalin's lies, like creationists quoting geologists. Even if they had unrestricted access to all the writings of Marx and Lenin, they would be taught which bits are important in class etc. A teacher does not just point a pupil to the library door. A teacher teaches. In Stalin's Russia if a teacher taught Marxism properly he would be executed.

Loz wrote:

"Trepper said he was taught by some of the leading Bolsheviks, and one of them said he shuddered ateach round of applause from students, knowing it brought his death closer."
?


Some leading Bolsheviks gave lectures to students. At the end of a lecture the students would applaud. This was because the students were keen Marxists. Stalin would kill anyone encouraging keen Marxists.

"Trepper was enrolled at the Marchlevski University, alongside the future leaders of the world’s communist parties, including Tito, where the students were lectured by Old Bolsheviks, like Radek, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin, the future victims of Stalin, who were already too well aware of their impending fate. Trepper remarks “When he (Bukharin) finished a lecture, he regularly received a veritable ovation – which he always greeted with a blank stare…One day, looking sadly over a roomful of students acclaiming him, he muttered, “Each time they applaud it brings me closer to my death.”"
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/1009

Do you get it now? Teaching Marxism got you killed.

Loz wrote:
"They knew something was wrong but they were unsure what to do."
And you "know" all this by...how? Trotsky's talks with the "average Soviet worker" in the 30s?



"Trepper was not alone in enduring the terror; “yet we went along sick at heart, but passive, caught up in machinery we had set in motion…all those who did not rise up against the Stalinist machine are responsible, collectively responsible. I am no exception to this verdict.”

Like most he was too lost to counter Stalin's assault on the party. A member from only the late 1920s onwards, he had neither the training, or experience to understand the political root of the degeneration of the revolution; “But who did protest…The Trotskyites can lay claim to that honour…let them not forget, however, that they had the enormous advantage over us of having a coherent political system capable of replacing Stalinism….they did not “confess,” for they knew that their confession would serve neither the party nor socialism.”" same source. I advise you to read the article, this guy was a Russian spy in WW2



Loz wrote:

"Anyway, in the USSR the order of the day was lies and falsification, so any Marxist education would be carefully controlled."
Your deduction is most compelling.This doesn't mean anything and you should better come up with real arguments.



http://web.mit.edu/people/fjk/essays/volkogonov.html
"Volkogonov was brought up in, and later headed a school of historiography which was remarkably crude and unsophisticated. Unlike Western historians, Stalinists did not need to make their stories coherent or even related to historical facts. Nevsky, Yaroslavsky, Gusev, Zhdanov, Suslov and Volkogonov got to the top of this school by concealing facts, silencing and murdering witnesses, pulping history books, inventing tales out of whole cloth. The ruling elite needed massive doses of lies precisely because it was a living lie. The Stalinist bureaucracy pretended to be Communist, and was not; it pretended to be revolutionary and progressive, yet was one of the most reactionary forces in history; it pretended not even to exist, yet it was the most visible, overstuffed, corrupt and corrosive malignancy within the Soviet system."

read that, and the article on Trepper. Trepper should have returned a hero but he was jailed, his boss executed. These guys worked underground in Nazi occupied territory to defend the USSR.


Loz wrote:
"Stalin did the opposite of what Lenin and Trotsky advised. He allowed the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor, did nothing about getting poor peasants into coops, did little about industrialisation. Look it up."
Source this,please.


Well, read the Platform of the Opposition from 1927 and other stuff by Trotsky, read what Lenin said. Trotsky and Lenin both wanted the kulaks heavily taxed, but under Stalin the opposite happened and the wealth kulaks challenged him as Trotsky had predicted, forcing him to collectivise as Trotsky had advised.

Loz wrote:

"Communism is soviet power plus electrification of the entire country meant that electrification was vital to have any chance of getting communism."
My point when i brought this up was that Lenin understood the necessity for the industralization and modernization of the USSR and recognized that socialism is possible in one country.


Lenin understood the need for industrialisation, Stalin was much slower on the uptake. Lenin did not think socialism was possible in one country and he said it dozens of times. Do not use quotes from before 1917 as Lenin was a essentially a stagist, and I thing there is one just before he died which is ambiguous, also he was dying, and he was pretty miserable about how things were degenerating, I think he had doubts and blamed himself. This is why he wanted Stalin removed.

Trotsky:
"The existing system of a single agricultural tax ought to be changed in the direction of freeing altogether from taxation 40 to 50 per cent of the poorest and poorer peasant families, without making up for it by any additional tax upon the bulk of the middle peasants. The dates of tax collection should be accommodated to the interests of the lower groups of taxpayers."

"The following measures are necessary: A steeply progressive tax system"

"At the same time, we must give more systematic help to poor peasants not included in the collectives, by freeing them entirely from taxation,"

"We must carry out in deeds a redistribution of the tax-burden among the classes – loading more heavily the kulak and the Nepman, relieving the workers and the poor.

This was exactly what Lenin had said. Do some research and you will find it's all true.

"The role of indirect taxes had grown at the expense of the direct by which automatically the tax burden moved from the wealthier to the poorer. "
http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-c ... d/ch10.htm






Loz wrote:

I dunno how many were fooled."
Wait,are you seriously saying that Stalin "fooled" the whole "Stalinist counterrevolutionary bureaucracy" into thinking that they were actually building Socialism but instead worked for Vozhd's plans of building...(what exactly?) ? You do understand that this sounds ridiculuous,right?


I doubt many of the bureaucracy thought they were building genuine socialism. Some did. Read the article on Trepper, he was a typical young Marxist, went to the USSR from and became a spy for them. He wanted to defend the USSR but he knew things were not right, as all the communists were murdered.





Loz wrote:
"There is a lot more to socialism than just being free from the possibility of attack or capitalist restoration."
No one claimed so.


Yes you did.

Loz wrote:
"Socialism is what Stalin feared the most. He killed socialists in Russia and elsewhere, sabotaging all revolutions."
Repeat this in every post of yours and maybe i'll buy it.


google it, do some research, it's all there on the net. google Stalin's sabotage of the Spanish revolution, the Show trial, the false confessions of Zinoviev and Kamenev, google Two Stage Theory, Popular Frontism, United Front, Social fascism, Red Referendum, Permanent Revolution, Left Opposition. Read Lenin and Trotsky. Why do you think Stalin wrote this to someone who massacred communists many times:

Quote:

J. V. Stalin
To Chiang Kai Shek
August 31, 1945
Thank you for your congratulations on the occasion of the ratification of the Treaty of Friendship and Alliance as well as the agreements between China and the U.S.S.R., signed on August 14.

I am sure that this Treaty and the agreements will provide a solid base for an ultimate development of friendly relations between the U.S.S.R. and China for the well-being and prosperity of our peoples and the reinforcement of peace and security in the Far East and in the whole world.

I beg you, Mr. President,to accept my congratulations on the occasion of the confirmation of these historical documents.

J. STALIN

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... /08/31.htm

Loz wrote:
"Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky were all internationalists, Stalin was not."
How was Stalin not an internationalist?


He revised Marxism to Socialism in One Country, gave up world revolution, and embarked on world counter-revolution. Yeah, he was an inverse internationalist, crushing revolutions around the world.

Loz wrote:
"We know that we cannot establish a socialist order now—God grant that it may be established in our country in our children’s time, or perhaps in our grandchildren’s time.""
This is from 1919.
But in late 1920 Lenin said:
"The generation of people who are now at the age of fifty cannot expect to see a communist society. This generation will be gone before then. But the generation of those who are now fifteen will see a communist society, and will itself build this society. "
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... oct/02.htm

So they would see a communist society in the next 50 years, when their grandchildren finished building it, this is no different.

Loz wrote:
"Well, you cant trust a word Stalin ever said."
I won't reply to this obvious slander,

are you taking this seriously? I feel like I am wasting my time, talking to someone with their fingers in their ears.
Start doing some proper research.

Loz wrote:
but let me just gives some quotes of Lenin on Mr.Bronshtein:


Nobody calls Trotsky that so why do such a stupid thing?

Loz wrote:
There is also a letter from Kollontai who... has returned to Norway from America. N. Iv. and Pavlov... had won Novy Mir, she says,... but ... Trotsky arrived, and this scoundrel at once ganged up with the Right wing of Novy Mir against the Left Zimmerwaldists!! That's it!! That's Trotsky for you!! Always true to himself, twists, swindles, poses as a Left, helps the Right, so long as he can...


This is pretty pathetic, digging up names they called each other in letters form the days before the revolution. Can we concentrate on the actual history?



"
Loz wrote:
Yes, but Stalin let it go too far, so when he realised he did a very rapid U-turn in which several million starved."
There was no "U-turn" but a tactical retreat,largely caused by overzealous local cadres.


A tactical retreat? According to Lenin the NEP was supposed to be the retreat. Are you now claiming otherwise? Are you saying the collectivisation was carried out by overzealous comrades? It was a massive frigging U-turn ordered by Stalin.

"
Loz wrote:
"What? you must know of the Show Trials and Purges. I am very serious. Hundreds of thousands were expelled from the CP, tens of thousands were sent to the gulag and shot. This is all well known. The Show Trials were frame-ups. Read up on it if you dont know about it, it was political genocide of the left, the best socialists, why do you think all the original Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party were killed? Do some reading on this, I cant believe you dont know about it already. read Rogovin, Trepper, Khruschev's speech and so on. The Dewey commission, Trotsky."
Pfff,this deserves a thread of its own.
But Moscow trials were fair and the purges were good in principle,although mistakes and excesses happened.


Rubbish. The charges were fake, everyone knows it. Read up for god's sake man. This was a political counter revolution to make sure socialism never happened. All the Old Bolsheviks were conspiring with the Nazis? Get real.




Loz wrote:
"No you didnt, you said two survived. The fact is they went there to sabotage the revolution, killing Trotskyists and anarchists, and when they got back most were killed. Orlov escaped. Look it up. Why pretend that two people surviving a purge means the purge never happened? Did the tsumani never happen because some survived?"
How many names of NKVD agents who came home from Spain do you want me to give you in order for you to correct your absurd claim? 15,20,30?


Quote:
The first three heads of the NKVD were all executed: Genrikh Yagoda (1934-36), Nikolai Yezhov (1936-39) and Lavrenti Beria (1939-53).

Of the 1,966 delegates that attended the Communist Party Congress in 1934, 1,108 were arrested over the next five years. Only seventy people were tried in public. The rest were tried in secret before being executed. Official figures suggest that between January 1935 and June 1941, 19.8 million people were arrested by the NKVD. An estimated seven million of these prisoners were executed.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSnkvd.htm

Loz wrote:
"what are you on about? Are you saying millions starving is of no importance? "
No,i'm saying that the industrialization didn't come at the expense of famines,that it wasn't some calculated "price to be paid" the Party agreed to,which is what you're implying.


The famines were caused by the way Stalin rushed the collectivisation through. Lenin said it should not be forced, and should take 10-20 years. He wanted it starting straight way in 1923, encouraging poor peasants into coops via subsidies. Stalin fragged that idea right off.

Loz wrote:
Countries always perform 'economic miracles' in war."
Bullshit,Britan wasn't invaded,it only got bombed for a few months.The USSR lost some of the most developed parts to the invader.But anyway,your claims about "poor organization" and what not are clearly slanderous and dumb rubbish. All even bourgeois historians recognize that such a tremendous undertaking the transfer or industry in 1941 was would have been impossible with "poor organization" and without utmost discipline.


Slanderous my arse. If the USSR was so great, how come they had to stop people leaving, and how come it no longer exists?



Loz wrote:
"In a socialist society there is no elite, no bureaucracy, no dictatorship. In fact the end goal is no government, no politicians, no state. Everyone is a part time planner."
Said who? Trotsky,the main proponent of military discipline over the workers?



I already explained the Trade Union Disputes thing, didnt I? The NEP was Trotsky's idea but it was initially rejected. The economy was going down a blind ally. Trotsky considered the USSR to be a workers state and as such the workers should have nothing to fear from the state, so the unions should be integrated into the state to maximise efficiency. He wanted to end war communism and when that was initially rejected he said ok, lets do war communism properly then. Later he agreed that Lenin had probably been right that integrating the unions into the state was not something that suited the mood of the workers at the time. Anyway, soon after they had the NEP. You have to understand that what Trotsky had proposed (the militarisation of labour) was already partly practised.

Anyway, said who? Said Marx and Engels, the state would ''wither away''. Also Lenin and Trotsky.

"For Lenin, a classless society would be a society controlled by the direct producers, organised to produce according to socially managed goals. Such a society, Lenin suggested, would develop habits that would gradually make political representation unnecessary, as the radically democratic nature of the Soviets would lead citizens to come to agree with the representatives' style of management. Only in this environment, Lenin suggested, could the state wither away, ushering in a period of stateless communism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_communism

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... v/ch05.htm


Lenin State and Revolution

Economic basis for withering away of the state.


"So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state. "



"The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", i.e., when people have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and when their labor has become so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability. "The narrow horizon of bourgeois law", which compels one to calculate with the heartlessness of a Shylock whether one has not worked half an hour more than anybody else--this narrow horizon will then be left behind. There will then be no need for society, in distributing the products, to regulate the quantity to be received by each; each will take freely "according to his needs". "

Lenin
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 08 Feb 2012, 23:27
Quote:
Trotsky is a vital part of Marxist education.

Only according to you and your fellow Trotskites.

Quote:
Stalin gave the masses lies, not history or theory.

Name these lies.

Quote:
They were told that Stalin led the revolution, not Trotsky, that Lenin hated Trotsky, that Trotsky was a bad Marxist, a counter-revolutionary in fact. Each a bare faced lie.

Lenin called Trotsky a "pig","swindle","cheat","Judas" (traitor) etc etc 219 times.It's quite feasible that Lenin indeed did hate him.
But,prove that "they" were told that Stalin (alone) led the revolution.

Quote:
In Stalinist USSR if they studied any Marx or Lenin it would be selective bits twisted to suit Stalin's lies, like creationists quoting geologists.

Substantiate this with evidence please.

Quote:
In Stalin's Russia if a teacher taught Marxism properly he would be executed.

How exactly do you teach "proper Marxism"?

Quote:
Some leading Bolsheviks gave lectures to students. At the end of a lecture the students would applaud. This was because the students were keen Marxists. Stalin would kill anyone encouraging keen Marxists.

What is this,i don't even...
Seriously? What leading Bolsheviks,what lectures,when did this take place? How can you possible say that the students would applaud "because they were keen Marxists"? How do you know this? I mean,if applauds matter,Stalin used to get 5-minute ones regulargly...


Quote:
Do you get it now? Teaching Marxism got you killed.

Yes and by 1939 all Soviet Marxists were killed,we got it.

Quote:
Lenin did not think socialism was possible in one country and he said it dozens of times.

Why would they bother with industrialization then? And yeah,give proof for this please.

Quote:
I doubt many of the bureaucracy thought they were building genuine socialism

But you said that Stalin "fooled" them into thinking that they were....

Quote:
Yes you did.

Where?

Quote:
google it, do some research, it's all there on the net. google Stalin's sabotage of the Spanish revolution, the Show trial, the false confessions of Zinoviev and Kamenev, google Two Stage Theory, Popular Frontism, United Front, Social fascism, Red Referendum, Permanent Revolution, Left Opposition. Read Lenin and Trotsky. Why do you think Stalin wrote this to someone who massacred communists many times:
Yes,I've never heard of this before.

What exactly do you have in mind anyway?

Quote:
He revised Marxism to Socialism in One Country, gave up world revolution, and embarked on world counter-revolution. Yeah, he was an inverse internationalist, crushing revolutions around the world.

Post this three more times and i'll believe you.

Quote:
This is pretty pathetic, digging up names they called each other in letters form the days before the revolution. Can we concentrate on the actual history?
Oh well,Lenin called him names 219 times.Quite impressive.

Quote:
A tactical retreat? According to Lenin the NEP was supposed to be the retreat. Are you now claiming otherwise? Are you saying the collectivisation was carried out by overzealous comrades? It was a massive frigging U-turn ordered by Stalin.

Yes,because it was continued the next year.
No,i said that there were excesses caused by overzealous local cadres.

Quote:
Rubbish. The charges were fake, everyone knows it. Read up for god's sake man. This was a political counter revolution to make sure socialism never happened. All the Old Bolsheviks were conspiring with the Nazis? Get real.

I googled it all right,the Moscow Trials were fair.
http://www.marxists.org/history/interna ... l-fair.htm

Quote:
The first three heads of the NKVD were all executed: Genrikh Yagoda (1934-36), Nikolai Yezhov (1936-39) and Lavrenti Beria (1939-53).

Beria was killed by Khruschov and Co.

But your source doesn't say anthing about NKVD and spain,so what's the point?

Quote:
The famines were caused by the way Stalin rushed the collectivisation through. Lenin said it should not be forced, and should take 10-20 years. He wanted it starting straight way in 1923, encouraging poor peasants into coops via subsidies. Stalin fragged that idea right off.

Yes,had Stalin been a proper Leninist he would have started the collectivization around 1941...



Quote:
Slanderous my arse. If the USSR was so great, how come they had to stop people leaving, and how come it no longer exists?

Hurr durr 1991...
Why don't you be honest for one and elaborate on this "poor administration",which was your starting argument?
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 08 Feb 2012, 23:32
daft punk wrote:
Slanderous my arse. If the USSR was so great, how come they had to stop people leaving, and how come it no longer exists?


Soviet78 posted a rather long essay on the effects of Glasnost on the public discourse, and the deliberate nature of the attack on the system, by elements in power.

I know it isn't written by Trotsky but you might learn something new.
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 09 Feb 2012, 01:16
Hey daft punk,

it would be really nice if you could stop praising Trotsky and telling people to read Trotsky. You know that this is an intentional and superfluous provocation. You might have noticed that nobody has told you to read Stalin.

Also, read this thread: viewtopic.php?f=108&t=48918 in order to get a basic idea for the original Marxist theory on the evolution of communism, free from Leninist bullshit. You obviously need this.

Also props to Loz. You're becoming an awesome ML.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 09 Feb 2012, 13:21
Loz wrote:
"Stalin gave the masses lies, not history or theory."
Name these lies.

He said Russia was socialist, and supporting socialism around the world.

Loz wrote:
"They were told that Stalin led the revolution, not Trotsky, that Lenin hated Trotsky, that Trotsky was a bad Marxist, a counter-revolutionary in fact. Each a bare faced lie."
Lenin called Trotsky a "pig","swindle","cheat","Judas" (traitor) etc etc 219 times.It's quite feasible that Lenin indeed did hate him.
But,prove that "they" were told that Stalin (alone) led the revolution.


This is what Stalin said originally, in a telegram to Lenin, published in Stalin's book on Lenin. This eventually was wiped from later editions:
Quote:
All practical work in connection with the organization of the uprising was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the president of the Petrograd Soviet. It can be stated with certainty that the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky for the rapid going over of the garrison to the side of the Soviet and the efficient manner in which the work of the Military-Revolutionary Committee was organized.The principal assistants of Comrade Trotsky were Comrades Antonov and Podvoisky."

This is what he said later:
Quote:
Comrade Trotsky played no particular role in the party or the October insurrection and could not do so, being a man comparatively new to our party in the October period.” (J. Stalin: Trotskyism or Leninism, pp.68f.)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... f/sf04.htm



Loz wrote:
"In Stalinist USSR if they studied any Marx or Lenin it would be selective bits twisted to suit Stalin's lies, like creationists quoting geologists."
Substantiate this with evidence please.

It is a reasonable assumption. Stalin was a fake socialist, fighting against socialism. I gave you a bit on Volkogonov etc. Have a read of the Stalin School of Falsification.

Loz wrote:
"In Stalin's Russia if a teacher taught Marxism properly he would be executed."
How exactly do you teach "proper Marxism"?

Are you just playing a game here or trying to actually get to the truth? Did you read the article on Trepper?


Loz wrote:
"Some leading Bolsheviks gave lectures to students. At the end of a lecture the students would applaud. This was because the students were keen Marxists. Stalin would kill anyone encouraging keen Marxists."
What is this,i don't even...
Seriously? What leading Bolsheviks,what lectures,when did this take place? How can you possible say that the students would applaud "because they were keen Marxists"? How do you know this? I mean,if applauds matter,Stalin used to get 5-minute ones regulargly...

looks like I am wasting my time here, you are not serious. I gave you the info. I told you which leading Bolsheviks and so on.

Quote:
Trepper was enrolled at the Marchlevski University, alongside the future leaders of the world’s communist parties, including Tito, where the students were lectured by Old Bolsheviks, like Radek, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin, the future victims of Stalin, who were already too well aware of their impending fate. Trepper remarks “When he (Bukharin) finished a lecture, he regularly received a veritable ovation – which he always greeted with a blank stare…One day, looking sadly over a roomful of students acclaiming him, he muttered, “Each time they applaud it brings me closer to my death.”




Loz wrote:
"Lenin did not think socialism was possible in one country and he said it dozens of times."
Why would they bother with industrialization then? And yeah,give proof for this please.

Stalin industrialised to keep his position as dictator, because that was what was needed. Lenin said socialism was not possible in one country (especially a backward one) dozens of times. So did Trotsky plus Marx and Engels. Go look it up for yourself. Yes if Stalin had industrialised he could have built a sort of socialist country, but that would have meant equality and democracy, and he did not want that, he fought that.

Loz wrote:
I doubt many of the bureaucracy thought they were building genuine socialism"
But you said that Stalin "fooled" them into thinking that they were....

Did you read the article on Trepper? The younger ones knew thing weren't right. The older ones either went along with Stalinism, kept their mouths shut, or opposed it and got shot. As for the masses I dunno how many of them really believed it was socialism, I'm sure some would.

Loz wrote:
"Yes you did. "
Where?

Quote:
Can we regard the victory of Socialism in our country as final, i.e., as being free from the dangers of military attack and of attempts to restore capitalism, assuming that Socialism is victorious only in one country and that the capitalist encirclement continues to exist?

You pasted that from Stalin to show that he said the final victory of socialism is not possible in one country. He defines final as
"being free from the dangers of military attack and of attempts to restore capitalism". I said there is more to socialism than just being free from the dangers of military attack and of attempts to restore capitalism. Stalin himself seemed to recognise this in 1924 when he said
Quote:
Is it possible to attain the final victory of socialism in one country, without the combined efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries? No, it is not. The efforts of one country are enough for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. This is what the history of our revolution tells us. For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, especially a peasant country like ours, are not enough. For this we must have the efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries. Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution.”

Here he talks about the organisation of socialist production being impossible. Socialism moves towards communism in which there is no bureaucracy, no state. Stalin built a massive bureaucratic elite and state machinery. Lenin said socialism was a million times more democratic than capitalism, but Stalin crushed democracy. Democracy is essential for socialism, like oil to an engine. It is the mechanism of efficient planning.



Loz wrote:
"google it, do some research, it's all there on the net. google Stalin's sabotage of the Spanish revolution, the Show trial, the false confessions of Zinoviev and Kamenev, google Two Stage Theory, Popular Frontism, United Front, Social fascism, Red Referendum, Permanent Revolution, Left Opposition. Read Lenin and Trotsky. Why do you think Stalin wrote this to someone who massacred communists many times:"Yes,I've never heard of this before.

What exactly do you have in mind anyway?

Just read up

Loz wrote:
"He revised Marxism to Socialism in One Country, gave up world revolution, and embarked on world counter-revolution. Yeah, he was an inverse internationalist, crushing revolutions around the world. "
Post this three more times and i'll believe you.

Just research it, you'll see. Why did Stalin sign a treaty with Chiang Kai-shek? Why did he support Chiang and constantly refuse to meet Mao? Why did he tell Mao to surrender to Chiang? Why was Chiang invited to Moscow?
Why did the Soviet ambassador flee with the KMT when the Red Army advanced? Read the article on the origins of Chinese Stalinism at the Socialism Today website. Stalin backed Chiang from 1925 - 1948. Ching murdered thousands and thousand of communists. Explain that. Even Mao wanted several decades of capitalism after WW2.


Loz wrote:
"This is pretty pathetic, digging up names they called each other in letters form the days before the revolution. Can we concentrate on the actual history?"
Oh well,Lenin called him names 219 times.Quite impressive.

aw, did Lenin not mention Uncle Joe very often? Such a shame.

Loz wrote:
"A tactical retreat? According to Lenin the NEP was supposed to be the retreat. Are you now claiming otherwise? Are you saying the collectivisation was carried out by overzealous comrades? It was a massive frigging U-turn ordered by Stalin. "
Yes,because it was continued the next year.
No,i said that there were excesses caused by overzealous local cadres.


not sure what you are on about here. In 1922 Lenin wanted the kulaks heavily taxed, the poor not taxed, the poor peasants encouraged into coops. Stalin did none of that and so in 1928 the kulaks were a powerful force.

Loz wrote:
"Rubbish. The charges were fake, everyone knows it. Read up for god's sake man. This was a political counter revolution to make sure socialism never happened. All the Old Bolsheviks were conspiring with the Nazis? Get real. "
I googled it all right,the Moscow Trials were fair.
http://www.marxists.org/history/interna ... l-fair.htm

Jesus Christ. You googled it and read one article from the Communist Party!

That is pretty pathetic, what else do you expect them to say? Plus it was written while the purges were still going on. later the regime itself in Russia admitted all charges were faked.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/khrushc ... /02/24.htm





Loz wrote:
"The first three heads of the NKVD were all executed: Genrikh Yagoda (1934-36), Nikolai Yezhov (1936-39) and Lavrenti Beria (1939-53)."
Beria was killed by Khruschov and Co.

But your source doesn't say anthing about NKVD and spain,so what's the point?
read about Alexander Orlov. Orlov was in Spain. He defected to avoid execution. Because others returning were being executed. Orlov was no traitor, he had moved all Spain's gold to Moscow. He had received the USSR's highest award. But he feared for his life because people like him had witnessed Stalin's crushing of a revolution, he had been an active part of that, a willing one even, but he justs didnt want to die.

Loz wrote:
"The famines were caused by the way Stalin rushed the collectivisation through. Lenin said it should not be forced, and should take 10-20 years. He wanted it starting straight way in 1923, encouraging poor peasants into coops via subsidies. Stalin fragged that idea right off. "
Yes,had Stalin been a proper Leninist he would have started the collectivization around 1941...

No, he started it too late not too early. He should have taxed the rich and made coops attractive to the poor via subsidies, thus making collectivisation voluntary for most. As per Lenin and Trotsky's advice.


Loz wrote:
"Slanderous my arse. If the USSR was so great, how come they had to stop people leaving, and how come it no longer exists?
"
Hurr durr 1991...
Why don't you be honest for one and elaborate on this "poor administration",which was your starting argument?


You cant run a planned economy from the top, via the dictatorship of a bureaucratic elite. That was never the intention of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. Did you read Lenin's speech to the 1922 Congress? He spends ages criticising some people for passing a decision to the central committee. The point is that decision making like that takes forever. It needs to be done at the lowest possible level. He also criticises the communists for being manipulated by non-communist bureaucrats. He makes a big deal of this. Read it.

He also said things like this:

"One of the most important tasks today, if not the most important, is to develop this independent initiative of the workers, and of all the working and exploited people generally, develop it as widely as possible in creative organisational work. At all costs we must break the old, absurd, savage, despicable and disgusting prejudice that only the so-called "upper classes", only the rich, and those who have gone through the school of the rich, are capable of administering the state and directing the organisational development of socialist society."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... dec/25.htm

and

"The workers and peasants are still "timid", they have not yet become accustomed to the idea that they are now the ruling class.."

Doesnt sound much like Russia does it?

Was Stalin's USSR a million times more democratic, as Lenin had said Russia was in 1918? No it wasnt.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 09 Feb 2012, 23:55
Quote:
He said Russia was socialist, and supporting socialism around the world.

Oh i see now.This perfectly makes sense and proves that Stalin gave the masses lies,not history of theory.Good.

Quote:
This is what Stalin said originally, in a telegram to Lenin, published in Stalin's book on Lenin. This eventually was wiped from later editions...

Here is an excerpt from Stalin's Collected Works (Sochinenia),Vol.6,p.329,Moscow,1947.

Quote:
"It is to be admitted that Trotsky had indeed done well in the period of October.Yes,it's true,Trotsky played a distinctively good role in the October,but so had others. Back then even people such as left SRs did well and stood by the Bolsheviks."

Допустим, говорят нам, но нельзя отрицать того, что Троцкий хорошо дрался в период Октября. Да, это верно, Троцкий действительно хорошо дрался в Октябре. Но в период Октября хорошо дрался не только Троцкий, недурно дрались даже такие люди, как левые эсеры, стоявшие тогда бок о бок с большевиками.


Quote:
It is a reasonable assumption. Stalin was a fake socialist, fighting against socialism. I gave you a bit on Volkogonov etc. Have a read of the Stalin School of Falsification.

OK, we got it.

Quote:
Are you just playing a game here or trying to actually get to the truth? Did you read the article on Trepper?

Trepper talks about how he was sick at heart,caught in the machinery,how one professor became melancholic during an applause and so on...
I don't know what does that have to do with "teaching proper Marxism" your mentioned.

Quote:
It is a reasonable assumption.

Oh,so now we came from bold claims to "reasonable assumptions".Way to go,champ.

Quote:
Stalin was a fake socialist, fighting against socialism.

Are these too "reasonable assumptions"?

Quote:
looks like I am wasting my time here, you are not serious. I gave you the info. I told you which leading Bolsheviks and so on.

The quote talks about how Bukharin became melancholic during an applause.I don't know what exactly does this prove,but OK.

Quote:
You pasted that from Stalin to show that he said the final victory of socialism is not possible in one country. He defines final as
"being free from the dangers of military attack and of attempts to restore capitalism".

No he doesn't.Stop falsifying.

Quote:
Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?

Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.

It follows that this question contains two different problems :

1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and

2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.


We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.

We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.

But as we are not living on an island but "in a system of States," a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final.

But from this it follows that the second problem is not yet solved and that it has yet to be solved.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... /01/18.htm

Quote:
Here he talks about the organisation of socialist production being impossible. Socialism moves towards communism in which there is no bureaucracy, no state. Stalin built a massive bureaucratic elite and state machinery. Lenin said socialism was a million times more democratic than capitalism, but Stalin crushed democracy. Democracy is essential for socialism, like oil to an engine. It is the mechanism of efficient planning.

Where does he talk about the organisation of socialist production being impossible?
I won't address the clichees you seem to be trotting out in every post,i'm just going to say that Stalin recognized the need to struggle against the bureaucracy.
Read G.Furr's Stalin and the struggle for democratic reform.
BTW Trotsky was known as the "Patriarch of bureaucrats".


Quote:
Just read up

OK.

Quote:
aw, did Lenin not mention Uncle Joe very often? Such a shame.

He did.

Quote:
In view of the systematic slander on Comrade Stalin by the opposition minority in the CC and the unending assertions regarding a virtual termination of all relations by V.I. Lenin with I.V. Stalin, I feel obliged to say a few words about the relations between Lenin and Stalin as I was present alongside of Lenin during the whole period at the end of V.I.’s life.

‘Vlad. Ilyich Lenin highly valued Stalin, so much so, that at the time of the first stroke and also during the second stroke V.I. entrusted Stalin with the most intimate of assignments while emphasising that it is Stalin alone that he is asking for.

‘In general, during the whole period of his illness, V.I. did not ask for any of the members of the CC and did not want to meet any of them and would ask only for Stalin to come. Thus all the speculations that V.I.’s relations with Stalin were not as good as with others is totally contrary to the truth’.

Bukharin
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/r ... lintro.htm

Quote:
not sure what you are on about here. In 1922 Lenin wanted the kulaks heavily taxed, the poor not taxed, the poor peasants encouraged into coops. Stalin did none of that and so in 1928 the kulaks were a powerful force.

What? Who was in power during that time? Please give more information on this.

Quote:
read about Alexander Orlov. Orlov was in Spain. He defected to avoid execution. Because others returning were being executed. Orlov was no traitor, he had moved all Spain's gold to Moscow. He had received the USSR's highest award. But he feared for his life because people like him had witnessed Stalin's crushing of a revolution, he had been an active part of that, a willing one even, but he justs didnt want to die.

Yes,A.Orlov defected and so on,but that doesn't have anything to do with your claims about "all NKVD agents" etc.

Quote:
No, he started it too late not too early. He should have taxed the rich and made coops attractive to the poor via subsidies, thus making collectivisation voluntary for most. As per Lenin and Trotsky's advice.

There were taxes and coops/state stores with affordable credits for seeds and equipment during the NEP.
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 10 Feb 2012, 19:37
Loz wrote:
"He said Russia was socialist, and supporting socialism around the world."
Oh i see now.This perfectly makes sense and proves that Stalin gave the masses lies,not history of theory.Good.

Well it does because the truth is the opposite.

Loz wrote:
"This is what Stalin said originally, in a telegram to Lenin, published in Stalin's book on Lenin. This eventually was wiped from later editions..."
Here is an excerpt from Stalin's Collected Works (Sochinenia),Vol.6,p.329,Moscow,1947.

"It is to be admitted that Trotsky had indeed done well in the period of October.Yes,it's true,Trotsky played a distinctively good role in the October,but so had others. Back then even people such as left SRs did well and stood by the Bolsheviks."

Quote:
“I have to say that comrade Trotsky played no particular role in the October insurrection and could not do so; that, being chairman of the Petrograd Soviet, he merely fulfilled the will of the corresponding party authority which guided his every step.”

And further:

Comrade Trotsky played no particular role in the party or the October insurrection and could not do so, being a man comparatively new to our party in the October period.” (J. Stalin: Trotskyism or Leninism, pp.68f.)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... f/sf04.htm

He wiped his paragraph from his book, he lied outrageously. 'Admitting' that Trotsky had 'done well' like many others by no means redresses the lies and omissions I have shown you. He lied, both he and Lenin knew that Trotsky had led the October revolution.

Lenin:
"After the majority of the Petrogrd Soviet passed into the hands of the Bolsheviks, [Trotsky] was elected its chairman and in that position organized and led the insurrection of October 25.”
In fact Trotsky had been organising it for weeks and the actual insurrection on the 25 was just a small detail in a series of events.




Loz wrote:
"Are you just playing a game here or trying to actually get to the truth? Did you read the article on Trepper? "
Trepper talks about how he was sick at heart,caught in the machinery,how one professor became melancholic during an applause and so on...
I don't know what does that have to do with "teaching proper Marxism" your mentioned.


This is bollocks, I dont think you are taking this seriously. The 'one professor' was Bukharin, it was a regular phenomenon ("he always greeted with a blank stare") . He didn't just become melancholic, he said “Each time they applaud it brings me closer to my death.". The applause of young keen communists was a death warrant. Socialism was not what Stalin wanted. This is very clear, simple and straightforward. The applause could get him killed, can't you understand that? Bukharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev had feared being murdered by Stalin for years, and in the end they were after being tricked into making false confessions.



Loz wrote:
"Stalin was a fake socialist, fighting against socialism"
Are these too "reasonable assumptions"?


If you can see this by now either you are in denial or you are in denial. Either do some reading or stop wasting my time.



Loz wrote:
You pasted that from Stalin to show that he said the final victory of socialism is not possible in one country. He defines final as
"being free from the dangers of military attack and of attempts to restore capitalism".

No he doesn't.Stop falsifying.

How can I be falsifying, I am quoting Stalin

"Can we regard the victory of Socialism in our country as final, i.e., as being free from the dangers of military attack and of attempts to restore capitalism"

Do you know what ie means? It means ""That is (to say)" in the sense of "that means" and "which means", or "in other words"

FINAL = being free from the dangers of military attack and of attempts to restore capitalism, according to Stalin.

Dont accuse me of falsifying. This is very simple.

Quote:
Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?

Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.

It follows that this question contains two different problems :

1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and

2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.


We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.

We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.

But as we are not living on an island but "in a system of States," a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final.

But from this it follows that the second problem is not yet solved and that it has yet to be solved.


This support my case, not yours. Their only problem, according to Stalin, is the capitalist countries. Not the fact that he was killing thousands of communists, and purging half the party. That was neither here nor there. Read you stuff properly before pasting it.

Concede and retract.






Quote:
="Loz"]
"Is it possible to attain the final victory of socialism in one country, without the combined efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries? No, it is not. The efforts of one country are enough for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. This is what the history of our revolution tells us. For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, especially a peasant country like ours, are not enough. For this we must have the efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries. Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution.”"


Here he talks about the organisation of socialist production being impossible. Socialism moves towards communism in which there is no bureaucracy, no state. Stalin built a massive bureaucratic elite and state machinery. Lenin said socialism was a million times more democratic than capitalism, but Stalin crushed democracy. Democracy is essential for socialism, like oil to an engine. It is the mechanism of efficient planning.

Where does he talk about the organisation of socialist production being impossible?[/QUOTE]

It is right in front of you. The organisation of socialist production. In your quotes he says he has achieved it.



[/quote"loz"]

I won't address the clichees you seem to be trotting out in every post,i'm just going to say that Stalin recognized the need to struggle against the bureaucracy.
Read G.Furr's Stalin and the struggle for democratic reform.
BTW Trotsky was known as the "Patriarch of bureaucrats".
[/qoute]

I am not here to read crap like that. Lenin worried about the bureaucracy taking over and Stalin helped facilitate it, basing himself on the bureaucracy and the kulaks and NEPmen. In 1922 they had tens of thousands of bureaucrats and 4,700 communists in responsible positions. The bureaucracy ended up as 2 million. And it's not just the size, it's the lack of democracy, the secrecy, the privilege.



Loz wrote:
aw, did Lenin not mention Uncle Joe very often? Such a shame."
He did.

Lenin mentions Trotsky far more often than Stalin.

Loz wrote:
In view of the systematic slander on Comrade Stalin by the opposition minority in the CC and the unending assertions regarding a virtual termination of all relations by V.I. Lenin with I.V. Stalin, I feel obliged to say a few words about the relations between Lenin and Stalin as I was present alongside of Lenin during the whole period at the end of V.I.’s life.

‘Vlad. Ilyich Lenin highly valued Stalin, so much so, that at the time of the first stroke and also during the second stroke V.I. entrusted Stalin with the most intimate of assignments while emphasising that it is Stalin alone that he is asking for.

‘In general, during the whole period of his illness, V.I. did not ask for any of the members of the CC and did not want to meet any of them and would ask only for Stalin to come. Thus all the speculations that V.I.’s relations with Stalin were not as good as with others is totally contrary to the truth’.

Bukharin
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/r ... lintro.htm[/quote]
You are now quoting the bloke you previously called 'some professor'. I dunno what year it is or if it's genuine. Bukarin obviously feared Stalin as I showed above. Feared for his life. Hardly surprising he was kissing ass.



Loz wrote:
"not sure what you are on about here. In 1922 Lenin wanted the kulaks heavily taxed, the poor not taxed, the poor peasants encouraged into coops. Stalin did none of that and so in 1928 the kulaks were a powerful force."
What? Who was in power during that time? Please give more information on this.

Stalin was in power from 1924 onwards. He did it via a block with Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin. After a year Zinoviev and Kamenev went back to Trotsky. Bukharin was the right winger to told the kulaks to enrich themselves.

Loz wrote:
"read about Alexander Orlov. Orlov was in Spain. He defected to avoid execution. Because others returning were being executed. Orlov was no traitor, he had moved all Spain's gold to Moscow. He had received the USSR's highest award. But he feared for his life because people like him had witnessed Stalin's crushing of a revolution, he had been an active part of that, a willing one even, but he justs didnt want to die. "
Yes,A.Orlov defected and so on,but that doesn't have anything to do with your claims about "all NKVD agents" etc.


He defected to avoid being killed as he saw KVKD agents returning to Russia from Spain were being killed.

Loz wrote:
"No, he started it too late not too early. He should have taxed the rich and made coops attractive to the poor via subsidies, thus making collectivisation voluntary for most. As per Lenin and Trotsky's advice. "
There were taxes and coops/state stores with affordable credits for seeds and equipment during the NEP.



Are you listening? Stalin and Bukharin though that by letting the richer peasants get even richer it would stimulate the economy. The rich got richer at the expense of the poor. Indirect taxes (which hurt the poor most) rose in relation to direct taxes, ie the poor were taxed proportionately harder than the rich. This is the exact opposite of what Lenin and Trotsky advised.

Ok, I really dont wanna just keep repeating all this ad infinitum. If you have any specific questions fire away but dont just reply to every line with a random attempt at countering because it's just wasting everyone's time.

I suggest you do some real objective research, not on Stalinist sites to try to score points, on Trotskyist or general sites to widen your horizon.

I wouldnt like to see you waste you life on this Stalinist rubbish.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 10 Feb 2012, 20:21
Quote:
He wiped his paragraph from his book, he lied outrageously. 'Admitting' that Trotsky had 'done well' like many others by no means redresses the lies and omissions I have shown you. He lied, both he and Lenin knew that Trotsky had led the October revolution.

I have already pointed out that Stalin recognized Trotsky's merits in the period of October.
The thing is,this small paragraph you're so clinging on was most likely omitted later by the editor(s),not Stalin himself.Molotov talks about this in the note at the end of the article.MIA is down right now but you can see for yourself later:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... /11/06.htm

Quote:
This is bollocks, I dont think you are taking this seriously. The 'one professor' was Bukharin, it was a regular phenomenon ("he always greeted with a blank stare") . He didn't just become melancholic, he said “Each time they applaud it brings me closer to my death.".

Deadly applauses by students! Students killing the real revolutionaries by clapping!
This is your Marxist analysis,this is the real history you keep blabbing about all the time?

Quote:
The applause of young keen communists was a death warrant.

Ah,now we know why Bukharin was eventually killed! Because some students applauded him at the end of lessons! What amazing deduction!

Quote:
Socialism was not what Stalin wanted. This is very clear, simple and straightforward. The applause could get him killed, can't you understand that? Bukharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev had feared being murdered by Stalin for years, and in the end they were after being tricked into making false confessions.

Yes and Bukharin was all for Socialism,yes? Right. Explains why he was the leader of the opposition against the ending of NEP at the 15th Congress.

Quote:
If you can see this by now either you are in denial or you are in denial. Either do some reading or stop wasting my time.

Hah,a typical Trotskite's response when you catch him lying.You're staying true to yourself,that i admit.

Quote:
...
FINAL = being free from the dangers of military attack and of attempts to restore capitalism, according to Stalin.

Read the whole article better.Stalin is clearly referring to the existance of countries hostile to socialism.
"We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries."
The final victory of socialism is not about being free from danger because that's not possible as long as a lone socialist country is being surrounded by capitalist ones.


Quote:
It is right in front of you. The organisation of socialist production. In your quotes he says he has achieved it.

Oh,of course,the talk is about the final victory of socialism,that is,the real opening of the road to communism.

Quote:
I am not here to read crap like that. Lenin worried about the bureaucracy taking over and Stalin helped facilitate it, basing himself on the bureaucracy and the kulaks and NEPmen. In 1922 they had tens of thousands of bureaucrats and 4,700 communists in responsible positions. The bureaucracy ended up as 2 million. And it's not just the size, it's the lack of democracy, the secrecy, the privilege.

Oh OK,you don't want to read crap,fine.Fair's fair.
And sure,expanding the bureaucracy since as early as 1922 was,of course,Stalin's personal goal and main preocupation.Makes sense.

Quote:
Lenin mentions Trotsky far more often than Stalin.

Never callled nim names though.

Besides,Stalin,unlike Trotsky,always stood with Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

Quote:
You are now quoting the bloke you previously called 'some professor'. I dunno what year it is or if it's genuine. Bukarin obviously feared Stalin as I showed above. Feared for his life. Hardly surprising he was kissing ass.

I didn't question Bukharin's credentials as a capable Marxist.Kautsky too was a good Marxist once.
And it's hardly unlikely that he had to fear for his life at that time.How about some proof for a change?


Quote:
Stalin was in power from 1924 onwards.

Nope.
Where are you getting this from?


Quote:
He defected to avoid being killed as he saw KVKD agents returning to Russia from Spain were being killed.

Ah,some NKVD agents.You talked about all of them in general,remember?

Quote:
Are you listening? Stalin and Bukharin though that by letting the richer peasants get even richer it would stimulate the economy. The rich got richer at the expense of the poor. Indirect taxes (which hurt the poor most) rose in relation to direct taxes, ie the poor were taxed proportionately harder than the rich. This is the exact opposite of what Lenin and Trotsky advised.

No.Read the noted from the 15th Congress.Stalin spoke about the need for collectivization although,to qoute Grey's above-mentioned book:
Quote:
"Bukharin,Rykov and Tomski in the Politburo and other right-wing supporters would oppose any policy to abandon NEP and to use force against the peasantry."

p.224



Quote:
I wouldnt like to see you waste you life on this Stalinist rubbish.

Don't you worry about me.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 11 Feb 2012, 00:52
Not that I care for the argument at hand but a couple points:
Loz wrote:
Never callled nim names though.

If you can make an intellect as great as Lenin resort to ad-Homs you're doing pretty well. Plus despite all of Lenin's supposed animosity and hatred for Trotsky he saw fit to place him in control of building the new Soviet state's army. Shit Lenin changed his tune on people all the time. If we compiled all the glowing comments on Trotsky and set them next to his scathing comments I think we'd see a pretty even list.

Loz wrote:
Besides,Stalin,unlike Trotsky,always stood with Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

As editor of Pravda Stalin maintained a stagist line that included direct support of the Kerensky government and it's policies. It took Lenin's return to Russia to put him back on track. Outside of this, yes you're generally right Stalin rode Lenin's coattails pretty closely. This isn't a positive thing for a Marxist to do, anymore than it's positive to act as though Lenin was some Saintly end-all-be-all of Soviet policy (this latter bit is more directed at Trots). For fuсk's sake he set the stage for the hyper-centralization of power which directly facilitated Stalin's excesses and, eventually, Gorbachev's betrayal. Remember Lenin was a dick we would argue with, but follow. Forgetting that is a huge mistake.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 11 Feb 2012, 01:05
Daft punk is a trotskyist lyer. He lied when he said: "Lenin said socialism was not possible in one country (especially a backward one) dozens of times." The idea that socialism can't be achieved in one country is only Trotsky's idea. Lenin struggled against this idea from 1905 to his death. He said: " Surely, the possibility of holding power in Russia must be determined by the composition of the social forces in Russia itself, by the circumstances of the democratic revolution which is now taking place in our country." Didn't he said, also, in 1915: "Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone."
Didn't he wrote : "By adopting NEP we made a concession to the peasant as a trader, to the principal of private trade; it is precisely for this reason (contrary to what some people think) that the cooperative movement is of such immense importance. All we actually need under NEP is to organize the population of Russia in cooperative societies on a sufficiently large-scale, for we have now found the degree of combination of private interest, of private commercial interest, with state supervision and control of this interest, that degree of its subordination to the common interests which was formerly the stumbling block for very many socialists. Indeed, 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 cooperatives, out of cooperatives alone, which we formerly ridiculed as huckstering and which from a certain aspect we have the right to treat as such now, under NEP? Is this not all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society? It is still not the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for it."

This is what Lenin said in 1923. As we see, and I could find more quotations, Daft punk is wrong about Lenin.

It is obvious that Daft Punk doesn't know what he is speaking about. His trotskyist pedantry won't frighten us. When he says : "[Stalin] talks about the organisation of socialist production being impossible.", he misunderstood Stalin's quotation. When Stalin said: "For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, especially a peasant country like ours, are not enough.", what did he mean? He meant that both "the organization of socialist production" and "the efforts of one country" are not sufficient.

In fact, Daft Punk doesn't know the difference made by Stalin between the "complete victory" and the "final victory" of socialism. Stalin thought that the "complete victory" could be reached in USSR, but not the "final victory", unless a revolution would occur in other countries.

This is how comrade Stalin explained this :

Quote:
1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and

2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.

We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.

We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 11 Feb 2012, 14:06
Loz wrote:
I have already pointed out that Stalin recognized Trotsky's merits in the period of October.


Stalin: “Comrade Trotsky played no particular role in the party or the October insurrection and could not do so, being a man comparatively new to our party in the October period.” (J. Stalin: Trotskyism or Leninism, pp.68f.)"


Loz wrote:
Deadly applauses by students! Students killing the real revolutionaries by clapping!
This is your Marxist analysis,this is the real history you keep blabbing about all the time?


It was Bukharin's analysis, he was right they were all killed. This should be an easy concept to understand.



Loz wrote:
"The applause of young keen communists was a death warrant."
Ah,now we know why Bukharin was eventually killed! Because some students applauded him at the end of lessons! What amazing deduction!


If you cant understand this simple connection between what Bukharin predicted and what happened to him I dont think I can help you, you are simply too blinkered to see or admit the obvious.

Of course a few rounds of applause wasnt the only or direct cause of his murder, but it was part of it. The purges were to get rid of socialists, and the applause came from socialists to socialists and so spelled danger.

Loz wrote:
"Socialism was not what Stalin wanted. This is very clear, simple and straightforward. The applause could get him killed, can't you understand that? Bukharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev had feared being murdered by Stalin for years, and in the end they were after being tricked into making false confessions. "
Yes and Bukharin was all for Socialism,yes? Right. Explains why he was the leader of the opposition against the ending of NEP at the 15th Congress.


Stalin and Bukharin were both big fans of the NEP, for Stalin it was a way to get power away from Trotsky and the Left Opposition. Bukarin was reluctant to end the NEP but I dont think he wanted it to go all the way to capitalism, he saw it as building the material base for socialism.

Anyway, if he was lecturing students it would be on Marxism and the revolution I would have thought. What do you think he told them? Socialism is a bad idea? The author of that would not be saying what he said would he in that case, keen young communists applauding their heroes, the original Bolsheviks, it would make no sense whatsoever.

Loz wrote:
If you can see this by now either you are in denial or you are in denial. Either do some reading or stop wasting my time."
Hah,a typical Trotskite's response when you catch him lying.You're staying true to yourself,that i admit.


That should say can't obviously. You have never caught me lying and never will do. I never lie. Socialism cannot be built on lies.

Loz wrote:
...
FINAL = being free from the dangers of military attack and of attempts to restore capitalism, according to Stalin.

Read the whole article better.Stalin is clearly referring to the existance of countries hostile to socialism.
"We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries."
The final victory of socialism is not about being free from danger because that's not possible as long as a lone socialist country is being surrounded by capitalist ones.
[/quote]

I am sick of explaining this but I will have one last go seeing as it is the topic of the thread.

In early 1924 Stalin said

"Is it possible to attain the final victory of socialism in one country, without the combined efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries? No, it is not. The efforts of one country are enough for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. This is what the history of our revolution tells us. For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, especially a peasant country like ours, are not enough. For this we must have the efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries. Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution.”"

THE ORGANISATION OF SOCIALIST PRODUCTION is part of his definition of final victory. OTHER COUNTRIES ARE NEEDED TO ACHIEVE THIS.

Later he drops all that and says that id Russia was an island not surrounded by capitalist countries it would have achieved final victory, ie the only thing not final is the threat of attack.

This is completely different to saying the need other countries to achieve THE ORGANISATION OF SOCIALIST PRODUCTION. He is saying they HAVE ALREADY ACHIEVED WHAT HE PREVIOUSLY SAID WAS IMPOSSIBLE.

I am not going through this again.




Loz wrote:
"It is right in front of you. The organisation of socialist production. In your quotes he says he has achieved it."
Oh,of course,the talk is about the final victory of socialism,that is,the real opening of the road to communism.

wtf?

Loz wrote:
"I am not here to read crap like that. Lenin worried about the bureaucracy taking over and Stalin helped facilitate it, basing himself on the bureaucracy and the kulaks and NEPmen. In 1922 they had tens of thousands of bureaucrats and 4,700 communists in responsible positions. The bureaucracy ended up as 2 million. And it's not just the size, it's the lack of democracy, the secrecy, the privilege."
Oh OK,you don't want to read crap,fine.Fair's fair.
And sure,expanding the bureaucracy since as early as 1922 was,of course,Stalin's personal goal and main preocupation.Makes sense.

In communism there is no bureaucracy. Everybody is a part time worker, part time planner. That is what Marx, Engels, lenin and Trotsky envisaged, that is what makes sense, that is the attraction and the practical model. A dictatorship by an elite is neither practical nor attractive and is doomed to failure.

Loz wrote:
"Lenin mentions Trotsky far more often than Stalin. "
Never callled nim names though.

Besides,Stalin,unlike Trotsky,always stood with Lenin and the Bolsheviks.


Lenin was asking Trotsky to fight several battles against Stalin for him on his death bed. Look it up.

Loz wrote:
"You are now quoting the bloke you previously called 'some professor'. I dunno what year it is or if it's genuine. Bukarin obviously feared Stalin as I showed above. Feared for his life. Hardly surprising he was kissing ass. "
I didn't question Bukharin's credentials as a capable Marxist.Kautsky too was a good Marxist once.
And it's hardly unlikely that he had to fear for his life at that time.How about some proof for a change?

The proof is what he said to Trepper, what Kamenev and Zinoviev said to Trotsky, and the fact that all three were murdered. Kamenev and Zinoviev had advised Trotsky to place letters with people saying that he he suddenly died it was probably the work of Stalin.

wiki:

"Tightening noose

In February 1936, shortly before the purge started in earnest, Bukharin was sent to Paris by Stalin to negotiate the purchase of Marx and Engels archives, held by the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) before its dissolution by Hitler. He was joined by his young wife Anna Larina, which therefore opened the possibility of exile, but he decided against it saying that he could not live outside the Soviet Union.

Bukharin, who had been forced to follow the Party line since 1929, confided to his old friends and former opponents his real view of Stalin and his policy. His conversations with Boris Nicolaevsky, a Menshevik leader who held the manuscripts on behalf of SPD, formed the basis of "Letter of an Old Bolshevik", which was very influential in contemporary understanding of the period (especially the Ryutin Affair and Kirov murder) although there are doubts about its authenticity. According to Nicolaevsky, Bukharin spoke of "the mass annihilation of completely defenseless men, with women and children" under forced collectivization and liquidation of kulaks as a class that dehumanized the Party members with "the profound psychological change in those communists who took part in the campaign. Instead of going mad, they accepted terror as a normal administrative method and regarded obedience to all orders from above as a supreme virtue.... They are no longer human beings. They have truly become the cogs in a terrible machine." [8]

Yet to another Menshevik leader, Fyodor Dan, he confided that Stalin became "the man to whom the Party granted its confidence" and "is a sort of a symbol of the Party" even though he "is not a man, but a devil."[9] In Dan's account, Bukharin’s acceptance of the Soviet Union’s new direction was thus a result of his utter commitment to Party solidarity.

To André Malraux, he also confided, "Now he is going to kill me". To his boyhood friend, Ilya Ehrenburg, he expressed the suspicion that the whole trip was a trap set up by Stalin. Indeed, his contacts with Mensheviks during this trip were to feature prominently in his trial."


Loz wrote:
"Stalin was in power from 1924 onwards."
Nope.
Where are you getting this from?

Yes he was, he was backed by Bukharin and for a year or so, Kamenev and Zinoviev. From 1924-7 he consolidated power, even though Kamenev and Zinoviev went back to join the Left Opposition. Then when Stalin kicked out the LO, K&Z capitulated to Stalin. Even they I think they knew their days were numbered.


Loz wrote:
"He defected to avoid being killed as he saw KVKD agents returning to Russia from Spain were being killed."
Ah,some NKVD agents.You talked about all of them in general,remember?


Most, from what I can gather. They knew too much. I believe many of the executioners in the purges were killed for the same reason. As I say, the first three heads of the NKVD were all killed. All the old Bolsheviks were killed, everyone was killed.

Loz wrote:
"Are you listening? Stalin and Bukharin though that by letting the richer peasants get even richer it would stimulate the economy. The rich got richer at the expense of the poor. Indirect taxes (which hurt the poor most) rose in relation to direct taxes, ie the poor were taxed proportionately harder than the rich. This is the exact opposite of what Lenin and Trotsky advised. "
No.Read the noted from the 15th Congress.Stalin spoke about the need for collectivization although,to qoute Grey's above-mentioned book:

"Bukharin,Rykov and Tomski in the Politburo and other right-wing supporters would oppose any policy to abandon NEP and to use force against the peasantry."


Stalin said one thing and did another. Read the actual economic data presented by Trotsky in the Platform of the Opposition. He gives a lot of facts and figures. Bear in mind he was still a high ranking Bolshevik in early 1927, he had plenty of access to the data. You need to read that Platform to have any idea of this subject.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

To Loz: Outside of this, yes you're generally right Stalin rode Lenin's coattails pretty closely. This isn't a positive thing for a Marxist to do, anymore than it's positive to act as though Lenin was some Saintly end-all-be-all of Soviet policy (this latter bit is more directed at Trots). For fuсk's sake he set the stage for the hyper-centralization of power which directly facilitated Stalin's excesses and, eventually, Gorbachev's betrayal. Remember Lenin was a dick we would argue with, but follow. Forgetting that is a huge mistake.


There is some truth to this. Trotsky wrote about it in the New Course, not criticising Lenin specifically, but explaining that the need for a centralised party to carry out a revolution was part of the reason they ended up with a growing dictatorship. He was saying bureaucracy had grown since the end of the civil war, and should be shrinking. This was 1923. By 1927 he was saying that appointment had grown 10 fold and it was becoming a one man dictatorship.

I think Lenin did wonder and worry whether he was partly to blame. I'm not sure how much could have been done differently. Obviously all their principles went out of the window in the civil war, but even in the civil war it was nothing like as bad as under Uncle Joe.

Question is how far to take centralisation in future. Not too far hopefully. In advanced countries hopefully you would have democracy anyway and go almost straight to socialism. In semi backward countries bureaucracy is a big danger, we see it now in Venezuela.

OP-Bagration wrote:
Daft punk is a trotskyist lyer.

hilarious



OP-Bagration wrote:
He lied when he said: "Lenin said socialism was not possible in one country (especially a backward one) dozens of times." The idea that socialism can't be achieved in one country is only Trotsky's idea.

Lenin:
"...we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism - that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... eb/x01.htm

""But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile power of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions (and vertigo, particularly at high altitudes). And there is absolutely nothing terrible, nothing that should give legitimate grounds for the slightest despondency, in admitting this bitter truth; we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism - that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism." (Works, vol. 33, page 206, our emphasis)"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...22/feb/x01.htm

Even Stalin said it as I showed earlier:
""Is it possible to attain the final victory of socialism in one country, without the combined efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries? No, it is not. The efforts of one country are enough for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. This is what the history of our revolution tells us. For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, especially a peasant country like ours, are not enough. For this we must have the efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries. Such, on the whole, are the characteristic features of the Leninist theory of the proletarian revolution.”"
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm

Marx and Engels spelled out that socialism could not develop in one country, and that it would be most difficult in backward countries:

"Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?
No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.
Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.
It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.
It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range."
Engels, Principles of Communism (later rewritten as Communist Manifesto on Engels' suggestion).
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... in-com.htm


OP-Bagration wrote:
Lenin struggled against this idea from 1905 to his death.

No he did not


OP-Bagration wrote:
He said: " Surely, the possibility of holding power in Russia must be determined by the composition of the social forces in Russia itself, by the circumstances of the democratic revolution which is now taking place in our country."


1905, when the Bolsheviks were stagists and believed that socialist revolution would start in advanced countries. They believed a revolution in Russia would be a bourgeois one.

Lenin, 1906
"Marxists are absolutely convinced of the bourgeois character of the Russian revolution. What does this mean? It means that the democratic reforms in the political system and the social and economic reforms, which have become a necessity for Russia, do not in themselves imply the undermining of capitalism, the undermining of bourgeois rule; on the contrary, they will, for the first time, really clear the ground for a wide and rapid, European, and not Asiatic, development of capitalism; they will, for the first time, make it possible for the bourgeoisie to rule as a class."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... s/ch06.htm



OP-Bagration wrote:
Didn't he said, also, in 1915: "Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone."


He was still a stagist at the time. Only Trotsky believed world socialist revolution could start in a backward country like Russia (so long as it soon spread to advanced countries who in turn could help it). Lenin came round to this idea in early 1917 and then had a difficult task imposing this view onto the reluctant Bolsheviks who were supporting the Provisional Government.

It's a different story for an advanced country, that would have the material basis for moving to socialism fairly quickly.

You Stalinists like to have it both ways. One minute you say Stalin never said socialism could be built in one country, the next you claim that Lenin said it could be done. Both are inconstant with each other and both wrong. If Stalin didnt say socialism was possible in one country, and Lenin did, how does that make Stalin a great Leninist. Make your mind up which of these myths you wish to try to perpetuate.

OP-Bagration wrote:
Didn't he wrote : "By adopting NEP we made a concession to the peasant as a trader, to the principal of private trade; it is precisely for this reason (contrary to what some people think) that the cooperative movement is of such immense importance. All we actually need under NEP is to organize the population of Russia in cooperative societies on a sufficiently large-scale, for we have now found the degree of combination of private interest, of private commercial interest, with state supervision and control of this interest, that degree of its subordination to the common interests which was formerly the stumbling block for very many socialists. Indeed, 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 cooperatives, out of cooperatives alone, which we formerly ridiculed as huckstering and which from a certain aspect we have the right to treat as such now, under NEP? Is this not all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society? It is still not the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for it."


please supply links to quotes. This is On Cooperation, from 1923. This is the one time he did say something close to SIOC. I think he was getting a bit desperate. He was on his deathbed and was not very happy with the way things were going. But weigh this one quote against dozens and dozens by himself and Marx & Engels, plus all the other leading Bolsheviks, plus Stalin himself in early 1924. Also not that in this article he says he wants subsidised coops for the poor peasants. That did not happen from 1924-8 when Stalin was consolidating power. Trotsky was arguing for it, Stalin did virtually nothing on that score. Lenin was saying it was enough to build socialism to emphasise the vital importance of getting the poor peasants into coops.



OP-Bagration wrote:
This is what Lenin said in 1923. As we see, and I could find more quotations, Daft punk is wrong about Lenin.

wrong.

OP-Bagration wrote:
It is obvious that Daft Punk doesn't know what he is speaking about. His trotskyist pedantry won't frighten us. When he says : "[Stalin] talks about the organisation of socialist production being impossible.", he misunderstood Stalin's quotation. When Stalin said: "For the final victory of socialism, for the organization of socialist production, the efforts of one country, especially a peasant country like ours, are not enough.", what did he mean? He meant that both "the organization of socialist production" and "the efforts of one country" are not sufficient.


What? The organisation of socialist production means what it says, efforts of one country not enough means what it says. It is a very simple statement following basic Marxist ABC.

"what did he mean? He meant that both "the organisation of socialist production" and "the efforts of one country" are not sufficient"
What are you saying? Are you desperately throwing random words around in the hope that some sort of hidden meaning will pop out?




OP-Bagration wrote:
In fact, Daft Punk doesn't know the difference made by Stalin between the "complete victory" and the "final victory" of socialism. Stalin thought that the "complete victory" could be reached in USSR, but not the "final victory", unless a revolution would occur in other countries.


er, in the quote above he says the final victory and defines it as "the organisation of socialist production".


OP-Bagration wrote:
This is how comrade Stalin explained this :

"1. The problem of the internal relations in our country, i.e., the problem of overcoming our own bourgeoisie and building complete Socialism; and

2. The problem of the external relations of our country, i.e., the problem of completely ensuring our country against the dangers of military intervention and restoration.

We have already solved the first problem, for our bourgeoisie has already been liquidated and Socialism has already been built in the main. This is what we call the victory of Socialism, or, to be more exact, the victory of Socialist Construction in one country.

We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries."


exactly, and this clearly contradicts his original in early 1924. He says "socialist construction" has been done, whereas originally he said the "organisation of socialist construction" is not possible in one country, especially a backward one, basic standard Marxist line.

You later quote say the only thing lacking is to be free from the possibility of attack.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 11 Feb 2012, 15:04
Quote:
Comrade Trotsky played no particular role in the party or the October insurrection and could not do so, being a man comparatively new to our party in the October period

But Stalin also said:
"It is to be admitted that Trotsky had indeed done well in the period of October.Yes,it's true,Trotsky played a distinctively good role in the October,but so had others. Back then even people such as left SRs did well and stood by the Bolsheviks."

Quote:
It was Bukharin's analysis, he was right they were all killed. This should be an easy concept to understand.

What analysis? Where do you see any analysis?
Who again was killed?
?

Quote:
If you cant understand this simple connection between what Bukharin predicted and what happened to him I dont think I can help you, you are simply too blinkered to see or admit the obvious.

What's the connection between his prediction and what eventually happened to him,except that the prediction turned out to be correct in the end?

Quote:
Of course a few rounds of applause wasnt the only or direct cause of his murder, but it was part of it. The purges were to get rid of socialists, and the applause came from socialists to socialists and so spelled danger.

What are you arguing about here? What do these applauses have to do with anything? How were they "a part of his (Bukharin's?) murder?
Provide some evidence please.

Quote:
Stalin and Bukharin were both big fans of the NEP, for Stalin it was a way to get power away from Trotsky and the Left Opposition.

Stalin was a "fan" of the NEP because he recognized that NEP should be brought to an end.Stalin's policies were very influenced by Lenin's maxim that,to paraphrize,any attempt at pushing the peasants towards socialism with force is stupid and absurd. But the class struggle on the countryside grew and,eventually,collectivization and the liquidations of kulaks as a class became a immediate neccessity.

Quote:
Anyway, if he was lecturing students it would be on Marxism and the revolution I would have thought. What do you think he told them? Socialism is a bad idea? The author of that would not be saying what he said would he in that case, keen young communists applauding their heroes, the original Bolsheviks, it would make no sense whatsoever.

I don't know what you're talking about,but didn't Bukharin start outright praising Stalin (at least in public/press) since the early 30s? When was this lecture held anyway? I assume shortly before his demise?

Quote:
That should say can't obviously. You have never caught me lying and never will do. I never lie.

I clearly caught you lying because you constantly blabber about Stalin actually fighting against socialism,which not only goes against pretty much all historical interpretations of Stalin's time,but is,first and foremost,unsubstantiated. You operate more with,in your words- "reasonable assumptions than real facts.

Quote:
In communism there is no bureaucracy.

Yes,who ever said otherwise?
Although i personally think that might not necessarily be true anyway.Depends on your definition of "bureaucracy".There could just as well be clerks in communism too.


Quote:
Lenin was asking Trotsky to fight several battles against Stalin for him on his death bed. Look it up.

What battles?


Quote:
The proof is what he said to Trepper, what Kamenev and Zinoviev said to Trotsky

Are you trolling? "The proof is what he said"? Wtf?

Quote:
Most, from what I can gather.

From "all" to "most".OK,we can trust you and your evidence.

Quote:
All the old Bolsheviks were killed, everyone was killed.

Lol was Molotov or Voroshilov or Kaganovich (and so on) not an "old Bolshevik"? In fact,all of them became Bolsheviks years,even decades before Trotsky!


Quote:
Stalin said one thing and did another. Read the actual economic data presented by Trotsky in the Platform of the Opposition. He gives a lot of facts and figures. Bear in mind he was still a high ranking Bolshevik in early 1927, he had plenty of access to the data. You need to read that Platform to have any idea of this subject.

What does this have to do with my remark which is a quote from I.Grey's book?
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 11 Feb 2012, 20:26
Loz wrote:
"Comrade Trotsky played no particular role in the party or the October insurrection and could not do so, being a man comparatively new to our party in the October period"
But Stalin also said:
"It is to be admitted that Trotsky had indeed done well in the period of October.Yes,it's true,Trotsky played a distinctively good role in the October,but so had others. Back then even people such as left SRs did well and stood by the Bolsheviks."


So? The first is a massive bare faced lie, in total contradiction to what Stalin originally wrote to Lenin which was:

"All practical work in connection with the organization of the uprising was done under the immediate direction of Comrade Trotsky, the president of the Petrograd Soviet. It can be stated with certainty that the Party is indebted primarily and principally to Comrade Trotsky for the rapid going over of the garrison to the side of the Soviet and the efficient manner in which the work of the Military-Revolutionary Committee was organized. The principal assistants of Comrade Trotsky were Comrades Antonov and Podvoisky."
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... /11/06.htm

Try to post quotes from marxists.org, that way they can be checked. You need to be looking at the context, the date and so on, you need to see the proper sources. You learn nothing from your big pile of Stalinist quotes.

As I say, the first was a bare faced lie and he said that more than once. The bit I just posted obviously was his telegram to Lenin. This was later removed from his book, another lie.

Now lets deal with your quote. I dunno where your version comes from, I tracked it down to this:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... skyism.htm

In fact your quote comes from the same piece by Stalin as one of the two I quoted saying he played no particular role. So he did well (fought well in my version), but played no particular role, because he was new. Never mind the fact that Trotsky was in charge, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Stalin says Trotsky was simply doing what he was told to by the Bolsheviks. What a fragging joker.



Loz wrote:


"It was Bukharin's analysis, he was right they were all killed. This should be an easy concept to understand. "
What analysis? Where do you see any analysis?
Who again was killed?
?

they were, Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev etc, who had been teaching the communist students at the University.

Loz wrote:
"If you cant understand this simple connection between what Bukharin predicted and what happened to him I dont think I can help you, you are simply too blinkered to see or admit the obvious. "
What's the connection between his prediction and what eventually happened to him,except that the prediction turned out to be correct in the end?


The prediction was correct for a reason, as most are. Stalin was gonna kill the communists. So getting applause for talking to communists about communism was giving Stalin reason to want to kill you, and kill them he did.

You know what? The sick Frag kept a note from Bukharin begging to be spared, in his desk 'til his death in 1953.

Loz wrote:
"Of course a few rounds of applause wasnt the only or direct cause of his murder, but it was part of it. The purges were to get rid of socialists, and the applause came from socialists to socialists and so spelled danger. "
What are you arguing about here? What do these applauses have to do with anything? How were they "a part of his (Bukharin's?) murder?
Provide some evidence please


see above ffs. It's fragging simple. Why cant you understand the obvious, Bukharin said it for a good reason. He feared Stalin was gonna kill him, and getting applause from communists for talking about communism was the sort of thing Stalin would eventually kill you for. That's it, simple. It's that simple.

Loz wrote:
"Stalin and Bukharin were both big fans of the NEP, for Stalin it was a way to get power away from Trotsky and the Left Opposition."
Stalin was a "fan" of the NEP because he recognized that NEP should be brought to an end.Stalin's policies were very influenced by Lenin's maxim that,to paraphrize,any attempt at pushing the peasants towards socialism with force is stupid and absurd. But the class struggle on the countryside grew and,eventually,collectivization and the liquidations of kulaks as a class became a immediate neccessity.

None of this is true or makes sense. The facts are that Stalin did the opposite of what Lenin and Trotsky advocated. He did not recognise that it should be brought to an end. In 1927 he was even thinking about denationalising the land! Collectivisation was forced on him by events Trotsky predicted. Have you read the Platform of the Opposition yet? Read it before you post again, so you dont write nonsense. Here is the link
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... /index.htm

also read On Cooperation by Lenin


Loz wrote:
"Anyway, if he was lecturing students it would be on Marxism and the revolution I would have thought. What do you think he told them? Socialism is a bad idea? The author of that would not be saying what he said would he in that case, keen young communists applauding their heroes, the original Bolsheviks, it would make no sense whatsoever."
I don't know what you're talking about,but didn't Bukharin start outright praising Stalin (at least in public/press) since the early 30s? When was this lecture held anyway? I assume shortly before his demise?

After 1932, and obviously before 1938. Yes he probably did praise Stalin, to try not to get killed. Anyway just read the damn article
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/1009

that way you get a better feel for it. It's not long.

Loz wrote:
"That should say can't obviously. You have never caught me lying and never will do. I never lie."
I clearly caught you lying because you constantly blabber about Stalin actually fighting against socialism,which not only goes against pretty much all historical interpretations of Stalin's time,but is,first and foremost,unsubstantiated. You operate more with,in your words- "reasonable assumptions than real facts.

Let me summarise:
1. In 1923 Stalin was opposed to revolution in Germany
2. In 1924-7 he did the opposite of what Lenin advocated re the economy (high taxes for the rich, no taxes for the poor) and he screwed up the Chinese revolution.
3. at the end of 1927 he kicked out Trotsky and his followers, the best socialists.
4. In 1928 events Trotsky had predicted forced him to collectivise.
5. In 1935-8 he expelled half the party, and killed all those on the left who called for genuine democratic socialism.
6. in 1936-7 he also sabotaged the Spanish revolution.
7. After WW2, which was the result of Stalinist policies letting the fascists in power, he tried to stop any revolutions in any country outside the USSR. He tried to make sure China and Eastern Europe etc all became capitalist.

Now, go and read the links I gave you, research all these claims, and you will soon find they are all correct.

Loz wrote:
"In communism there is no bureaucracy."

Yes,who ever said otherwise?
Although i personally think that might not necessarily be true anyway.Depends on your definition of "bureaucracy".There could just as well be clerks in communism too.

The bureaucracy in Russia was a dictatorship, a privileged elite. In communism no such thing would exist. In Russia it grew and grew. Stalin had loads of luxury holiday homes! Trotsky's family in Russia in the revolution lived in a room in and old school with partitions! Lenin also lived there, in another room. In those days the wages of the highest were only about 1.5 times the lowest. This had to be raised a bit later, to get the specialists working, but in Stalin's Russia there were massive differentials.


Loz wrote:
Lenin was asking Trotsky to fight several battles against Stalin for him on his death bed. Look it up.

What battles?
[/quote]
Do you know how to use the MIA and search etc? MIA (marxists.org) has different wast to search different writers, or you can just go straight to the Lenin (or whoever) archive and browse. Get yourself familiar with the Lenin and Trotsky archives and look this stuff up.

Here is some of the last stuff Lenin wrote:

"comrade Trotsky:

I consider that we have quite reached agreement. I ask you to declare our solidarity at the plenum. I hope that our decision will be passed, because some of those who had voted against it in October have now partially or altogether switched to our side.[1]

If for some reason our decision should not be passed, we shall apply to the group of the Congress of Soviets, and declare that we are referring the question to the Party congress.

In that case, inform me and I shall send in my statement.

Yours,
Lenin

P.S. If this question should be removed from the present plenum (which I do not expect, and against which you should, of course, protest as strongly as you can on our common behalf), I think that we should apply to the group of the Congress of Soviets anyway, and demand that the question be referred to the Party congress, because any further hesitation is absolutely intolerable.

You can keep all the material I have sent you until after the plenum.[2] "

"Comrade Trotsky:

I am sending on to you Frumkin’s letter which 1 have received today.[1] I also think that it is absolutely necessary to have done with this question once and for all. If there are any fears that I am being worried by this question and that it could even have an effect on my health, I think that this is absolutely wrong, because I am infinitely more worried by the delay which makes our policy on one of the most basic questions quite unstable. That is why I call your attention to the enclosed letter and ask you to support an immediate discussion of this question. I am sure that if we are threatened with the danger of failure, it would be much better to fail before the Party congress, and at once to apply to the group of the congress, than to fail after the congress. Perhaps, an acceptable compromise is that we pass a decision just now confirming the monopoly, and still bring up the question at the Party congress, making an arrangement about this right away. I do not believe that we could accept any other compromise either in our own interests or the interests of the cause.

Lenin

15.XII.22"

"To: L. D. TROTSKY[1]

It looks as though it has been possible to take the position without a single shot, by a simple manoeuvre. I suggest that we should not stop and should continue the offensive, and for that purpose put through a motion to raise at the Party congress the question of consolidating our foreign trade, and the measures to improve its implementation. This to be announced in the group of the Congress of Soviets. I hope that you will not object to this, and will not refuse to give a report in the group.

N. Lenin

December 21, 1922"

this was a battle Lenin and Trotsky were fighting, I think it was on the state monopoly of foreign. Lenin wanted it, but while he was away andTrotsky too, the CC overturned it behind his back, so Trotsky had to get it overturnded back again.

"Top secret
Personal

Dear Comrade Trotsky:

It is my earnest request that you should undertake the defence of the Georgian case in the Party C.C. This case is now under “persecution” by Stalin and Dzerzhinsky, and I cannot rely on their impartiality. Quite to the contrary. I would feel at ease if you agreed to undertake its defence. If you should refuse to do so for any reason, return the whole case to me. I shall consider it a sign that you do not accept.[3]

With best comradely greetings


"Top secret
Personal

Copy to Comrades Kamenev and Zinoviev

Dear Comrade Stalin:

You have been so rude as to summon my wife to the telephone and use bad language. Although she had told you that she was prepared to forget this, the fact nevertheless became known through her to Zinoviev and Kamenev. I have no intention of forgetting so easily what has been done against me, and it goes without saying that what has been done against my wife I consider having been done against me as well. I ask you, therefore, to think it over whether you are prepared to withdraw what you have said and to make your apologies, or whether you prefer that relations between us should be broken off.[1]

Respectfully yours,
Lenin"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... mar/05.htm

"Top secret

Comrades Mdivani, Makharadze and others
Copy to Comrades Trotsky and Kamenev

Dear Comrades:

I am following your case with all my heart. I am indignant over Orjonikidze’s rudeness and the connivance of Stalin and Dzerzhinsky. I am preparing for you notes and a speech.[1]

Respectfully yours,
Lenin

March 6, 1923"
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... ar/06b.htm


Lol wrote:
"The proof is what he said to Trepper, what Kamenev and Zinoviev said to Trotsky"

Are you trolling? "The proof is what he said"? Wtf?

well, maybe not proof on it's own but strong evidence. These are reliable witnesses. Trepper wasnt even a Trot. Why would he lie? They got killed didnt they? So why is it surprising they worried about it long before?
You need to read that article on Trepper, even the he described how they were all fearful. As i say he wasnt a Trot, and it was before the purges. Even back in 1927 people lived in fear and there is solid evidence and good reason. Trotsky was followed to Mexico, his house raked with machine gun fire, and when he survived that some Stalinist agent tricked his way in and stuck an ice axe through Trotsky's skull. Most of Trotsky's children and some grandchildren were also murdered. Take the fragging subject seriously and do some research.


quote wrote:
"Most, from what I can gather."
From "all" to "most".OK,we can trust you and your evidence.

you Stalinists love to nit pick and split hairs.

Loz wrote:
"All the old Bolsheviks were killed, everyone was killed."

Lol was Molotov or Voroshilov or Kaganovich (and so on) not an "old Bolshevik"? In fact,all of them became Bolsheviks years,even decades before Trotsky!



well done on finding three Bolsheviks who survived the purges.

Loz wrote:
"Stalin said one thing and did another. Read the actual economic data presented by Trotsky in the Platform of the Opposition. He gives a lot of facts and figures. Bear in mind he was still a high ranking Bolshevik in early 1927, he had plenty of access to the data. You need to read that Platform to have any idea of this subject."
What does this have to do with my remark which is a quote from I.Grey's book?


no idea. Read the Platform anyway. and the article on Trepper. please dont come back til you have. Other wise I will waste more time correcting you.

and who keeps censoring all my swearing?
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 13 Feb 2012, 11:32
Quote:
Try to post quotes from marxists.org, that way they can be checked. You need to be looking at the context, the date and so on, you need to see the proper sources. You learn nothing from your big pile of Stalinist quotes.

Your (our) MIA source clearly notes that Molotov remarked how that particular paragraphs had been ommitted by the editors.
But the other one which i brought up -the one which proves that Stalin indeed recognized Trotsky's w merits during that period-was published normally.


Quote:
they were, Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev etc, who had been teaching the communist students at the University.

Was this some cursed University or something? Were they killed because of their teaching? What's your point?


Quote:
The prediction was correct for a reason, as most are. Stalin was gonna kill the communists. So getting applause for talking to communists about communism was giving Stalin reason to want to kill you, and kill them he did.

Where did any one of these man say that Stalin was abot to kill all communists? What nonsense is this?

Quote:
see above ffs. It's fragging simple. Why cant you understand the obvious, Bukharin said it for a good reason. He feared Stalin was gonna kill him, and getting applause from communists for talking about communism was the sort of thing Stalin would eventually kill you for. That's it, simple. It's that simple.

Bukharin was a "Stalinist" for a few final years and he got numerous applauses,which is what spakers usually get.Is there some obvious connection between his death and the applauses which i can't see?

Quote:
The facts are that Stalin did the opposite of what Lenin and Trotsky advocated.

What exactly are you referring to?

Quote:
1. In 1923 Stalin was opposed to revolution in Germany

Source this.

Quote:
2. In 1924-7 he did the opposite of what Lenin advocated re the economy (high taxes for the rich, no taxes for the poor) and he screwed up the Chinese revolution.

Even if that were true,which i can't see for now,Stalin was in no way a supreme ruler of the USSR at that time.It is noted that the right-opposition had huge influence over the country and in the party,which is of course normal in the given situation.

Quote:
3. at the end of 1927 he kicked out Trotsky and his followers, the best socialists.

Lol no,the Party did,with an overwhelming majority of votes.Everybody was sick of Trotsky.

Quote:
4. In 1928 events Trotsky had predicted forced him to collectivise.

No,everyone knew that collectivization was the way to go since the 1910s.

Quote:
5. In 1935-8 he expelled half the party, and killed all those on the left who called for genuine democratic socialism.

Source for the "half of the party" and name those "democratic socialists".

Quote:
6. in 1936-7 he also sabotaged the Spanish revolution.

No,this is what you Trotskites and (some) Anarchists did in collaboration with Fascism.Read Dolores Ibarruri (hey,it's you who first started with such "responses").

And yeah,everyone knows about the Testament.Hardly anyone was spared from criticism in it.Your point?

Quote:
well, maybe not proof on it's own but strong evidence.

Hah,the famous Trotskist demagoguery.OK,you admit that there's no proof BUT there's strong(of course,what other kind there is!?) evidence.Laughable.

Quote:
These are reliable witnesses.

Sure they are.

Quote:
you Stalinists love to nit pick and split hairs.

Yeah and you like to lie and make things up.Namecalling FTW!!!
lol

Quote:
well done on finding three Bolsheviks who survived the purges.

Do you want a list,or are you just trolling (which is what you've been doing so far)?

Image
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 13 Feb 2012, 18:10
Loz wrote:
"Try to post quotes from marxists.org, that way they can be checked. You need to be looking at the context, the date and so on, you need to see the proper sources. You learn nothing from your big pile of Stalinist quotes."
Your (our) MIA source clearly notes that Molotov remarked how that particular paragraphs had been ommitted by the editors.
But the other one which i brought up -the one which proves that Stalin indeed recognized Trotsky's w merits during that period-was published normally

Oh, how convenient to accidentally omit a crucial paragraph because it destroyed all Stalin's lies. No, if you cant see that this is bullshit there is no helping you. He wiped out the truth and replaced it with lies.



Loz wrote:
they were, Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev etc, who had been teaching the communist students at the University."
Was this some cursed University or something? Were they killed because of their teaching? What's your point? :?:

I have explained several times. Stalin killed socialists. If your speech got applause from keen young socialists, you were more likely to get killed by Stalin because he wanted all socialists dead. It's very simple.

Loz wrote:
The prediction was correct for a reason, as most are. Stalin was gonna kill the communists. So getting applause for talking to communists about communism was giving Stalin reason to want to kill you, and kill them he did. "
Where did any one of these man say that Stalin was abot to kill all communists? What nonsense is this?


Did you read the article on Trepper?

Loz wrote:
see above ffs. It's frigging simple. Why cant you understand the obvious, Bukharin said it for a good reason. He feared Stalin was gonna kill him, and getting applause from communists for talking about communism was the sort of thing Stalin would eventually kill you for. That's it, simple. It's that simple."
Bukharin was a "Stalinist" for a few final years and he got numerous applauses,which is what spakers usually get.Is there some obvious connection between his death and the applauses which i can't see?

Yes



Loz wrote:
The facts are that Stalin did the opposite of what Lenin and Trotsky advocated."
What exactly are you referring to?

Lenin and Trotsky said tax the rich heavily, dont tax the poor, build industry, subsidise communes for the poor peasants. Stalin did the opposite.

Did you read Platform of the Opposition?

Loz wrote:
1. In 1923 Stalin was opposed to revolution in Germany"
Source this.


Quote:
Stalin wrote a letter to Zinoviev and Bucharin:


"Should the Communists (at a given stage) strive to seize power without the Social Democrats, are they mature enough for that? That, in my opinion, is the question. When we seized power, we had in Russia such reserves as (a) peace, (b) the land to the peasants, (c) the support of the great majority of the working class, (d) the sympathy of the peasantry. The German Communists at this moment have nothing of the sort. Of course, they have the Soviet nation as their neighbour, which we did not have, but what can we offer them at the present moment? If to-day in Germany the power, so to speak, falls, and the Communists seize hold of it, they will fall with a crash. That in the 'best' case. And at the worst, they will be smashed to pieces and thrown back. The whole thing is not that Brandler wants to 'educate the masses,' but that the bourgeoisie plus the Right Social Democrats will surely transform the lessons–the demonstration–into a general battle (at this moment all the chances are on their side) and exterminate them. Of course, the Fascists are not asleep, but it is to our interest that they attack first: that will rally the whole working class around the Communists (Germany is not Bulgaria). Besides, according to all information the Fascists are weak in Germany. In my opinion the Germans must be curbed and not spurred on." [10]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-c ... d/ch07.htm

Loz wrote:
"2. In 1924-7 he did the opposite of what Lenin advocated re the economy (high taxes for the rich, no taxes for the poor) and he screwed up the Chinese revolution."
Even if that were true,which i can't see for now,Stalin was in no way a supreme ruler of the USSR at that time.It is noted that the right-opposition had huge influence over the country and in the party,which is of course normal in the given situation.

Bullshit

Loz wrote:
"3. at the end of 1927 he kicked out Trotsky and his followers, the best socialists."
Lol no,the Party did,with an overwhelming majority of votes.Everybody was sick of Trotsky.

Bullshit. This was a period where Trotsky supporters could not get jobs or medical treatment, where their meetings were broken up by hooligans for Stalin, and the workers were gloomy because of the defeat of the Chinese revolution. It was a period where Stalin used right wing elements against Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and the Left Opposition. In this period there was a massive campaign of lies about Trotsky in Stalin's media. So yes there was a right wing mood Stalin capitalised on, but he was also creating a one man dictatorship and a climate of fear. He basically made it illegal to speak out against him. Everyone was sick of Trotsky, and then the next year the all realised he had been right all along on every point. So Stalin lurched left in a massive zigzag, but only because he had no choice.

[quote"Loz"]"4. In 1928 events Trotsky had predicted forced him to collectivise."
No,everyone knew that collectivization was the way to go since the 1910s.
[/quote]

Bullshit. Stalin spent 5 years arguing against Trotsky. 1928 caught him by surprise. He had to suddenly do what Trotsky had been urging for the last 5 years.

Loz wrote:
5. In 1935-8 he expelled half the party, and killed all those on the left who called for genuine democratic socialism. "
Source for the "half of the party" and name those "democratic socialists".

It may have been less that half the party, or it may have been more, we are talking at least 100,000 a year. Look it up in wikipedia and Rogovin's books. The thing about the later purges is that it usually meant death.

I cant name all the socialists but if you start at the top there was all the 1917 Central Committe bar 2, All Trotsky's children and grandchildren bar a few who escaped. for example Stalin didnt just kill Kamenev, he killed his wife and children too, and this was for all the Left Opposition. Thousands of them.

Loz wrote:
"6. in 1936-7 he also sabotaged the Spanish revolution."
No,this is what you Trotskites and (some) Anarchists did in collaboration with Fascism.Read Dolores Ibarruri (hey,it's you who first started with such "responses").

That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Stalin only sent arms on condition that the government disarm the workers militias. The Stalinists attacked the anarchists and POUM, they banned the POUM and killed their leaders. Stalin's main priority was to stop the revolution. I dunno where you got that crazy story from but for frag's sake read something serious on Spain.





Sorry but this is a waste of time
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 14 Feb 2012, 05:29
Quote:
Oh, how convenient to accidentally omit a crucial paragraph because it destroyed all Stalin's lies. No, if you cant see that this is bullshit there is no helping you. He wiped out the truth and replaced it with lies.

It clearly says that the editors ommitted that "crucial" (lol) paragraph,and that it was present in Stalin's original.What can't you understand?

Quote:
I have explained several times. Stalin killed socialists. If your speech got applause from keen young socialists, you were more likely to get killed by Stalin because he wanted all socialists dead. It's very simple.

This is totally retarded. Everyone got applauses,especially from "young and keen socialists".
Your idiotic claim is not supported by anything out there.

Quote:
Did you read the article on Trepper?

Yes,why?

Quote:
Yes

Only in your imagination,which of course has no value in serious debates about history.
Quote:

Lenin and Trotsky said tax the rich heavily, dont tax the poor, build industry, subsidise communes for the poor peasants. Stalin did the opposite.

Where's the proof that "he" did the opposite?
Quote your relevant sources.

Quote:
...

How does this prove that Stalin was opposed to revolution in Germany?


Quote:
Bullshit

Sorry lol,i just quoted a serious history book.There's a concesus among historians regarding this anyway.
Troll harder.

Quote:
Bullshit.

Was he not expelled from the party with a majority of votes?
Am i lying maybe?

Quote:
It may have been less that half the party, or it may have been more, we are talking at least 100,000 a year. Look it up in wikipedia and Rogovin's books. The thing about the later purges is that it usually meant death
.
Again you lie and bend your claims.You clearly spoke of half the party.
Obviously your claims cannnot be taken seriously anymore.

Quote:
Look it up in wikipedia

Cool story.

Quote:
That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Stalin only sent arms on condition that the government disarm the workers militias. The Stalinists attacked the anarchists and POUM, they banned the POUM and killed their leaders. Stalin's main priority was to stop the revolution. I dunno where you got that crazy story from but for frag's sake read something serious on Spain.

To respond in your style:read D.Ibarruri lol.
Source about the "arms on the condition..." part please.
Also the POUM were Trotskyte-Fascists,of course they had to be removed.
Also lol,POUM certainly wasn't the "vanguard" of revolution in Spain,get real.It was way "behind" the Anarchists in any way.

Quote:
Sorry but this is a waste of time .

Good,no one's forcing you to waste your time.

Image
Soviet cogitations: 83
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jan 2012, 22:09
Pioneer
Post 14 Feb 2012, 10:58
Quote:
It clearly says that the editors ommitted that "crucial" (lol) paragraph,and that it was present in Stalin's original.What can't you understand?


"The old Stalinist Molotov comments the matter in his conversations with Felix Chuev, published in english translation 1993 under the title Molotov Remembers: Inside Kremlin Politics. There we read (page 166):

"The talk switched to Trotsky, and about Stalin's assessment of his acitivity in the article 'The October Revolution'. It turned out that a whole paragraph had been omitted from Stalin's collected works — Molotov brought his own volume, in which he had written in the margin what had appearrd in Stalin's original version — how Trotsky managed to win over the Petrograd garrison"

So decades later Molotov says the paragraph is missing. It does not say the editors were responsible. He could not know whether it was deliberate. To assume it was anything other that Stalin's instructions would be incredibly naive. And the paragraph is crucial because it shows what a liar Stalin was and that his accusations against Trotsky were all lies. It was left out so thousands of communists could be killed in Stalin's purge.

If you cant see this there is no helping you, you are in denial.

Quote:
This is totally retarded. Everyone got applauses,especially from "young and keen socialists".
Your idiotic claim is not supported by anything out there.

Bukharin's claim is supported by his death. It is very clear in the article which you say you have read. As I say, all three of the worried about Stalin killing them for years.

Quote:
Only in your imagination,which of course has no value in serious debates about history.

These are facts, quite simple plain ones.

Quote:
Where's the proof that "he" did the opposite?
Quote your relevant sources.

I keep telling you, read the platform of the Opposition.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... n/ch01.htm

Read it, stop typing nonsense.

These are from the first page:

"Lenin’s words laid upon us all the following obligations:

1. To watch vigilantly the growth of these hostile forces – kulak, Nepman, and bureaucrat;
2. To remember that in proportion to the general revival of the country, these forces will strive to unite, introduce their own amendments’ into our plans, exercise an increasing pressure upon our policy, and satisfy their interests through our apparatus;
3. To take all possible measures to weaken the growth, unity, and pressure of these hostile forces, preventing them from creating that actual, although invisible, dual-power system toward which they aspire;
4. To tell candidly the whole truth about these processes to all the toiling masses. In this now consists the fundamental problem as to a “Thermidorian” danger and the struggle against it."

"The role of the indirect taxes in our budget is growing alarmingly at the expense of the direct. By that alone the tax-burden automatically shifts from the wealthier to the poorer levels. "

He goes into detail but it is very readable. Read it. Dont post back on this til you have.

Quote:
"In my opinion the Germans must be curbed and not spurred on"
How does this prove that Stalin was opposed to revolution in Germany?


What the £@%$ do you think it says? Do you know what the word curb means? Do you need a dictionary?


Quote:
Sorry lol,i just quoted a serious history book.There's a concesus among historians regarding this anyway.
Troll harder.

You are the troll and I am about to give up on you. And how am I supposed to know what retarded nonsense you are referring to with a one word quote?


Quote:
Again you lie and bend your claims.You clearly spoke of half the party.
Obviously your claims cannnot be taken seriously anymore.


"the first purge of the Joseph Stalin era was performed only in 1929–1930 according to the resolution of the XVI Party Conference. Over 10% of the Party members were purged. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purges_of_ ... viet_Union

"In 1933, for example, some 400,000 people were expelled from the Party. But from 1936 until 1953, the term changed its meaning, because being expelled from the Party came to mean almost certain arrest, imprisonment, and even execution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

100,000 were expelled in 1937 source

37% of the Ukraine CP were purged including all the top positions
http://www.brama.com/ukraine/history/terror/index.html

"of the 1,966 delegates who attended the 1934 "Congress of Victors", 1,108 were ultimately arrested by the secret police. Of 139 members of the Central Committee, 98 were arrested"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... Bolsheviks

"The Great Purge saw the removal of 850,000 members from the Party, or 36% of its membership, between 1936 and 1938."

"At the 18th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (b) held in 1939, only 2% of the delegates had also been delegates to the last congress held in 1934"


Quote:
To respond in your style:read D.Ibarruri lol.
Source about the "arms on the condition..." part please.
Also the POUM were Trotskyte-Fascists,of course they had to be removed.
Also lol,POUM certainly wasn't the "vanguard" of revolution in Spain,get real.It was way "behind" the Anarchists in any way.


I see I am wasting my time. Support or retract "Trotskyit-Fascists" It is mentioned below actually, it was a lie invented by Stalin and NKVD operatives who had pretended to be Trotskyists. Needless to say he killed them after their false confessions. The CIA knew about it. To them it was quite strange that Trotsky wasn't more alert to espionage as several MKVD penetrated his circle of contacts.

"From August to September 1936, the Soviet Union had not sent any arms to Spain. Stalin’s foreign policy at the time was orientated towards reaching an alliance with the British and French governments. Winston Churchill, later British prime minister, was among those capitalist leaders in the West who recognised the revolutionary character of the resistance in Spain and therefore advocated ‘neutrality’. This position suited Stalin, who in Spain aimed for the impossible: victory for neither Franco nor the armed workers. A workers’ victory would have risked inspiring the working class in Russia to rise against Stalinism. Consequently, a hypocritical ‘non-intervention committee’ was formed by Britain, France and the Soviet Union, plus the fascist regimes in Germany and Italy. But this agreement meant nothing in Berlin or Rome, which grew closer to each other on the issue of assisting Franco. The bureaucracy in Moscow, to keep up the illusions of workers in Europe and Russia, was then forced to send arms."

"Catalonia and Aragon, where the struggle was most advanced socially and militarily, received fewer arms – Caballero was pressurised by the PCE to accept this. The Italian communist leader, Palmiro Togliatti – one of Stalin’s handpicked men in the Comintern leadership – admitted that the Comintern had met "a number of difficulties" because of "a striving to jump over the schedule of the bourgeois-democratic revolution". In other words, the workers did not accept the dictate from Moscow to limit the struggle to ‘bourgeois democracy’, and to hand back occupied factories and land to the capitalists and landlords. The Popular Front thereby undermined the popular support for itself in the civil war."

"The Stalinists’ arguments were summarised in the beginning of August 1936, in the French communist daily, L’Humanité: "The Central Committee of the Spanish Communist Party asks us for an answer to fantastic and tendentious reports published in certain papers, to inform the public that the people of Spain are not fighting to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, but have only one purpose: the defence of the republican order through respect for property"."

"An important step for the betrayers of the revolution was to disarm the workers’ militias. In October 1936, the government decreed that there was to be only one republican army. The reason given was the need to coordinate military activity, but this new force was a totally bourgeois army. The Red Army, built up to defend the soviet regime in Russia against invading and White armies, had political commissars and elected officers, which did not exist in Spain. The centralisation of the army led to the PCE controlling two-thirds of the army by the beginning of spring 1937, according to Claudin.

In May 1937, came the big showdown in the republican camp. The Stalinists led a provocation against the most important workers’ centre, Barcelona. They attacked the telephone exchange, which since the summer of 1936 had been occupied and managed by anarchist workers. The workers fought to retake it, and were successful.

Both the CNT, which dominated among the workers in Catalonia, and the POUM (the Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification – see glossary), which had grown from 1,000 to 30,000 members in six weeks in 1936, were taken unawares by the fighting in Barcelona. The workers built barricades around the city, but no leadership was given. After four days of workers’ rule, they were told to go back to work by the CNT and the POUM. The workers’ rule had been possible partly because even the Stalinist-controlled International Brigades refused to intervene against the workers.

For the Stalinists, the uprising in Barcelona became an important part of their propaganda. They claimed that "Trotskyists, supported by the Gestapo, led an uprising to weaken and split the republicans". This became the prologue of a campaign in the style of the Moscow show trials against the ex-Trotskyists of POUM and also, of course, the small group of Spanish Trotskyists. In the Moscow trials, which had started in 1936, the former Bolshevik leaders Zinoviev and Kamenev were accused of being fascists. They were executed in cold blood, in parallel with the arrest and persecution of millions of workers."
http://www.socialismtoday.org/102/spain.html


Quote:
Good,no one's forcing you to waste your time.


No, I think this debate is pretty much concluded. Read the stuff I gave you, think about it. If you don't want to understand it or absorb it that's up to you. Remain ignorant.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 14 Feb 2012, 11:21
Quote:
So decades later Molotov says the paragraph is missing. It does not say the editors were responsible. He could not know whether it was deliberate. To assume it was anything other that Stalin's instructions would be incredibly naive

I don't know what your problem is,it clearly says that the paragraph was there in Stalin's original.Obviously it was later removed by the editors.

Quote:
And the paragraph is crucial because it shows what a liar Stalin was and that his accusations against Trotsky were all lies. It was left out so thousands of communists could be killed in Stalin's purge.

No it doesn't lol,and not only for the fact that Stalin recognized Trotsky's merits during the October in the paragraph that made it to his Collected Works.

Quote:
Bukharin's claim is supported by his death.

No,unless Bukharin was sentenced to death for clapping.

Ever heard of correlation vs. causation? It is absurd that he was killed for clapping.


Quote:
These are facts, quite simple plain ones.

No they aren't,otherwise you'd be able to prove them.


Quote:
I keep telling you, read the platform of the Opposition.

You can keep telling me,but i'm asking you to prove (quote the relevant passage from your sources) that Stalin denied and refuted Lenin's advice and guidemarks regarding the development during the NEP. Or that Stalin was the first one responsible for the policies inacted during that time.


Quote:
What the £@%$ do you think it says? Do you know what the word curb means? Do you need a dictionary?

Do you know what tactics and strategy is?

Quote:
"the first purge of the Joseph Stalin era was performed only in 1929–1930 according to the resolution of the XVI Party Conference. Over 10% of the Party members were purged. " etc,etc

Even your own quotes refute your lie about "half the party",why are you even bothering?

Quote:
I see I am wasting my time. Support or retract "Trotskyit-Fascists" It is mentioned below actually, it was a lie invented by Stalin and NKVD operatives who had pretended to be Trotskyists. Needless to say he killed them after their false confessions. The CIA knew about it. To them it was quite strange that Trotsky wasn't more alert to espionage as several MKVD penetrated his circle of contacts.

Maybe,maybe not,but you should create a separate thread about Spain because it is off-topic here.
Also you can quote 6 page articles as much as you want,but claims such as "...This position suited Stalin, who in Spain aimed for the impossible: victory for neither Franco nor the armed workers..." only serve to further discredit you.

Quote:
No, I think this debate is pretty much concluded. Read the stuff I gave you, think about it. If you don't want to understand it or absorb it that's up to you. Remain ignorant.

I don't know why you think that this is the first time i heard about Trotskysm?
Your sources are dubious but still miles ahead of the false and absurd "conclusions" you somehow derive from them.
The "clapping story" is especially dumb,needless to say such a theory is nonexistant even in the most reactionary works about Soviet history.
Good job there!
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 14 Feb 2012, 11:35
I love how both of you consider it highly relevant whether or not Stalin followed Lenin's directions on how to manage the NEP.

I would think the important question is whether he did it right or not. Lenin's directions could have been wrong, you know. Therefore it's quite irrelevant what Lenin's ideas actually were, the relevant question is whether or not Soviet economic development was a success under Stalin. Of course it was. So, the only thing that's left to criticize is that it might possibly have been different than what Lenin wanted. Who cares? And why care?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.