Soviet cogitations: 564
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2010, 16:09 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Komsomol
I've always liked the term "Stalinism" or "Stalinist" and I always believed that Stalinism meant that you simply supported the leadership, and political action that Stalin took while ruling the USSR. Also, supporting his policy Socialism in One Country which was used to counter the theory of "Permanent Revolution".
1.Is being labeled a Stalinist supposed to be derogatory in anyway? 2. Is Stalinism starting to become an ideology? (I will answer my own question in the next sentence.) Also, I've never looked at Stalinism as any sort of ideology, just a certain group specifically, that adores, or supports Joseph Stalin and the role he played in the Socialist world. I believe the actual ideology of most Stalinists would officially be a "Marxist-Leninist" which is what Stalin was, or at lease some would say that's debatable... Discuss if you'd like..but it'd be appreciated if there weren't any major debate on the ideas of Socialism in One Country and Permanent Revolution themselves, however, debate about the term Stalinism is definitely encouraged! (Because that's what this post is about) Thanks, Comrades. Партия всегда права.
Die Partei hat immer recht. The Party is always right.
Stalin said once "I am just a disciple of Great Comrade Lenin".
It can even be said that "Stalinism" is actual,applied Marxism-Leninism. Revisionists,opportunists,fascists and anti-communists of all colors tried to make "Stalinism" a derogatory term,they tried to turn it into an insult,but today it's becoming more and more clear to everyone that Stalin,despite his errors,fought for the people and strived for genuine communism.
Soviet cogitations: 564
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2010, 16:09 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Komsomol
Oh ok so you do support Stalin? You have me confused...I remember your sarcastic post about how you dreamed you were hanging out with Stalin and it seemed like you were viciously criticizing him and it seemed that you actually hated him. So you were joking?
You have to understand it's harder to tell if people are not being serious through text, Comrade. That is damn confusing..So you do like Stalin? Yes, it is nice to see that more and more Stalin is being recognized as a positive figure. I read in an older post of yours, that you said it should be an honor to be called a "Stalinist" I definitely agree! Also, Trotskyists like to throw the term "Stalinist" around as a negative one, and try to disassociate it from Marxism or Leninism. Партия всегда права.
Die Partei hat immer recht. The Party is always right. Quote: Yes i do support him.And i was of course joking in that dreams-thread. Quote: Well,Stalin definitely isn't a "likable" figure,but i think that his policies were,in the end,good. Quote: Not just the Trotskytes though,but all kinds of people,from communists to anti-communists. Man In Grey wrote: Well, the English suffix -ist refers to a follower of an -ism (in this case, Stalinism), which usually denotes an ideology. So, to me, being a "Stalinist" means to subscribe wholesale to the ideology underlying his writings and policies, which is much different than being sympathetic to Stalin as a political leader during a particular historical moment. Quote: The ideology underlying his writings and policies is just Marxism-Leninism.Stalin himself wasn't some "great"(not of Marx's or Lenin's "caliber") theorist,and saw himself as nothing more than a continuator of what Lenin had started. Quote: http://redcomrades.byethost5.com/redcom ... al-ml.html The Contribution of J.V. Stalin to Marxism-Leninism http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/r ... alin70.htm Quote: Another view of Stalin http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Ludo%20M ... 0000000000 Quote: Mao Loz wrote: I think that there are certain ideological features of Stalinism that radically deviate from classical Marxism, including a particular conception of "man" which contrasts sharply with Marx's humanism.
Soviet cogitations: 564
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2010, 16:09 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Komsomol
I very much enjoy these articles and I adore marxists.org. However what's strange to me is this site contains these articles that defend Stalin quite impressively, yet in the link for "Selected Marxists" there is total anti-Stalinist drivel written in Trotsky's section and they don't even include Stalin. So there does seem to be "Anti-Stalinist" elements on marxists.org.
Quote: http://marxists.org/archive/selected-marxists.htm Perhaps we could say that Stalin may have committed some atrocities, or mistakes, yes, and that's what this "Left Opposition" was fighting against. But, we also recognize his achievements as being far greater, and overall, were for the greater good, just like you had said, Loz. I still think the page may be a bit unfair, and a jab at Stalin. It does do damage to Stalin to have such a website make such claims in almost plain view. However, it also contains such articles that are very pro-Stalin, yet they can only be found if specifically searched. Партия всегда права.
Die Partei hat immer recht. The Party is always right.
So they should take down what was proven to be true because it makes Stalin look more like he really was? Stalin killed off almost all of the old bolsheviks, calling that anything less than monstrous is an insult to the bolsheviks as a whole.
![]()
Soviet cogitations: 564
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2010, 16:09 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Komsomol
No they shouldn't take it down, but they don't even include Stalin on that page or his achievements. Many of the "Old Bolsheviks" that he killed were allies with Trotsky such as Zinoviev and Kamenev who were of course original allies with Stalin in the struggle.
Партия всегда права.
Die Partei hat immer recht. The Party is always right. Man In Grey wrote: I agree this is a mistake as much as Stalin's (happily continued by his successors and the current Russian state) banning Trotsky's work in the USSR. Stalin belongs on the front page if only for being such a huge figure in socialist history. Man In Grey wrote: Which makes Stalin's eradication of most of them all the more shitty. I've never understood being able to forgive Stalin, or even worse be apologetic of, his political programme against almost all of the leading Russian marxists. ![]()
Soviet cogitations: 564
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2010, 16:09 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Komsomol
Yes but my point was they were allies against him and the fate of the USSR and the socialist world depended on whoever won this struggle. What else can you do to political opponents in such a political arena? Personally I don't believe the USSR would have survived under Trotsky's policies, but of course I stated I didn't want to get too much into that but of course I make myself the first person to do so Russia was always known for its questionable ways of dealing with political opponents. Trotsky may have done the same thing to his opponents. Either that or just banish them all, maybe not just completely wipe them out.
History is now starting to recognize this time, Stalin's Soviet times, as more of a positive one. And because of this, I am even more proud to say that I am a Stalinist, even in earlier times when it didn't seem like there was much "demand" for Stalin. Even his picture almost made an appearance during victory day this year, perhaps maybe they will work up enough courage to give an all out display of Comrade Stalin's portrait, no holds barred. Maybe next year? Партия всегда права.
Die Partei hat immer recht. The Party is always right. Man In Grey wrote: So in your analysis only Stalin could save the USSR? Interesting. Man In Grey wrote: You don't kill them or put them in prison. Destroying the Marxist Opposition turned people like Yeltsin into relevant figures in history. Man In Grey wrote: Why? Man In Grey wrote: Taking a position on Stalin vs Trotsky then saying you don't want to explain is pretty lame. Man In Grey wrote: America has some pretty questionable ways of dealing with political opponents but we're known for this so it's cool. Man In Grey wrote: I see no reason to believe that Trotsky would have made such drastic purges into the Revolutionary Elite. He certainly wouldn't have gutted the RA on the eve of world war two trying to root out 'Stalinist Wreckers'. Is your position based on anything other than feelings? Man In Grey wrote: Being better than Nazis or third-world capitalism isn't really living up to what socialism is. Stalin's actions led to a model, replicated by his successors, to the point where Gorbachev was able to fill the CC with nothing but his supporters and destroy the USSR from the top. Stalin did some good, he was a better leader than most, but what he did against Marxists is unforgivable. Really ![]()
Soviet cogitations: 564
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2010, 16:09 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Komsomol Quote: At the time, yes. Seeing as Trotsky and Stalin became the two driving forces in the power struggle, there seemed to be only one winner. Thankfully, it was Stalin. He wanted to push the USSR into speedy industrialization because he knew war was coming. "We either do it, or we'll be crushed." There really wasn't much of an alternative. The SSSR needed someone as harsh, but ruling like him at that time. They needed the boost. Quote: Ok, fair enough. I'll give it to you straight then seeing as I put myself in this situation. I believe Permanent Revolution to be a nice idea for Communism overall but it did not go together at all with the present state of the developing socialist world. It would be totally idiotic to depend on other countries to spark their own revolutions during a time of war. However, most importantly Trotsky, like Stalin, wanted to have speedy collectivization but wanted to do it "voluntarily," again, that's idiotic to try and implement during times of approaching war. Stalin was "dizzy with success" as he put it. He forced collectivization and five year plans, and guess what, they worked. This also answers your question about why I don't think his policies would have worked at the time. (Perm. Revol, and voluntary collectivization, rubbish) Quote: Yes the good ole' US of A does have questionable ways..even now it has questionable ways of trying to run the Earth. However, what I meant by that was Russia itself did not ever experience such a political environment that it could just be shotgunned into a democracy. Because they tried democracy, it didn't work out. The revolutionary Bolsheviks spent their lives trying to overthrow the tsardom, and once they finally end up on top, what do they do? They realized their dreams of a socialist workers and peasants paradise and flowers blooming wasn't realistic and it couldn't just happen on a whim. They had no choice but to turn to bureaucracy. However, like I said, with no democratic experience, and of course being in a Civil War, they had to be bureaucratic and militaristic. They had no time for intellectual chatter boxes trying to decide what to do. And that is what I meant by "questionable tactics" Quote: *sigh* Yes, yes...he wasn't perfect. He was excessive, maybe a little too excessive, extremely excessive, even. And you're right...his grave mistakes are unforgivable. But I believe in the end he is to be revered, looked up to, or just simply recognized for his achievements. That is currently happening in Russia, slowly but surely, and I am glad for it. (I do believe taking down his statue in Gori was quite a blow however, personally, since now I won't be able to take a picture of myself in front of the statue...) Партия всегда права.
Die Partei hat immer recht. The Party is always right.
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49 Ideology: Democratic Socialism Embalmed
Trotsky was actually far more opposed to workers holding positions in the glavki anyway, he was actually a bit of a cock when it came to labour relations on a whole and his economic outlook had more to do with a hundred years of War Communism than anything else - at least what he could implement or push through.
![]() "Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx Quote: It seems these researchers are Nazbol, don't they? Look at how they depict Stalin's thought. "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
Dagoth Ur wrote: According to the Soviet secret archives, Stalin voted against executions. But Molotov managed to convince the central committee that executions should be made. I am not taking a stand on either Molotov or Stalin's side here, I am just pointing at the fact that your facts are wrong. But that is not new when it comes to trotskyists. "You can become a communist only when you enrich your mind with a knowledge of all the treasures created by mankind."
- Lenin
Soviet cogitations: 16
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Nov 2011, 12:25 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
I don't call myself an "anybody-ist" but if I did I'd have no problem with "Stalinist" cause he was a badass mofo
The term exists because an "ist" had to exist during a very difficult time during the Soviet Union. Leninism was the doctrine that made a revolution happen. The revolution had to reorganize under NEP and somebody had to set policy to move the revolution forward. That's why we have Stalinism and not Kirovism or Buharinism. Naturally some will say that Trotsky had the right way. the fact of the matter is, Stalin was there, and not Trotsky, Trotsky is completely Hypothetical and therefore "perfect" and Stalins policies were actual and therefore imperfect. The Scientific nature of philosophy is that we can learn from Stalin's policies and dream about Trotsky's.
Soviet cogitations: 564
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2010, 16:09 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Komsomol
I will recognize some of Stalin's policies and accomplishments, while recognizing some of his various grave mistakes, but I'll never "dream" of Trotsky's.
Партия всегда права.
Die Partei hat immer recht. The Party is always right. |
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||