[The Immortal Goon]

But... is the answer to that, simply to completely do away with political democracy? That's where I have trouble.

Is the answer, then, to have political democracy in theory, but not in practice?

Something Lenin harped away at, and I think rightly so, is that the capitalist countries loved to trot on the theoretical political independence while ignoring the reality. I'm guessing that you're American based on grammar and whatnot, so pardon me if I'm wrong and I'm using poor examples but there are literally government attempts to make sure black people can't vote as much. Voting days are, in most states, on Tuesdays during business hours when most people work, and at polling stations with technology that is sometimes hundreds of years old. As happened a lot of times during the last two presidential elections, let's go to one of the lines that goes blocks around at 4.59 when they announce that voting was closed and everyone has to go home.

The individual around the block theoretically has the right to vote, but in reality does not.

Or, we can put this to speech. You can say whatever you want, so long as it doesn't land you on a terrorist watchlist. Within those constraints, you're allowed to say whatever you can afford to say. Murdoch has a media empire, you have a wordpress page. Murdoch can "say," whatever he wants in the form of money to politicians. You cannot afford to do so. Yet, we are told, you have the same rights.

It's just that rich people's rights are reality, and yours are theoretical.

The communist looks at what's material and real, the liberal as to what is theoretical.

And it's not easy.

As for the, "zest for life," I think that's an important distinction within the communist movement itself. James Connolly, Lenin, Trotsky, and others took a view that proletarian society would dialectically come from the old bourgouis society that proceeded it.

De Leon and Stalin thought that proletarian society had to be constructed as part of the party program. The latter won, and whereas the Soviet Union under Lenin had a big sexual and social revolution complete with legalization of homosexuality and mechanisims to free women from the kitchens and being baby machines, Stalin did the opposite.

I fall in the former side of things, but it's easy to look back and see where the mistakes were made than to make these calls at the time. They were both theoretical attempts to ultimately liberate the people in reality instead of in theory.

[Decky]

The Soviet Union (pbui) was the closest man has ever came to building heaven on earth. It saved the lives of every man, woman and child between Warsaw and the Urals from the Nazis. What's not to love?

[Deutschmania]

I'm a neocommunist, and one of the few regimes I support as a real world example was Hungary, under Kadar's goulash Communism. This is based in part upon reading the account given in this article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221064/Oppressive-grey-No-growing-communism-happiest-time-life.html. I think that similar things could be said of Titoism, and for as long as it lasted, the Prague spring. These examples serve as useful models of an ideal society, in my opinion.

[Dystopian Darkness]

The only person I know who's an outspoken communist (and member of our political communist party) considers the USSR to be a mixed bag between monumental failings and great achievements - She also prefers Lenin over Stalin (I guess the former was sexier?)...

[mikema63]

She also prefers Lenin over Stalin (I guess the former was sexier?)

Lenin largely disliked Stalin and tried to warn the party against him, Stalin built a cult of personality around himself and was in many ways just an asshole. There are also major ideological differences like "socialism in one country" and Stalin's social program. Lenin in a lot of ways built the USSR, Stalin turned it into his own little fiefdom, in the end it was destroyed in part by that. So it's not hard to like one and not the other.

[fuser]

woah, how did trotskiyaites got to mike first?

Lenin didn't "largely" disliked Stalin, the relentless Lenin quotes produced by detractors of both Stalin and Trotsky is just a ridiculous exercise.

Stalin turned it into his own little fiefdom

Oh, come now, this is outlandish.

So it's not hard to like one and not the other.

Only if you believe the ridiculous notion that under Lenin everything was and would had been rainbow and puppies with no great actions against counter revolutionaries and class enemies or the purging of party.

The purging of the Party has obviously developed into a serious and vastly important affair.

In some places the Party is being purged mainly with the aid of the experience and suggestions of non-Party workers; these suggestions and the representatives of the non-Party proletarian masses are being heeded with due consideration.That is the most valuable and most important thing. If we really succeed in purging our Party from top to bottom in this way, without exceptions, it will indeed be an enormous achievement for the revolution.

The achievements of the revolution cannot now be the same as they were previously. Their nature inevitably changes in conformity with the transition from the war front to the economic front, the transition to the New Economic Policy, the conditions that primarily demand higher productivity of labour, greater labour discipline. At such a time improvements at home are the major achievements of the revolution; a neither salient, striking, nor immediately perceptible improvement in labour, in its organisation and results; an improvement from the viewpoint of the fight against the influence of the petty-bourgeois and petty-bourgeois-anarchist element, which corrupts both the proletariat and the Party.To achieve such an improvement, the Party must be purged of those who have lost touch with the masses (let alone, of course, those who discredit the Party in the eyes of the masses). Naturally. we shall not submit to everything the masses say, because the masses, too, sometimes—particularly in time of exceptional weariness and exhaustion resulting from excessive hardship and suffering—yield to sentiments that are in no way advanced. But in appraising persons, in the negative attitude to those who have “attached” themselves to us for selfish motives, to those who have become “puffed-up commissars” and “bureaucrats”, the suggestions of the non-Party proletarian masses and, in many cases, of the non-Party peasant masses, are extremely valuable. The working masses have a fine intuition, which enables them to distinguish honest and devoted Communists from those who arouse the disgust of people earning their bread by the sweat of their brow, enjoying no privileges and having no “pull”.

To purge the Party it is very important to take the suggestions of the non-Party working people into consideration. It will produce big results. It will make the Party a much stronger vanguard of the class than it was before; it will make it a vanguard that is more strongly bound up with the class, more capable of leading it to victory amidst a mass of difficulties and dangers.

As one of the specific objects of the Party purge, I would point to the combing out of ex-Mensheviks. In my opinion, of the Mensheviks who joined the Party after the beginning of 1918, not more than a hundredth part should be allowed to remain; and even then, every one of those who are allowed to remain must be tested over and over again. Why? Because, as a trend, the Mensheviks have displayed in 1918-21 the two qualities that characterise them: first, the ability skilfully to adapt, to ”attach” themselves to the prevailing trend among the workers; and second, the ability even more skilfully to serve the whiteguards heart and soul, to serve them in action, while dissociating themselves from them in words. Both these qualities are the logical outcome of the whole history of Menshevism. It is sufficient to recall Axelrod’s proposal for a “labour congress”,[2] the attitude of the Mensheviks towards the Cadets[3] (and to the monarchy) in words and action, etc., etc. The Mensheviks ”attach” themselves to the Russian Communist Party not only and even not so much because they are Machiavellian (although ever since 1903 they have shown that they are past masters in the art of bourgeois diplomacy), but because they are so ”adaptable". Every opportunist is distinguished for his adaptability (but not all adaptability is opportunism); and the Mensheviks, as opportunists, adapt themselves ”on principle” so to speak, to the prevailing trend among the workers and assume a protective colouring, just as a hare’s coat turns white in winter. This characteristic of the Mensheviks must be kept in mind and taken into account. And taking it into account means purging the Party of approximately ninety-nine out of every hundred Mensheviks who joined the Russian Communist Party after 1918, i.e., when the victory of the Bolsheviks first became probable and then certain.

The Party must be purged of rascals, of bureaucratic, dishonest or wavering Communists, and of Mensheviks who have repainted their “facade” but who have remained Mensheviks at heart.

One can never be too vigil.

[kobe]

Fuser, you are conflating what Lenin means by purge with what Stalin meant by purge. Lenin's purges were merely expulsions from the party, nothing more, nothing less. There is no evidence that anyone was imprisoned or executed for being kicked out of the party. Stalin completely changed the meaning, mechanism, and scope of the purge process.

[fuser]

Ah yes Lenin was totally not for fighting counter revolutionaries with all means necessary, Cheka was actually an organization that distributed "chocolates" to kids.

Red Terror

This whole line, "Stalin bad, mmkay, if only he hadn't come to power" is just tip toeing around the fact that systematic and brutal repression of counter revolutionaries was indeed a thing in 20th century and carried out by communist party. Trying to get out of this undeniable fact by pinning everything on one man is pathetic somewhat like how Europeans pin everything down on Hitler to escape their own racist past.

I am a communist and I have no problem with this fact, the only people who have problem with this undeniable fact are "future neo cons in communist party."

Any new political movement (including liberalism) uses mass campaign of political repression to establish itself and of course with more political maturity the repressive apparatus secedes as happened in USSR too.

[kobe]

Not that I am defending the Red Terror or anything, as it needs no defense from some Westerner who could not even imagine the material conditions that the revolution was confined by, but there was also a White Terror. Kind of funny that you would criticize for selectively presenting facts while doing so yourself.

In March 1919 Admiral Kolchak himself demanded one of his generals to "follow the example of the Japanese who, in the Amur region, had exterminated the local population."[4] Kolchak's regime also used mass floggings,[11] especially with rods.[12] Kolchak issued orders to raze to the ground whole villages.[12] In a few Siberian provinces, 20,000 farms were destroyed and over 10,000 peasant houses burned down.[12] Kolchak's regime destroyed bridges and blew up water stations.[12]

In the Urals, Siberia, and the Far East, extraordinary cruelty was practiced by several Cossack warlords: B. Annenkov, A. Dutov, G. Semyonov, and J. Kalmykov. During the trial against Annenkov, there was testimony about the robbing peasants and atrocities under the slogan: “We have no restrictions! God is with us and Ataman Annenkov: slash right and left!”.[13] In September 1918, during the suppression of peasant uprisings in Slavgorod county, Annenkov tortured and killed up to 500 people. The village of Black Dole was burned down, after which peasants were shot, tortured, and hanged on pillars, including the wives and children of the peasants. Girls of Slavgorod and surrounding areas were brought to Annenkov’s train, raped, and then shot. According to an eyewitness, Annenkov behaved with brutal torture: victims had their eyes gouged and tongues and strips of their back cut off, were buried alive, or tied to horses. In Semipalatinsk, Annenkov threatened to shoot every fifth resident if the city refused to pay indemnities.[14]

On May 9, 1918, after Ataman Dutov captured Alekasandrov-Gai village, nearly 2,000 men of the Red Army were buried alive. More than 700 people of the village were executed. After capturing Troitsk, Orenburg, and other cities, a regime of terror was installed. One prison in Orenburg contained over 6,000 people, of whom 500 were killed just during interrogations. In Chelyabinsk, Dutov’s men executed or deported to Siberian prisons over 9,000 people. In Troitsk, Dutov’s men in the first weeks after the capture of the city shot about 700 people. In Ileka they killed over 400. These mass executions were typical of Dutov's Cossack troops.[15] Dutov's Executive order of 4 August 1918 imposed the death penalty for evasion of military service and for even passive resistance to authorities on its territory.[14] In one district of the Ural region in January 1918, Dutov’s men killed over 1,000 people.[15] On 3 April 1919, the Cossack warlord ordered his troops to shoot and take hostages for the slightest display of opposition. In the village of Sugar, Dutov’s men burned down a hospital with hundreds of Red Army patients.[15]

The Semenov regime in Transbaikalia was characterized by mass terror and executions. At the Adrianovki station in summer of 1919, more than 1,600 people were shot. Semenov himself admitted in court that his troops burned villages. Eleven permanent death houses were set up, where refined forms of torture were practiced.[16] Semyonov personally supervised the torture chambers, during which some 6,500 people were murdered.[17]

Major General William S. Graves, who commanded American occupation forces in Siberia, testified that:


Semeonoff and Kalmikoff soldiers, under the protection of Japanese troops, were roaming the country like wild animals, killing and robbing the people, and these murders could have been stopped any day Japan wished. If questions were asked about these brutal murders, the reply was that the people murdered were Bolsheviks and this explanation, apparently, satisfied the world. Conditions were represented as being horrible in Eastern Siberia, and that life was the cheapest thing there. There were horrible murders committed, but they were not committed by the Bolsheviks as the world believes. I am well on the side of safety when I say that the anti-Bolsheviks killed one hundred people in Eastern Siberia, to everyone killed by the Bolsheviks.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Russia)

Again, I'm not going to stand here and cheer on the executions of counter-revolutionaries or the targeting of economic groups. But I understand that things were a lot different back then, and that there was outside agitation and counter-revolutionary agitation all over the place.

You sound like you want to deflect criticism of Stalin by equating him to Lenin in terms of his treatment of counter-revolutionaries. The problem is that Stalin didn't suppress "counter-revolutionaries", he suppressed his own party. I concede the point that systematic terror began with Lenin, I just think you are misrepresenting that particular piece. Nonetheless the main problem is that because of the revisionism of history we associate Lenin with the same amount of power that Stalin had when it is altogether clear that Lenin tolerated dissenting opinion that was still revolutionary in nature.

[fuser]

Not that I am defending the Red Terror or anything, as it needs no defense from some Westerner who could not even imagine the material conditions that the revolution was confined by

Oh, I am most definitely defending it as already explained in my last post.

but there was also a White Terror. Kind of funny that you would criticize for selectively presenting facts while doing so yourself.

Dafaq? How am I selectively presenting the fact, did you missed the part where this argument was supposed to be about Lenin and Stalin? I also didn't mention Holocaust, am I denying that now?

Yes, White terror happened, I am not denying or hiding that, I am a commie ffs but the hell does it has to do here?

You sound like you want to deflect criticism of Stalin by equating him to Lenin in terms of his treatment of counter-revolutionaries. The problem is that Stalin didn't suppress "counter-revolutionaries", he suppressed his own party. I concede the point that systematic terror began with Lenin, I just think you are misrepresenting that particular piece. Nonetheless the main problem is that because of the revisionism of history we associate Lenin with the same amount of power that Stalin had when it is altogether clear that Lenin tolerated dissenting opinion that was still revolutionary in nature.

No, I am arguing against the stupid "great man of history" theory as if communism depended on whims of one or two personalities, if only by accident of history Stalin had died in his childhood, world would had been different today. Anyway if Stalin had died in say 1928, you would had said that Stalin was all about roses while Lenin was about guns, you don't know how he would had reacted in the situation of 1930s.

I am saying that systematic repression was part and parcel of the revolution and the moment and place in which it was born trying to excuse yourself from that by pinning everything on one man is just cowering to bourgeoisie propaganda. One can say that excesses happened during Stalin's reign and many things were handled poorly to which I may or may not agree and a good discussion can happen but to say, "Lenin good, Stalin bad, mmkay" is darn stupid.

[Frollein]

The problem is that the nation-state is completely at odds with human progress. As long as there will be nations there will be no communism because competing nations foster inequality, fear, and most of all corruption.

Yeah, because there was/is absolutely no corruption in socialist or capitalist countries. And international capitalism is obviously not more advantageous to human progress just because it is international - on the contrary, flooding national markets with cheap foreign labour serves to dump wages and oppress the working class even more (because there is no international working class: the European workers care shit all about the Asian workers, and vice versa). So internationalism in itself is no virtue.

In fact, the nation-state is the most inclusive of all. Whereas the capitalists and communists are pitting the classes against each other, the nation embraces all its members, regardless of their class.

[One Degree]

In fact, the nation-state is the most inclusive of all. Whereas the capitalists and communists are pitting the classes against each other, the nation embraces all its members, regardless of their class.

Only if it is small enough to be responsive to it's members.

[The Immortal Goon]

Lenin didn't "largely" disliked Stalin, the relentless Lenin quotes produced by detractors of both Stalin and Trotsky is just a ridiculous exercise.

What a ridiculous statement, especially when followed by Lenin quotes. "Lenin quotes where he wants to purge Stalin and warns the Bolsheviks to take him out of power don't count. Only quotes that can loosly be applied to a strawman argument I'm making count!"

The fact is that Lenin did not want Stalin to come into power. He writes it several times. By trying to get around that by saying that Lenin was for a Red Terror, you might as well construct an argument that Lenin and Stalin were the same because cookies are delicious.

Even if we are to let the fact that Lenin did not like Stalin go, then it's plainly true that the USSR under Lenin and under Stalin were different systems. It's perfectly possible to like one of these systems more than the other.

It's Tanky Newspeak to have to pretend that Stalin took no action in anyway whatsoever and just passively let Lenin's system run smoothly through. Nobody even claims this, but the Stalinist would have us pretend that this is the case so Stalin get get the reality-defeating praise of being both a great leader and a passive disciple to Lenin.

Finally, this is simply reality. Nobody is pretending that Lenin didn't do things that fuzzy western liberals would object to, while Stalin was the opposite of fuzzy western liberalism.

For instance, Lenin crushed the church, while Stalin rehabilitated the churches, scrapped the Internationale-the socialist anthem-in favour of a church song, replaced the laws about morality and gender that Lenin had scrapped, and was praised by the Orthodox Church as, "the divinely anointed leader of our armed and cultural forces." Stalin got a lot of good praise from the west, who incidentally were openly for Stalin taking over after Lenin.

I prefer Lenin to Stalin not in spite of the radical change he brought, but because of it.

[Frollein]

In fact, the nation-state is the most inclusive of all. Whereas the capitalists and communists are pitting the classes against each other, the nation embraces all its members, regardless of their class.

Only if it is small enough to be responsive to it's members.

Not at all. You just need a system of representation; in a nation-state, all members have the right to vote (compare this to early liberal systems of representation, where you only those could vote who had a certain income or land) and votes are not weighed by class.

[fuser]

What a ridiculous statement, especially when followed by Lenin quotes. "Lenin quotes where he wants to purge Stalin and warns the Bolsheviks to take him out of power don't count. Only quotes that can loosly be applied to a strawman argument I'm making count!"

The fact is that Lenin did not want Stalin to come into power. He writes it several times.

I am not aware of that any place else than his testament. Plus he disliked him so much that he totally took actions against him while in power and purged him from the party while totally not giving him any ministerial post in his council of ministers all pointing out to the fact that Lenin completely disliked Stalin. No positive thing was ever uttered by Lenin about Stalin because long live "selective quoting" Talking about ridiculous, I get you are anti Stalinist and all but no need to throw word like ridiculous so loosely. btw, I have no interest in playing these, "selective quoting" game that has been played for a million times including on PoFo.

By trying to get around that by saying that Lenin was for a Red Terror, you might as well construct an argument that Lenin and Stalin were the same because cookies are delicious.

What? Who was getting around that point when that point wasn't touched in that statement of mine? My point was that Lenin was not all about rainbows and puppies as some people here seem to believe, don't let your sheer hatred of Stalin take better of you, that point of mine had nothing to do with Lenin's like or dislike for Stalin.

Even if we are to let the fact that Lenin did not like Stalin go, then it's plainly true that the USSR under Lenin and under Stalin were different systems. It's perfectly possible to like one of these systems more than the other.

It's Tanky Newspeak to have to pretend that Stalin took no action in anyway whatsoever and just passively let Lenin's system run smoothly through. Nobody even claims this, but the Stalinist would have us pretend that this is the case so Stalin get get the reality-defeating praise of being both a great leader and a passive disciple to Lenin.

Yes because situation never ever changes in practice, ever. Lenin would totally had never dismantled NEP, he would totally hadn't taken action for collectivizing agriculture etc. No one said that both systems were completely identical. Oh and spare me "Stalinist x, y, z mmkay" rant. The one thing that I hate most about communists are their anti Stalin and anti Trotsky rant, if anything is ridiculous, its these rants.

Finally, this is simply reality. Nobody is pretending that Lenin didn't do things that fuzzy western liberals would object to,

Umm, no. People are indeed pretending that in this very thread.

For instance, Lenin crushed the church, while Stalin rehabilitated the churches, scrapped the Internationale-the socialist anthem-in favour of a church song, replaced the laws about morality and gender that Lenin had scrapped, and was praised by the Orthodox Church as, "the divinely anointed leader of our armed and cultural forces." Stalin got a lot of good praise from the west, who incidentally were openly for Stalin taking over after Lenin.

Yes, I completely forgot the total love story that existed between USSR and West during Stalinist era temporary fractured by ww2. There was completely no antagonism towards USSR, no cold war etc.

I prefer Lenin to Stalin not in spite of the radical change he brought, but because of it.

Again, I had completely forgot how USSR was all about Lenin vs Stalin and how great man of history is a thing and if only Stalin had died of smallpox at the age of 9, world would had been a different place because that is materialism.




Finally to repeat myself from last post, I can see the criticism of Stalin era USSR on many policy issues or incompetence (whether I agree with it or not) which under Lenin (or even Trotsky) could have been better managed but to declare simplistic, Lenin good Stalin bad and two men meant two completely different USSR is what is ridiculous here

[mikema63]

Let's just all agree to hate Hitler and stop fighting.

Seriously though, I wouldn't describe myself as a trot, I don't particularly have a sub label that I apply to myself. All these people we use to label ourselves lived in different material conditions than we do today, we can't universalize what these people did even if it did work really well when they did it. We should respect other branches of communist thought.

[One Degree]

Hitler was not a bad guy.
Henry IV and Herbert Hoover wanted to put a chicken in every pot.
Hitler thought Jews were chicken.
How does that make him the bad guy?

[fuser]

I agree with mike 100%, Hitler was a scum.

Oh and I wasn't calling you a trot, I just said that as a joke neither do I label myself with antique labels of Stalinist or Trotskiyate which has no bearing on current Marxist polity where I live.

[The Immortal Goon]

Oh and spare me "Stalinist x, y, z mmkay" rant. The one thing that I hate most about communists are their anti Stalin and anti Trotsky rant, if anything is ridiculous, its these rants.

This is what I'm most fascinated by, it's the same thing that I called "ridiculous" above. And for offending you, I do appologize.

But in my mind, this is the very antithesis of a way to establishing any kind of truth. You probably know, or have guessed, that I can label and cite several instances where I can prove your points wrong. And you ask me not to do so.

This is something about Stalinists in general I don't really understand. I had this discussion with other users on this site, and it more or less seems to me (and I don't mean this to be offensive) that the Stalinists embrace Stalin on an emotional level. That he is a symbol more than an historical personage, and that the symbol should not be disrespected, even if that means the user is aware that there are facts that counter the Stalinist narrative.

In short, it's as if Stalin becomes like the Hammer and Sickle, or some other symbol instead of a historic actor.

It's legitimately confusing for me as I don't know how else to engage people that concede facts on one side, but seemingly refuse to concede the results on another.

[fuser]

This is what I'm most fascinated by, it's the same thing that I called "ridiculous" above.

What? Its literally not true, don't change meaning of your post in the very next post.

You probably know, or have guessed, that I can label and cite several instances where I can prove your points wrong. And you ask me not to do so.

Yeah and you know that I can prove your points wrong just as I did.

But What? I asked you to not prove my points wrong? Nice try at twisting my argument, I explicitly said I don't want to play selective quoting game and there are much more to my post than just that, let me rephrase that in the following paragraph:

Because clearly PoFo has never witnessed such debate before where people relentlessly post Lenin's quote here and there to prove their hero (whether Stalin or Trotsky) to be positive or their villains (again Stalin or Trotsky) in negative light like the last time when you and Ingliz had a go at it, everyone clearly declared you a victor and went home, right? or this ridiculous hero worshiping, villain hating debate is just something that I don't want to go in needlessly when what I wanted to say, I have said it and specially unlike many people here, neither figure whether Stalin or Trotsky are villain and evil personified to me.

This is something about Stalinists in general I don't really understand. I had this discussion with other users on this site, and it more or less seems to me (and I don't mean this to be offensive) that the Stalinists embrace Stalin on an emotional level. That he is a symbol more than an historical personage, and that the symbol should not be disrespected, even if that means the user is aware that there are facts that counter the Stalinist narrative.

Who is Stalinist here? I am not a stalinist as I have explicitly stated many times before, who are you talking to? or it is fine for you to come up and throw words like Stalinist randomly and hope for it to hit some point but when I last time called "Trotsky" in a debate with you, you were quick to claim that you don't identify yourself as such. Its cute to see that only one arguing here on an emotional level is accusing non existent Stalinist (probably not willing to throw insults directly) to be acting on an emotional level.

I am not the one doing hero worshiping or villain bashing but you sure are doing the latter, I get it you really really hate Stalin, no need to pronounce that "feeling" of yours in every post.