[DeeJay]

which rock have you been living under for the last 50 years?

[smashthestate]

This is absolutely grotesque. To compare Stalin to Hitler is the most outrageous dismissal of the unique criminality of the Nazi regime.

Tell that to all of the people around the world who compare Hitler to Bush.

There is a lot to criticize about Stalin. Try sticking to his actual crimes, and avoid the ones that were fabricated by bourgeois and Nazi propagandists.

Oh great, now we have two Tovarish Spetsnaz!

Sandino, please give us your opinion on the Ukraine famine of 1932-33.

[Sandino]

Tell that to all of the people around the world who compare Hitler to Bush.

Actually, they compare Bush to Hitler. At any rate, the comparison there is slightly less disgusting than comparing Stalin to Hitler. Bush has a long way to go before he commits crimes on the level of Hitler.

The comparisons of <place name of political opponent here> to Hitler are the most vulgar kind of political demagogeury. The holocaust was a uniquely evil event in world history that caused human suffering on a scale that far surpasses any other crime ever committed. The memory of the holocaust should not be so blithely used as a political tirade.

Sandino, please give us your opinion on the Ukraine famine of 1932-33.

See the thread on "class struggle."

Basically, the upheavals in the countryside in 1931-2 led to massive human suffering, and were the direct result of Stalinist mismanagement and brutality.

[smashthestate]

the comparison there is slightly less disgusting than comparing Stalin to Hitler. Bush has a long way to go before he commits crimes on the level of Hitler.

I think it's safe to say that Stalin was a far more ruthless leader than Bush. It's also probably safe to assume, based on the whole Ukraine Famine ordeal, that Stalin was responsible for more deaths because of his policies than Bush.

But I agree with you on one thing, comparing anyone to Hitler is absolutely disgusting and it shows one of two things about the people who do it.

1. They don't know the the extent to which the holocaust affected lives.

2. They probably don't know the real extent to which the "compare-ee" affected the lives of people with his/her policies.

Basically, the upheavals in the countryside in 1931-2 led to massive human suffering, and were the direct result of Stalinist mismanagement and brutality.

I retract my past statement that we have a Tovarish Spetsnaz clone. It seems you actually do have your facts straight

[Todd D.]

I compared Stalin to Hitler only in number of deaths, not ideologies.

I agree that the Holocaust was a uniquelly evil event in that it attempted to take certain classes and completely eradicate them from the face of the earth, which is something Stalin did not do, so the comparison to the motives of death are completely unsubstantiated.

HOWEVER, in sheer numbers, Stalin DOES outnumber Hitler as far as deaths are concerned. Granted that it was over a larger timeframe, but it is true. I do like the way that instead of refuting the Great Purge, you just call me a moron and tell me that my dates are wrong (which they are, I don't know what I was thinking there, so my apologies). Essentially what you said to me was "no no no silly, he didn't kill millions in the 20's, he waited until the 30's to do it!"

[jaakko]

Damn the bourgeois literature and schoolbooks, for without them I wouldn't have to do this all the time...

Lenin was familiar with Capital and of course the Manifesto, but was unfamilar with The German Ideology and Economic and Philisophical Manuscrips from 1844. Lenin and Stalin both had very selective views as to what Marx "really meant".

Then write yet another "What Marx Really Meant". As a reminder, you said:
"Stalin's ideologies very closely followed those of Lenin, who was very selective of what Communist literature he read. He was interested in Marx and Engels, but was unable or unwilling to read some of their later works that reputed the revolutionist ideals that Lenin, and consequently Stalin, held to."
The books you mentioned that Lenin didn't give special attention, were from 1844-46. Marx and Engels were less than 30 then. Their revolutionary theories continued to develope after that, and there's nothing counter-revolutionary to be found in their very latest works.

Somehow I can't avoid getting the impression that you've just accepted what some Marx-pacifying 'authority' has said.

[Todd D.]

Ugh, this is why I should post before I get overtired. I apologize once again and point out that I meant to say that that they ignored OTHER works that they were either unwilling or unable to get their hands on.

Lenin believed that since Class Struggle is the driving force behind historical development, that it must be achieved by any means. Any unethical action was ok, since it was used to further the class struggle. Others, like Bernstein, who wanted to combine Marxism with Kantian ethics, were completely disregarded.

"Promises are like Pie Crusts - made to be broken" - Lenin

Heck of a guy.

[jaakko]

Ugh, this is why I should post before I get overtired. I apologize once again and point out that I meant to say that that they ignored OTHER works that they were either unwilling or unable to get their hands on.

What content in these "other" works you're referring to? Is there something in their earlier works that would refute the consistent revolutionary content of the later works?

Lenin believed that since Class Struggle is the driving force behind historical development, that it must be achieved by any means. Any unethical action was ok, since it was used to further the class struggle.

Historical materialism is about much else than just class struggle (which only appears after the primitive society). Class struggle is the driving force only during the class societies (slavery, feudalism, capitalism).

Others, like Bernstein, who wanted to combine Marxism with Kantian ethics, were completely disregarded.

So you're basically accusing Lenin of Marxism.

[Todd D.]

I've read the Manifesto numerous times and from what I have read, Marx's views on Communism are all mostly empirical. He makes no value judgments as to why Capitalism and Feudalism fails, he just says that is the nature of the beast, and evolution will eventually lead to the falling away of the state into Communism.

Compare this to Lenin. Breaking treaties and agreements and implementing Communism top-down. This didn't work and Stalin just made stuff worse with his paranoia and his disdain for human life.

I am not accusing Lenin of being a Marxist, because in all honesty, I don't have an opinion on "What Marx really meant" because I don't think it's worth the time. Personally I think he made several false economic assumptions and as such his system has been proven time and time again to be faulty and counterproductive. Regardless, this thread is on the discussion of Stalin's worth as a human being, specifically how evil he was. His actions as dictator prove to me that he was an evil evil man, good Communist is irrelevant really, even if I do think that he was not.

Damn the bourgeois literature and schoolbooks, for without them I wouldn't have to do this all the time...

Here Here, let's censor everyone that disagrees with us!

[jaakko]

Fair enough, disagreement on figures, but either way, we can agree that he killed more people than Hitler, who is widely viewed as one of the most evil men in history. Unlike Hitler, however, was that in this case nobody was safe.

Nope, we can't agree on that.

Of course. But to what extent and for what reasons and by whom, that's not agreed.

Regardless of the reasons, and by whom, this was not a free society. If it was, Secret Police would not be necesary.

There is no such thing as 'free society'. No one claimed the USSR to have been a 'free society'. I don't see where you're trying to get at.

When he first took power, Stalin enacted the "Great Purge", where he killed disidents by the millions (read that again, MILLIONS), once again because he didn't agree with the way that he thought, but hey, that's just the first order of business.

Moderate bourgeois historians such as Getty accept that Stalin was not the 'Ultra Evil Mastermind', but that different forces struggled in the society aswell as in the state apparatus.

The greatest purge was done when Lenin was alive.

When workers didn't meet their quotas, it was off the Gulag, and we both know what that meant.

It's really funny when hired pens of Western capitalists never mind about workers or them being exploited, but make that up by shearing MILLIONS (read it again, MILLIONS) of crocodile tears when it comes to that 5% that suffered under Stalin's leadership.

Lenin wanted Trotsky, Stalin conspired for Trotsky to take that little vacation to Mexico, only to be killed years later by (suprise) Stalin's secret police.

Oh how clever.

Trotsky could have been put down without "conspiring him to get to Mexico". Trotsky was deported from the USSR in 1929. Trotsky was icepicked as late as 1940. That was after he began publicly demining the defence of USSR by urging its citizens to rebell on the eve of Fascist attack.

I at least admire Lenin for recognizing that some private property is necesary, and for being somewhat moderate, Stalin took what little moderation was left in Leninism and blew it all out the window.

You don't know what you're talking about. Ever heard of the NEP? That was a temporary retreat to capitalism. It was about allowing capitalism to exist under the supervision of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. NEP was ended and the socialist transition launched only after the NEP had fullfilled its mission, when it was infact driving vast masses of peasants landless and reinforcing the kulaks. NEP was abandoned and socialist transition launched just in time.

You know, Saddam was elected unanimously as well. Funny how much support one can get when you threaten to kill anybody that doesn't like you.

You don't seem to get it. I was referring to the opinions of people today. The older generations are the most favourable towards Stalin, while most of the negative feelings are among those generations which were raised after Stalin.

Regardless of WHY the post-Stalinist regime rejected him, they still did. Funny that Kruschev himself was part of many of Stalin's purgings, but failed to recognize that in his rejection of Stalin. Doesn't sound like this guy was part of the "Cult of the Individual" that you claimed.

"Stalinism"
Excerpt:

There was indeed a 'cult of personality' around Stalin. A leading communist cried at the 18th Congress of the Party in March 1939:

"The Ukrainian people proclaim with all their heart and soul, 'Long live our beloved Stalin!' .

Long live the towering genius of all humanity, . . . our beloved Comrade Stalin!"

The speaker was Nikita Khrushchev!

It was Khrushchev too who coined the term 'Stalinism' and began to call Stalin 'Vozhd" - the Russian equivalent of the German 'Fuhrer', Leader.

In other words, the 'cult of personality' around Stalin was built up not by Stalin and those who genuinely supported him, but by his political opponents as a prelude to attacking him later as a megalomaniac dictator.

Even though Stalin did not have the power to stop these alleged manifestations of 'loyalty' and 'patriotism', Stalin was no fool and was aware that their motives were, as he told the German writer Lion Feuchtwanger in 1937, 'to discredit him' at a later date.

Thus, the cult of personality around Stalin was contrary to Stalin's own wishes, and the fact that it went on demonstrates that in the last few years of his life Stalin - far from wielding dictatorial power - was in a minority within the Soviet leadership.

[Todd D.]

Nope, we can't agree on that.

Ugh, that's fine. Refuting an overwhelming amount of evidence on the basis that it is "bourgeois conspiracy" only gets you so far though. Once again most figures state that he did indeed kill more people than Hitler, agree or disagree is your perogative.

There is no such thing as 'free society'. No one claimed the USSR to have been a 'free society'. I don't see where you're trying to get at.

Oh man, you're right, no society is completely free, let's just all regress to turning family members in that may or may not be disagreeing with the government. I am trying to get at the fact that at least in other "Free" soceities, you have the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc. All freedoms that were flat out denied in the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Moderate bourgeois historians such as Getty accept that Stalin was not the 'Ultra Evil Mastermind', but that different forces struggled in the society aswell as in the state apparatus.

The greatest purge was done when Lenin was alive.

Keep throwing around that bourgeois word as an attempt to discredit (or perhaps an attempt that I will credit) them. I'm not even sure what exactly that second sentence is supposed to mean, as if it's supposed to justify the murders of millions of people for disagreeing with the government. Tell the Ukrainians that the Great Purge wasn't that bad.

It's really funny when hired pens of Western capitalists never mind about workers or them being exploited, but make that up by shearing MILLIONS (read it again, MILLIONS) of crocodile tears when it comes to that 5% that suffered under Stalin's leadership.

Yeah you're right. Being unemployed is totally the same as being killed if you were unable to meet insane quotas. Right. If someone is exploited under a capitalistic society do they not have the right to take their services elsewhere? It's one of the large misunderstandings of economic theory that Marx, and as a result, Communism makes. It doesn't understand that labor is a commodity, and that corporations are in demand of good labor. But hey, the other way works to doesn't it? I mean history shows that it did......wait a minute....

Trotsky could have been put down without "conspiring him to get to Mexico". Trotsky was deported from the USSR in 1929. Trotsky was icepicked as late as 1940. That was after he began publicly demining the defence of USSR by urging its citizens to rebell on the eve of Fascist attack

Icepicked by who again? So you justify Trotsky's murder because it happened 10 years after his deportation? Your logic doesn't seem to make sense.

Ever heard of the NEP? That was a temporary retreat to capitalism. It was about allowing capitalism to exist under the supervision of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. NEP was ended and the socialist transition launched only after the NEP had fullfilled its mission, when it was infact driving vast masses of peasants landless and reinforcing the kulaks. NEP was abandoned and socialist transition launched just in time.

Yes, I have heard of NEP, and to say that it was doomed to failure from the start would be too nice. Dictated Capitalism is an oxymoron, so any economist can tell you that it was doomed to failure. What I respect about Lenin was that he at least was moderate enough to try SOME form of Capitalism, even if he was to stubborn to accept a Free Market system.

But alas, my opinions don't agree with yours, so I must not know what I am talking about right?

[Sandino]

Ugh, that's fine. Refuting an overwhelming amount of evidence on the basis that it is "bourgeois conspiracy" only gets you so far though. Once again most figures state that he did indeed kill more people than Hitler, agree or disagree is your perogative.

No, they don't. In fact, the opposite is the case.

[Sandino]

I think it's safe to say that Stalin was a far more ruthless leader than Bush. It's also probably safe to assume, based on the whole Ukraine Famine ordeal, that Stalin was responsible for more deaths because of his policies than Bush.

I don't think that is safe to assume at all.

The criminal mismanagement of the Stalinists that led to the famine in the Ukraine probably cost the lives of anywhere between 1 and 2 million people. No doubt, Stalin was a major criminal, from the point of view of the proletariat.

However, the mismanagement of the Stalinists is not even remotely comparable to the rivers of blood intentionally spilt by the imperialists, that continues to flow today, and will continue to flow until capitalism is overthrown, for the purpose of increasing profits for the capitalists.

[smashthestate]

I don't think that is safe to assume at all.

The criminal mismanagement of the Stalinists that led to the famine in the Ukraine probably cost the lives of anywhere between 1 and 2 million people. No doubt, Stalin was a major criminal, from the point of view of the proletariat.

However, the mismanagement of the Stalinists is not even remotely comparable to the rivers of blood intentionally spilt by the imperialists, that continues to flow today, and will continue to flow until capitalism is overthrown, for the purpose of increasing profits for the capitalists.

Actually I was making a comparison between only Bush's policies and Stalin's. I wasn't making a comparison between Stalin and the "imperialists" around the world.

[Sandino]

Actually I was making a comparison between only Bush's policies and Stalin's. I wasn't making a comparison between Stalin and the "imperialists" around the world.

But Bush is the chief imperialist. Policies currently being enacted by U.S. imperialism lead to the deaths of many millions of human beings every year. So, even if you want to compare Stalin directly to Bush, Bush's policies are much more deadly, by orders of magnitude.

However, this sort of argument really only serves to obscure the important issue that lies behind this discussion, which is the nature of the states headed by Stalin, Hitler and Bush. The Soviet Union embodied significant gains for the working class over the most advanced capitalist states. This is regardless of who was heading the state at this or that particular time. Stalin's individual characteristics are of very minor interest compared to the nature of the USSR. Stalin would, no doubt, have been quite at home in the Third Reich, under different circumstances. But, as history played out, he ended up at the head of the world's first workers state. In spite of his venality and criminality, what he was able to do was circumscribed by the property forms created in the October Revolution. It would not have been possible for him to carry out Hitlerian policies, even if he had wanted to, just like it would not have been possible for Hitler to expropriate the bourgeoisie in Germany.

[Todd D.]

Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa here. You wanna talk about Imperlialism as an opposite to Communism? Why don't you talk to the Ukraine, Georgia, Romania, Bukovina, Bessarabia, East Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Albania, Bulgaria, and East Austria about Soviet Imperialism? Yeah, what the USSR didn't outright invade it, it set up puppet governments so that they could openly extort them.

Yeah, but Bush is the bad guy for getting rid of a horrible dictator that killed his own people.

[SpiderMonkey]

Just to add a little perspective:

According to www.thehungersite.com 24,000 people die each day as a result of hunger. That's 8.7 million people every year.

I'm no big fan of Stalin, and I believe did kill a lot of Ukrainians, but he never caused as much suffering as global capitalism is right now.

[kidvanguard]

The Ukrainian Famine was a hoax. Read "Fraud, Famine, and Fascism" by Douglas Tottle - a Ukrainian Canadian who has a very well documented book that basically shows how the Hearst publishing empire basically turned Nazi propaganda into the Ukrainian famine. Many of the photos published in the US press during the era were actually from the real famine that occured during the 1919-1921 invasion of the Soviet Union by i think it was like 24 countries. The styles of dress of the peasants and people in the photos (like army officers) are totally from the wrong period and so on, and many are actually from a famine that occured in the Austro-Hungarian Empire after WWI. Tottle even traces the footsteps of the reporter who "broke" the story for Hearst, who never actually travelled to the Ukraine!

What is interesting about this is how the US press can basically fabricate history, and how that becomes the dominant history after a while. And you can see that in the media today as well. The US press has recently proved itself to be a disgrace. Their reliance on "official sources" is so great that they never bother to question if those official sources are lying.

[Todd D.]

The Ukrainian Famine was a hoax. Read "Fraud, Famine, and Fascism" by Douglas Tottle - a Ukrainian Canadian who has a very well documented book that basically shows how the Hearst publishing empire basically turned Nazi propaganda into the Ukrainian famine. Many of the photos published in the US press during the era were actually from the real famine that occured during the 1919-1921 invasion of the Soviet Union by i think it was like 24 countries. The styles of dress of the peasants and people in the photos (like army officers) are totally from the wrong period and so on, and many are actually from a famine that occured in the Austro-Hungarian Empire after WWI. Tottle even traces the footsteps of the reporter who "broke" the story for Hearst, who never actually travelled to the Ukraine!

What is interesting about this is how the US press can basically fabricate history, and how that becomes the dominant history after a while. And you can see that in the media today as well. The US press has recently proved itself to be a disgrace. Their reliance on "official sources" is so great that they never bother to question if those official sources are lying.

And those 20-30 million Russians? Where did they go? Aruba? Look, there are a lot of historians who claim that the Holocaust was a hoax too, and not all of their evidence is completely insane, doesn't make them right. Claiming that Randy and his empire came up with it is pretty farfetched my friend, IMO.

[Cassius Clay]

Perhaps you also might want to ask yourself where those ten million prisoners that Ronald Reagen said were in Siberia in 1980's went to in 1991?

The life expectancy in the USSR doubled under Stalin. What happened to these '20-30 million Russians' was that they were murdered by a invasion by half a dozen Capitalist states. As for this 'famine' every single major source for it has come from the Nazi press or there colloborators in executing Jews in wartime, that's real reliable.

A man once said that ''Russia is ruled by bloodstained criminalls resposible for the deaths of millions of her Intelliegenstia through torture and famine''.

That man was Adolf Hiter.

Oh yes and if there weren't freedom of the press then why did the non-Bolshevik Maxim Gorky write to Stalin saying that he shouldn't be ''allowing so much criticism in the press since it will only play into the hands of our enemys''?