[mim3]

My two cents:

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/stalin.html

[smashthestate]

"Although Amerikkkans love Lincoln more than Russians love Stalin..."

And I can see this is a nice unbiased source, unlike what the AmeriKKKans post!

Give me a flippin' break!

[Commander Ikari]

I confer with Comrade Bukharov. The term 'evil' itself has become overrated and I feel that it is a label often used to disguise ignorance and naivety (as can be demonstrated by Bush's renowned 'Axis of evil'). I am quite annoyed with the fact that the average person uses the term so readily and liberally- to me it is an indication of their lack of understanding and comprehension of the scope of the issue concerned.

In truth, Stalin and Hitler were well aware of the implications of their policies and, unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise, both were of a human species As Comrade Bukharov pointed out, so many people attempt to justify the actions and legacies of such political figures by writing them off as insane and 'evil'. Sure most people would disagree with the ideologies of National Socialism and criticise the values of Stalinism as unethical and immoral however it must also not be ignored that these people justified their actions to themselves and peers through speeches and works (such as Mein Kampf)- and indeed these arguments were supported by the majority of the concerned populace.

Hitler argued that for a state to run effectively- economically, politically and socially, there exists the need for control of the masses and discipline. Communism itself logically assumes that for there to be equality for all, the commoner must be allowed political freedom and administration. I would like to point out that at the height of Stalin's terror and purges (circa 1930), his policies were popular and the demonstrations and marches with red banners are indicative of the widespread, enthusiastic support for the dictator. Surely the Soviet people and the Germans living under Nazism didn't think their leaders were 'evil'.

Most people would find it more convenient to simply dismiss Stalin's actions as 'evil' rather than consider the arguments from another standpoint. Ignorant pigs!

[Comrade Nicolae Ceausescu]

The ukraine famine was not Stalin's fault.Here's why:When Stalin introduced the idea of collectivization,it was popular among the poor peaseants,but not the rich,or the kulaks.When Stalin's policy was put into practice,many of the kulak's resisted it.They wanted to be able to hire labor,not do it.So many of them killed there animals,and ate them themselves.Many kulaks died of overeating.Therefore,because the Kulak's ate a lot of the harvest,the poor peaseants starved.And that is in no way comrade stalin's fault.

[Commander Ikari]

True Comrade Mao, but it WAS Stalin's fault for the 1930 purges of the Soviet Army, citizenry and politics. It may also be said that if it weren't for Stalin's paranoia (Night of Long Knives anyone?), the Soviet Union would have stood a better chance of repelling the initial offensive (Operation Barbarossa) of 1941- perhaps saving a few million soviet peasants. Stalin's paranoi cost him dearly militarily due to a lack of experience and dsicipline in red Army Command (they had to promoted Lieutenants to general or higher )

Although others may argue to the contrary, I don't see any justification behind these purges and exiling millions of Soviets to the Gulags and Siberia (or worse).

Of course, as Comrade Bukharov acknowledged, Comrade Stalin's contribution to the Soviet Union as a political and social entity shouldn't be underestimated either. Not only did he rally the country against the Nazi invader (thus enriching the patriot spirit of Soviet citizens), he helped to shape the society it would become. Of course, he also did much to determine its subsequent leadership.

It is undeniable that without Comrade Stalin's steel grip on the USSR (excuse the pun) and his aggressive policies, the Soviet Union may have never achieved a status which rivalled the US in superpower magnitude.

As cruel and calculating the man may have been, he did have brains... no question!

[Comrade Nicolae Ceausescu]

The actual purge was decided upon after the revelation of the Tukhachevsky military conspiracy. The discovery of such a plot at the head of the Red Army, a plot that had links with opportunist factions within the Party, provoked a complete panic.

The Bolshevik Party's strategy assumed that war with fascism was inevitable. Given that some of the most important figures in the Red Army and some of the leading figures in the Party were secretly collaborating on plans for a coup d'état showed how important the interior danger and its links with the external menace were. Stalin was extremely lucid and perfectly conscious that the confrontation between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would cost millions of Soviet lives. The decision to physically eliminate the Fifth Column was not the sign of a `dictator's paranoia', as Nazi propaganda claimed. Rather, it showed the determination of Stalin and the Bolshevik Party to confront fascism in a struggle to the end. By exterminating the Fifth Column, Stalin thought about saving several million Soviet lives, which would be the extra cost to pay should external aggression be able to profit from sabotage, provocation or internal treason.

In the previous chapter, we saw that the campaign waged against bureaucracy in the Party, especially at the intermediate levels, was amplified in 1937. During this campaign, Yaroslavsky harshly attacked the bureaucratic apparatus. He claimed that in Sverdlovsk, half of the members of the Presidiums of governmental institutions were co-opted. The Moscow Soviet only met once a year. Some leaders did not even know by sight their subordinates. Yaroslavsky stated:

`This party apparat, which should be helping the party, not infrequently puts itself between the party masses and the party leaders, and still further increases the alienation of the leaders from the masses.'



Thats from the Ludo Martens Book,"Another View Of Stalin".Also,one must look at the fact that Nazism was a very popular ieology at that time.In World War 2,over 50,000 Russians defected and became Nazi soliders,and faught for that cause.Imagine what it wouldv'e been like without the purges.The facts about the gulag are totally wrong.The average life exspectancy in the so called "labor camps" was much higher then the life exspectancy now in Russian prisons.Also,if you look at the archives from Russia,they say under one million people were killed.Abusers of power in the NKVD were punished themselves.Most were arrested and imprisoned.

[Commander Ikari]

Good points Comrade Mao,

However my perception of Stalin and his policies remains unaltered. Whether I have become too susceptable to Capitalist propaganda (i.e. documentaries and history accounts) or I am obstinate in my standpoint of Soviet history, I still believe that soviet citizens died at Stalin's hands and upon his orders did not deserve to die... sorry that's my opinion

[ihavenoname]

Many kulaks died of overeating

ummm... I'm not following you here....

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

t may also be said that if it weren't for Stalin's paranoia (Night of Long Knives Knife anyone?),

Hmm...what EXACTLY is this "Night of long knives???

There was no such thing in USSR...you are confusing it with Germany

[Ixa]

The ukraine famine was not Stalin's fault.Here's why:When Stalin introduced the idea of collectivization,it was popular among the poor peaseants,but not the rich,or the kulaks.When Stalin's policy was put into practice,many of the kulak's resisted it.They wanted to be able to hire labor,not do it.So many of them killed there animals,and ate them themselves.Many kulaks died of overeating.Therefore,because the Kulak's ate a lot of the harvest,the poor peaseants starved.And that is in no way comrade stalin's fault.

Yes, and the evidence shows that the famine-like conditions were the worst in those areas in which the Kulaks resisted the most!

[Ixa]

Good points Comrade Mao,

They were.

However my perception of Stalin and his policies remains unaltered. Whether I have become too susceptable to Capitalist propaganda (i.e. documentaries and history accounts) or I am obstinate in my standpoint of Soviet history, I still believe that soviet [sic] citizens died at Stalin's hands and upon his orders did not deserve to die [sic]... sorry that's my opinion

Ah, what is this called again? Confirmation bias? The inverse of that. The evidence does not fit well into your preconceived model - so you reject it? That appears to be the case.

sorry

Thank you.

that's my opinion

An opinion is an unverifiable statement. "All cows are beautiful" is an opinion. "John ate 12 babies" is not an opinion, whether true or false. It is stated as a fact. Your "opinion" has been proven false. Therefore it is verifiable. Therefore it is not an "opinion". It is stated as a fact. Do not therefore expect it to be beyond criticism, as you imply.

[Todd D.]

Do you agree? Or do you think he was a good communist?

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.

Fact is that Stalin killed millions of people, up to 8 times as many people as Hitler by some estimates (wait, I don't agree with that figure, must be Capitalist propoganda), and nobody denies the fact that freedom and liberty were restricted during the man's reign as Premier. People were shipped off to work camps for no reason other than disagreeing with Stalin's personal politics. Whether it is Communism or not is debateable, but yes, that makes him an Evil Evil man.

Lenin didn't trust Stalin, the people AFTER him renounced him as evil, this man was defenitely one of the top 5 evil men of the 20th century.

[jaakko]

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.

Have you come to this conclusion by yourself, or have you atleast verified it through your own study of works by Marx and Engels? Or have you just accepted the pacifist interpretations of some bourgeois 'Marxologists'?

Fact is that Stalin killed millions of people, up to 8 times as many people as Hitler by some estimates (wait, I don't agree with that figure, must be Capitalist propoganda)

That's something under debate here. If it was beyond debate, you wouldn't have to point to its supposed factuality (It's a Fact, dammit!).

and nobody denies the fact that freedom and liberty were restricted during the man's reign as Premier.

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

People were shipped off to work camps for no reason other than disagreeing with Stalin's personal politics.

Yes, the 'Ultimate Evil Mastermind' theory.

Lenin didn't trust Stalin,

For the most part he did. And as much as he criticized Stalin, he criticized others even more and fiercely. As you might know, Lenin was an ultra-critical person (good for a statesman).

the people AFTER him renounced him as evil

AFTER? This is partly true what comes to Russian people. The generations who came after Stalin, like him the least. The generations that lived during Stalin, are the most supportive of him. Not vice versa.

Stalin was denounced as evil by the very same people who were building the 'Cult of the Individual' around him, and that's no coincidence. Foremostly Nikita Khruschev (a former Trotskyite, btw) and co., then others who followed.

Stalin was denounced already before his death. First came the bourgeois-trotskyite denouncement, only then the Khruschevites. Here's an article which deals with also the earlier forms of anti-Stalinism. You should find it enlightening even if you don't accept the communist viewpoint (which is openly declared, unlike in the "objective, unbiased" pieces of anti-communist literature):

http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm

[Todd D.]

Have you come to this conclusion by yourself, or have you atleast verified it through your own study of works by Marx and Engels? Or have you just accepted the pacifist interpretations of some bourgeois 'Marxologists'?

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". Compare it to Christianity. One guy with a pretty good message, but a conglomeration of followers always offering their "spin" on what Jesus said.

To answer your question, yes I have come to this conclusion by myself, from studying both Marx and Engel's works, as well as Lenin and Stalin's philosophies.

That's something under debate here. If it was beyond debate, you wouldn't have to point to its supposed factuality (It's a Fact, dammit!).)

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.

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

"Those who forsake Liberty for (the illusion) of security, deserve neither." - Ben Franklin
Regardless of the reasons, and by whom, this was not a free society. If it was, Secret Police would not be necesary.

Yes, the 'Ultimate Evil Mastermind' theory.

I can't tell if that was sarcasm, so I'll just elaborate my position. This really is the heart of why I view him as an evil evil man.

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

During the War, he enacted a plan that some call brilliant, the Scorched Earth policy. Spreading a distance between the Russians and the Germans that Hitler could not contend with and destroying what was in between. When he regrouped in the east, the factories went to work to create an army that Hitler's weakened war machine could not compare to, and they captured Berlin in 1945. In between, 20 Million Russians died. This was called a success. The remaining war heroes, every admiral, three of the five top commanders, and half of all military officers, were killed because Stalin was afraid that they were disident of his regime.

For the most part he did. And as much as he criticized Stalin, he criticized others even more and fiercely. As you might know, Lenin was an ultra-critical person (good for a statesman)

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. 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. Criticism is fine, it's always important to question the administration. I find it ironic that you are saying this in the same breath that you are defending a man who killed all the people that questioned him though.

AFTER? This is partly true what comes to Russian people. The generations who came after Stalin, like him the least. The generations that lived during Stalin, are the most supportive of him. Not vice versa.

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. 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.


Damn, this became an essay. Anyway hope that we can continue this little exchange. I just don't think that you want to read any more of this.

[Sandino]

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.

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

It has only been in the past few decades, by the way, that these comparisons have been made. Not even bourgeois ideologues dared to make them while the memory of the Nazi holocaust was still fresh in peoples' minds, because to make it is to show one's absolute moral bankruptcy.

When he first took power, Stalin enacted the "Great Purge", where he killed disidents by the millions (read that again, MILLIONS),

You are obviously just a moron whose knowledge of Soviet history comes from bourgeois hysterics. At least get your anti-Soviet history straight, though. Stalin came to power in 1924. The Great Purge was in 1936-8.

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.

[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!"