VolPatsyOHara
New Member
Republican Socialist / Syndicalist
Posts: 34
|
Post by VolPatsyOHara on Jul 26, 2004 3:32:29 GMT -5
Also I must say, I find it funny when you start referring to the "Western", "Liberal", Media as being absolutely wrong when it starts not to move with your case and they become Defendants of Stalin. How was this? Why would the Western Media ever side with Stalin?
Actually, Stalin was a poster boy of the allies during WWII. There were actually propaganda films made of "Unlce Joe", a sad eyed kindly patriarch who helped us "defeat the Hun". Stalin went so far as endorsing capitalist products, ie: Spam! (I kid ye not!) Even Brit Tories were recorded as saying there wasn't much difference between Stalin's Empire and the Anglo-American one. Honesty is refreshing.
Even though Stalin said for Communists in the nation to not take a large role in the nation's government in order to not harrass the more moderate elements, you blame almost all attacks carried by the Republican government on Communists.
I have to hand it to Stalin, his brillaince was in playing the puppet master. Since the PSUC (which was controlled by Stalin) and the Civil as well as Assault Guards (ditto) it was not technically the Stalinists attacking the working class, it was their middle class allies, but we all know who was pulling the strings.
It wasn't the Stalinist strategy to reform or revolutionize Spain with a mass movement but to rule through well-placed agents or ministers under their control. Indeed, any other option would've been impossible, because true-to-form the Stalinists only had support among the middle class (especailly, ironically, reactionary peasants) not the working class.
The only Communist Prime Minister to come was at the last stages of the civil war was Dr Negrin, and even he was forced to resign by the Republicans. Dr. Negrin had much Communist backing and Left-Republican backing, but he himself was not a Communist, but a self-proclaimed Socialist.
The Stalinist-allied (controlled) party the PSUC, was a self-described socialist party so that makes sense.
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Jul 26, 2004 23:29:24 GMT -5
So what? Stalin said Spam helped the Red Army which was in constant short supply of food, and caused the deaths of millions of Soviet soldiers and citizenry. Spam supplied by the Americans was indeed a saving force to many people in the USSR, was Stalin not suppose to mention this? When one of his Generals told him of the possiblity that we can invade Alaska, in 1945 after the fall of Berlin. Stalin replied "and who is to feed them". The food shortage in USSR in the time of WWII can't be denied, and Stalin did not remain quite on this. If the Media is supportive of Stalin, at this same exact moment, how come we still hear the same about Spain. Yet they have no problem with spreading lies about Gulags, Forced Famines, Jewish Persecution, and so on.
Also the US and Britian were at constant attack against Stalin prior to the war, and after the war. It would be stupidity of a large magnitude, to insult Stalin during this time period and threathen the USSR. Simply sticking with an "Ally" is not support for him. Mujhadeen recieved praise from Western Media, then became the target. Deng's China was proclaimed by the West as great "allies" as well, as they took a stance against the Soviet Union; however when anything bad happened with Deng's government, the label of Communism came upon them fast. Same is true even with Pol Pot, when the Vietnamese army invaded Cambodia, all of a sudden Pol Pot was a national leader. Saddam Hussein, the same as well.
Also your claim of Tories saying there is not much difference between them and Stalin, during a time of alliance in WAR, means nothing. The fact is, as Churchill said "I would make a case for the Devil in the House of Commons, if Hitler were to invade it". Also the fact remains the Superstructure of Britian and the US remain clearly evident to be different from the USSR.
Yet another thing is clear, the fact that you can't clearly point out the PSCU was "Stalinist" in anyway. POUC was a clear cooperation on many fronts with different organizations. One being Left Republicans, which were the ones mostly the proponent against the Anarchists and POUM. SIM was the only organization in which the majority were Stalin supporters, and clearly I stated there formation was a mistake, but mainly they were insignificant. It seems to be fine with you; however that the fact that Anarchists and POUM are as much guilty of factionalism and butchery as were the Republicans.
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Aug 4, 2004 2:44:47 GMT -5
I have recently read some ridiculous claims from the Western Brougeoisie Media, that Stalin refused a deal from Germans to let his son because Stalin assumed his son, Yakov Dzhugashvili, was a spy! I have no doubt this is most likely untrue, and another bourgeois lie.
From my readings into Stalin's letters to her daughter, he seems to be very loving of his family and affectionally gave them nicknames, and was less than stern with his son who was doing miserable in school, denying him peaches until his work imporved. A man so loving, could possibly let his son die because he taught he was a spy? I like to hear others remarks on it.
Also I have read another thing from Molotov's memoirs. Molotov wrote about how Beria was bragging to him about poisoning Stalin, does anyone know more about this as well?
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Aug 6, 2004 2:49:40 GMT -5
thought* (not taught)
Correction
|
|
|
Post by nightbreed on Oct 6, 2004 11:10:47 GMT -5
The thing that gets me about Stalin was his role , or lack of one , in the 1917 revolution itself. If we take John Reeds book, Ten days that shook the world, I dont think he gets a mention!! Now this book is quite respected , with a small but very complimentary introduction by Lenin. Reed died too early to be involved in the Trotsky -Stalin split. He was buried at the Kremlin. Now didnt Stalin oppose insurection as well and incurr the wrath of Lenin??
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Nov 14, 2004 16:21:23 GMT -5
nightbreed wrote: "The thing that gets me about Stalin was his role , or lack of one , in the 1917 revolution itself. If we take John Reeds book, Ten days that shook the world, I dont think he gets a mention!!" Why does it matter if Stalin didn't have much of a role in the October Revolution? I think both Trotskyists and seemingly pro-Stalin forces ("Stalin above Mao" revisionist forces, really) focus too much on that little bit of history. Classes, not individuals, make history, and various lines, not individuals, won the battle in the history of Soviet socialism. Just because Trotsky might have played an outstanding role in the October Revolution and the Russian Civil War did not entitle him to take the lead of the Soviet Union if his line was totally fucked up. I find it odd that some Trotskyists complain about the "cult of personality" around "Stalinist" leaders, because it seems they are doing exactly what they accuse us of doing by overemphasizing the role of outstanding individuals from the October Revolution without examining their line. --- By the way, this subject has been brought up in yet another thread at Che-Lives: www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30398Someone please respond to that, because it is getting tiresome trying to refute them.
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Nov 14, 2004 16:59:37 GMT -5
1949 writes: "nightbreed wrote: "The thing that gets me about Stalin was his role , or lack of one , in the 1917 revolution itself. If we take John Reeds book, Ten days that shook the world, I dont think he gets a mention!!"
A historical note: I think that the correct way to view the russian revolution is as "armed insurrection followed by civil war."
The revolution was not over with the October seizure in a few cities, it took several years of armed struggle to win.
There is a legacy (in western revisionism, and also in anti-communist academics) of treating the Russian Revolution as "a bloodless coup" -- which is their way of smuggling in the notion that revolution can happen without warfare.
John Reed wrote about the opening of the Bolshevik Revolution (10 days) -- but that is not the beginning and end.
Reed's book was based on "what was known" publicly at the time -- he was not within the party, and many of its leaders don't appear, because the party had public spokespeople and many of its key leaders operated from out of view. Trotsky was a public agitator, and public figure -- but it is wrong to think that a leader who is unmentioned somehow must not have done much. Reed was not in the key decision meetings, or line struggles.
Stalin played an important role in both the October revolution and the civil war (whether Reed knew it or not or mentioned it or not).
And in particular, he struggled (hard) against Trotsky's tendency to rely on bourgeois tsarist officers (and the methods and organizational structures of the old tsarist army). This was an acute struggle around the key fighting for Tsarityn (which was renamed Stalingrad later).
More to the point: the key issue for evaluating communist leadership is line -- not how much press they get in this or that history, or what "creds" they accumulate through this or that action.
Communist leadership is not a resume of deeds, but a question of line (fundamentally: what you are fighting for and leading others to fight for.)
Trotsky was a semi-menshivik who "came over" to the bolsheviks at a crucial moment (July days) and played a postive role for a few years. It is wrong to negate or ignore that. At the same time, his overall trajectory and politics (his political and ideological line) show that he was far from a communist leader. And that too is part of the scene.
On a more important point:
1949 writes: "Classes, not individuals, make history, and various lines, not individuals, won the battle in the history of Soviet socialism."
This is (i believe) basically wrong. And is not marxist.
Marxism says that the class struggle is the motive force in history. That is not the same as this rewrite "classes make history."
"History" is "made" on many levels of reality -- it is made by armies, inventions, mass movements, intellectual ferments, individual leaders, parties, and key decisions made at key moments.
There is a "role of the individual in history" (as Plekanov wrote in his important early work on this.)
It is populism (not marxism) to simply ascribe "history" to faceless masses of people -- and to overlook that line, ideas, decisions, programs, battle plans (made by individuals) can have a decisive role.
And further, throughout history, key movements and lines have often been concentrated in individuals.
Marxism was the creation of Marx -- it was his creative synthesis.
He did not do it in a vaccum. He synthesized the discoveries of others, he (and engels) investigated the life and situation of the new proletarian class, he was deeply influenced by the radical democratic ferment of his times and the new radicalism of the propertyless wage workers. But marxism was the work of Marx (not of a faceless class).
what about 1949's remark: "not individuals, won the battle in the history of Soviet socialism."
I think this is extremely one sided. And ignores the literally decisive role of individuals -- including both Lenin and Stalin.
I think it is possible to say that if lenin had died in 1915, the April thesis (and with it the October Revolution) would not have happened.
I think it is possible to say that if Bukharin had emerged as the top leader (and not stalin) that capitalism would have been restored in the late twenties (and rather rapidly).
Great leaders of the proletariat have often been alone in fighting for key and decisive understandings.
Lenin was literally alone in arguing for the October Revolution (and had to threaten to leave the party and denounce it in order to win a majority of the central committee.)
Mao was virtually alone in his view of the agrarian revolutoin and New democracy being the key for socialist revolution in the colonial world -- and he was certainly alone (literally) in calling for a "revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat" and fighting for a cultural revolution to defeat capitalist roaders.
It was mao (not a faceless class) that made history by analyzing the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union.
It is true that "advanced ideas become a material force when they are grasped by the masses."
But that points to a dialectical relationship between the actions of key and outstanding communist leaders, and the ability of the masses to make revolution.
And I also think it wanders into idealism (and metaphysics) to say that revolution is made by classes plus line (while denying that "line" is developed and fought for by individual leaders.)
Will the masses of people make revolution in the U.S.? Well, I think it is possible that they might -- but only if their energy, discontent, alienation and rebellion is connected with the deep, scientific and correct analyses put forward by Chairman Avakian. And thinking that "classes do it" without seeing the role of theory, ideology and key leaders would lead away from seeing the important tasks and processes by which communists prepare the ground for revolution.
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Nov 14, 2004 22:28:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 1949 on Nov 20, 2004 18:28:59 GMT -5
By the way, I would like to add: The excellent Avakian excerpt "On Stalin and "Stalinism"" is available online. This thread started out with someone linking to it posted at 2ctw, but that site is no more. Here is where it is now: Stalin: 70% good, 30% bad
|
|
redstar2000SE
Revolutionary
The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves
Posts: 113
|
Post by redstar2000SE on Nov 22, 2004 10:12:17 GMT -5
flyby wrote: "History" is "made" on many levels of reality -- it is made by armies, inventions, mass movements, intellectual ferments, individual leaders, parties, and key decisions made at key moments.
A curious list...and one wonders if flyby gives them all "equal weight"?
For example, "inventions" -- technological innovation in the means of production -- is clearly at the very base of class society and thus, human history. It generates both the existing relations of production and the changes that take place in those relations.
"Mass movements" are the essential vehicle of class struggle on a historical level...they arise spontaneously as a consequence of the "strains" on the relationships of production that is, in turn, caused by changes in the means of production.
"Intellectual ferments" will likewise be historically important only to the degree that they reflect the existing class society and the strains upon it...otherwise, they are "academic controversies".
Individuals, parties, and armies are "tertiary" makers of history...they "loom large" to our subjective impressions because they are the easiest to see.
And they do appear to affect the details...delaying or accelerating the course of history by intent or accident, usually both.
A short time before Europe's "age of exploration", China also had begun such a process -- one that we now know was crucial in the rise of modern capitalism. By an accident of history, a new emperor and his closest advisers decided that these "new things" were irrelevant to the "spirit" of Chinese society and put an abrupt halt to the voyages.
This effectively delayed the emergence of capitalism in China for five centuries!
But it didn't stop capitalism from emerging in China, it only delayed it.
It would have happened anyway.
One could similarly argue that Stalin and Mao delayed the emergence of modern capitalism and imperialism in Russia and China...but they could not stop that from happening.
In the end, material reality always prevails.
flyby wrote: It is populism (not Marxism) to simply ascribe "history" to faceless masses of people -- and to overlook that line, ideas, decisions, programs, battle plans (made by individuals) can have a decisive role.
"Decisive"? I think not...unless the "decision" accords with material reality.
flyby wrote: Marxism was the creation of Marx -- it was his creative synthesis...But Marxism was the work of Marx (not of a faceless class).
But what made Marxism important? There were quite a few people in the 19th century who constructed or devised "creative syntheses". No one but historians are interested in them now.
Marxism had a better "handle" on material reality than its intellectual competitors...it explained more and explained better than its rivals.
Marxism reflected material reality.
And thus, if Marx had not lived, there would still be "Marxism" or something very much like it.
flyby wrote: I think it is possible to say that if Lenin had died in 1915, the April Theses (and with it the October Revolution) would not have happened.
It is possible to say many things...but to say things that can be verified is more difficult.
We can't "re-run" history in the absence of this or that "key figure" and see how things would "turn out".
We can only speculate -- what bourgeois historians have lately been calling "counter-factual history" -- what if...?
For example, if Lenin had died in 1915, the "October" "Revolution" might have occurred instead in July 1917 and might have had the character of a mass uprising (like February 1917) instead of a coup by the Bolsheviks.
What if, indeed.
flyby wrote: I think it is possible to say that if Bukharin had emerged as the top leader (and not Stalin) that capitalism would have been restored in the late twenties (and rather rapidly).
I happen to agree with this speculation -- Bukharin was definitely "in love" with Lenin's New Economic Policy (he was Lenin's real "heir" in that regard).
But had Trotsky "won", I think he would have behaved much like Stalin...and perhaps even more despotically.
flyby wrote: Will the masses of people make revolution in the U.S.? Well, I think it is possible that they might -- but only if their energy, discontent, alienation and rebellion is connected with the deep, scientific and correct analyses put forward by Chairman Avakian.
No, the masses of people in the U.S. will make revolution even if Chairman Avakian dies in obscurity and all his writings are utterly lost.
Material conditions prepare the way for capitalism to be overthrown, sooner or later. If a theory was correct, then it will be rediscovered. If necessary knowledge was lost, it will be regained.
Take even the most extreme case: a global catastrophe that wipes out 99% of the human species. If there are enough survivors and conditions permit them to flourish, then all the stages of human history that we have seen will be repeated...and in as little as a few thousand years, communism will be back on the agenda.
History can be delayed...it cannot be stopped unless the human species goes extinct.
1949 wrote: I'm tempted to say sorry, but I know I'm not supposed to do that. It's just a little bit of a shock when you're told that your arguments are not Marxist, you know?
How can I put this? If someone tells you that your arguments "are not Marxist", it ain't necessarily so.
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Nov 23, 2004 20:32:15 GMT -5
this talk that mockingly suggests Bob Avakian's death wouldn't matter (!!!) -- really boils down to saying "Throw this leader to the fucking dogs, I don't care!"
And it is a deliberate argument that others shouldn't care either.
To be blunt: this is simply reactionary, vicious and intolerable.
Minimizing the danger and impact of targeted police death squads, just as the enemy coils to strike.
Calling for people to be lax and indifferent, as crucial moments arise.
And targetting all that squarely at the leadership of the revolution (just as the enemy will do).
Redstar. You have crossed a line here -- in a way that is sinister. And we will not tolerate it.
I suggest you explain yourself, and I hope you have enough basic progressive consciousness to reverse this stand, clarify yourself and take a clear position on the importance of defending leading revolutionaries!
|
|
|
Post by Andrei_X on Nov 23, 2004 20:47:11 GMT -5
To say that the death of important revolutionary theoreticians and/or leaders isn't important isn't just stupidity (throwing away what you need), but is indeed very reactionary in times like these!
Statements like "Chairman Avakian's death would be meaningless" only gives strength to the enemy, and are extremely dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by iskra on Nov 24, 2004 0:06:13 GMT -5
Clearly, redstar2000 is spouting some counterrevolutionary bullshit. And losing Chairman Avakian would be a terrible blow. Would it mean we'd never make revolution? I hope not, but it would be a major setback. Why the hell would anyone want to downplay that?
So, let's hope redstar2000 just chose some bad words and will clarify himself (although, if he himself doesn't grasp the importance of Chairman Avakian then I guess it would make sense that he wouldn't see losing him as any kind of big deal, right?)
That said, I think it's important to remember the following words from PCP Chairman Gonzalo's "Speech From The Cage" (shortly after he was captured by the Peruvian state): "We are here in these circumstances. Some think this is a great defeat. They are dreaming! We tell them to keep on dreaming. It is simply a bend, nothing more, a bend in the road. The road is long and we shall arrive. We shall triumph! You shall see it."
|
|
redstar2000SE
Revolutionary
The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves
Posts: 113
|
Post by redstar2000SE on Nov 24, 2004 11:51:38 GMT -5
flyby wrote: this talk that mockingly suggests Bob Avakian's death wouldn't matter (!!!) -- really boils down to saying "Throw this leader to the fucking dogs, I don't care!"
To be blunt: this is simply reactionary, vicious and intolerable.
Redstar. You have crossed a line here -- in a way that is sinister. And we will not tolerate it.
Andrei_X wrote: To say that the death of important revolutionary theoreticians and/or leaders isn't important...is indeed very reactionary in times like these!
Statements like "Chairman Avakian's death would be meaningless" only gives strength to the enemy, and are extremely dangerous.
iskra wrote: Clearly, redstar2000 is spouting some counterrevolutionary bullshit. And losing Chairman Avakian would be a terrible blow. Would it mean we'd never make revolution? I hope not, but it would be a major setback. Why the hell would anyone want to downplay that?
Ok, now what did I actually say?
No, the masses of people in the U.S. will make revolution even if Chairman Avakian dies in obscurity and all his writings are utterly lost.
Did I ask you or tell you "not" to "defend your leader"? I did not.
Did my statement "call for his assassination"? (I assume that's what's meant by the word "sinister".) It did not.
Would I personally "take a bullet" for Bob Avakian? Perhaps you would; I certainly wouldn't.
Iskra, of course, grasped my point even while disagreeing with it. The American working class will make a proletarian revolution regardless of the presence or absence of any given individual.
In fact, iskra "got it right" all the way...
although, if he himself doesn't grasp the importance of Chairman Avakian then I guess it would make sense that he wouldn't see losing him as any kind of big deal, right?
Exactly.
Recall that my remark was made in the context of an entire post discussing the role of the individual in history...and that my view is quite different from yours.
If you find it "intolerably different" then you know what to do.
Meanwhile, consider the implications of your hysterical over-reactions to a commonplace observation. What kind of "Marxists" are you that you explode at the very mention of Avakian's mortality?
After all, he is (like me) in his 60s -- at best he can look "forward" to a another decade or two of declining health and vigor.
Like me.
Someday, all of you will face the same prospect. When I was young, I thought that I would "never" get old and die. I suspect Avakian felt the same way. When one is young and living through a period of upheaval (like the 1960s), it does tend to make you feel "immortal".
If indeed a new period of upheaval is at hand -- certainly a possibility though I think a very limited one -- then you will have the same experiences.
But not even the very best of us can stay "forever young".
It's a tough lesson to learn, but all of us must learn it.
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Nov 28, 2004 14:01:49 GMT -5
I will speak from my heart on this.
We have struggled over many things on this site. And have learned from each other.
But it is also worth remembering (and affirming) that this is not some game, or idle pasttime.
This is politics (the struggle for power) not dungeons-and-dragons or academic trivia.
Marx said: "Others have interpreted the world, the point is to change it."
And so our struggle has been sharpest when views are raised that completely undercut the most urgent and burning tasks of this moment.
We struggle hard, when it is said that we are living through just more politics as usual -- or when it is said that it's just hype to say there are urgent and dangerous elements to this moment.
We struggle hard when it is said that revolution is inevitable and the masses will just do it when they are good and ready -- so it doesn't matter what revolutoianries do, and you might as well sit back and watch.
We struggle hard when it is said that all revolutionary communist organizations just congentially suck and are barriers to any real change.
But it really tears deep into the heart, when it is argued that it doesn't matter if they kill our leader -- if they wrench him from us, if they trample and obscure his work.
And not just because it is wrong -- but because it is WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, AND WILL TRY TO DO. And because it is very urgent for revolutionaries, and a whole new generation, to get a clue about this.
Do you really want to be standing, weeping, over the coffin of such a person, and face the next struggle without such leadership.
Bob Marley wrote: "How long shall they kill our prophets while we stand aside and look?"
Obviously Avakian is not a "prophet" in any mystical sense. And we communists are not religious like Marley was.
But there are those whose advice literally amounts to "stand aside and look." And I want to call that out. I want to place my hand on the shoulder and say: "No. You can't be more wrong. More off base."
We need to see this moment. we need to grasp what we have (an ideology, a party and a leader) and go do what we need to do -- all to liberate the people. (In cluding preparing ourselves and large numbers of people to defend and preserve the core of the rev movement and especially its leadership -- through the firestorms to come).
|
|