sigesige00 Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 Read my posts, at NO point have I said that he was a good guy. As despots go, he's up there with the best, or should that be the worst, of them. Hope this clarifies your query. But was Stalin really a communist in the marxist-leninist mould? Naw, I'll leave that for another day... Stalin was in no sense a Marxist or communist. Stalin destroyed the very basis of the proletarian politics -- internationalism -- by his theory of "socialism in one country". We are seeing the ugly results of that -- degeneration of the former CPs into nationalism, like the Japanese Communist Party who advocate "real independence from the USA" (independence for Japanese imperialism???). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) Stalin was in no sense a Marxist or communist. Stalin destroyed the very basis of the proletarian politics -- internationalism -- by his theory of "socialism in one country". We are seeing the ugly results of that -- degeneration of the former CPs into nationalism, like the Japanese Communist Party who advocate "real independence from the USA" (independence for Japanese imperialism???). For the record, I don't like Stalin; despise the man to be honest (remember that before you respond with one of your insightful rants). Nevertheless, he deserves his place in history as one of the key Marxian theoreticians. He did churn out quite a bit and prior to taking over as the big boss, some of it wasn't all pi**. He was basically savvy enough to know that he had to produce and he was quite good at playing at democratic centralism i.e. he knew it might curry favour with the party elite. The main foundation of the brilliant successes of Lenin and, to a lesser extent IMO, Stalin, as the leaders of the Russian Revolution lies in their deep mastery of Marxian theory. With unmatched ability, they analysed the innumerable objective and subjective complexities of decaying capitalism and growing socialism, and drew the necessary practical conclusions to prove their argument(s). It could be argued that better than anyone else, they pointed out clearly to the Communist Party and the broad masses, both in the Soviet Union and throughout the world, the unfolding path to prosperity and freedom. So to aid your shockingly poor understanding of all things communist, let's look at Lenin and Stalin separately: Lenin’s great theoretical work advanced and expanded Marxism in many fields. His major achievements include his analysis of imperialism as being parasitic and of decaying capitalism. His elaboration of the theory of the uneven development of capitalism and its effects upon imperialist war, proletarian revolution and the realisation of socialism in a single country. He elaborated the method of transforming imperialist war into civil war; he analysed the capitalist state and the dictatorship of the proletariat. He basically charted the Bolshevik Party on the course of victory. At this time Stalin, it could be argued, further developed Marxism-Leninism through many invaluable theoretical accomplishments. His principal contributions to Marxian theory lie in indicating the path of the actual building of socialism in the U.S.S.R. Thus, his powerful polemics against the likes of Trotsky and Bukharin and their counterrevolutionary aspirations added greatly to the understanding of the CP of the time. (The self same polemics that were then used to seize power once Lenin's health failed. So total political opportunist in the classical Roman mould.) His writings, and of course he was heavily influenced by Lenin, clarified many aspects of the vast and unique problem of building socialism in one country. Combined Lenin and Stalin attempted with some success IMO to survey the whole position of international capitalism. This resulted in a decisive victory for the leadership of the Communist Party and, by crude definition, of socialism. Remember that the great revolution of October, 1917, which abolished Russian capitalism and set up the Soviet government, resulted in the establishment of socialism throughout one-sixth of the earth, constituted the farthest-reaching and most fundamental mass movement in all human history. But you knew all of this already... Edited October 20, 2012 by Meister Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigesige00 Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 For the record, I don't like Stalin; despise the man to be honest (remember that before you respond with one of your insightful rants). Nevertheless, he deserves his place in history as one of the key Marxian theoreticians. He did churn out quite a bit and prior to taking over as the big boss, some of it wasn't all pi**. He was basically savvy enough to know that he had to produce and he was quite good at playing at democratic centralism i.e. he knew it might curry favour with the party elite. The main foundation of the brilliant successes of Lenin and, to a lesser extent IMO, Stalin, as the leaders of the Russian Revolution lies in their deep mastery of Marxian theory. With unmatched ability, they analysed the innumerable objective and subjective complexities of decaying capitalism and growing socialism, and drew the necessary practical conclusions to prove their argument(s). It could be argued that better than anyone else, they pointed out clearly to the Communist Party and the broad masses, both in the Soviet Union and throughout the world, the unfolding path to prosperity and freedom. So to aid your shockingly poor understanding of all things communist, let's look at Lenin and Stalin separately: Lenin’s great theoretical work advanced and expanded Marxism in many fields. His major achievements include his analysis of imperialism as being parasitic and of decaying capitalism. His elaboration of the theory of the uneven development of capitalism and its effects upon imperialist war, proletarian revolution and the realisation of socialism in a single country. He elaborated the method of transforming imperialist war into civil war; he analysed the capitalist state and the dictatorship of the proletariat. He basically charted the Bolshevik Party on the course of victory. At this time Stalin, it could be argued, further developed Marxism-Leninism through many invaluable theoretical accomplishments. His principal contributions to Marxian theory lie in indicating the path of the actual building of socialism in the U.S.S.R. Thus, his powerful polemics against the likes of Trotsky and Bukharin and their counterrevolutionary aspirations added greatly to the understanding of the CP of the time. (The self same polemics that were then used to seize power once Lenin's health failed. So total political opportunist in the classical Roman mould.) His writings, and of course he was heavily influenced by Lenin, clarified many aspects of the vast and unique problem of building socialism in one country. Combined Lenin and Stalin attempted with some success IMO to survey the whole position of international capitalism. They resulted in a decisive victory for the leadership of the Communist Party and, by crude definition, of socialism. Remember that the great revolution of October, 1917, which abolished Russian capitalism and set up the Soviet government, resulted in the establishment of socialism throughout one-sixth of the earth, constituted the farthest-reaching and most fundamental mass movement in all human history. But you knew all of this already... Oh, you are clearly influenced by Stalinism. Are you a CPS sympathiser? Lenin's "elaboration of the theory of the uneven development of capitalism" is Stalin's invention. Uneven development is not a peculiar feature of capitalism or imperialism. Stalin's "actual building of socialism in the U.S.S.R." was in reality a building a prison state, and betrayal all internationalist principles, such as USSR-German Treaty and Popular Fronts. You must study history and understand how Stalinism is the opposite of Marxism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 Oh, you are clearly influenced by Stalinism. Are you a CPS sympathiser? Lenin's "elaboration of the theory of the uneven development of capitalism" is Stalin's invention. Uneven development is not a peculiar feature of capitalism or imperialism. Stalin's "actual building of socialism in the U.S.S.R." was in reality a building a prison state, and betrayal all internationalist principles, such as USSR-German Treaty and Popular Fronts. You must study history and understand how Stalinism is the opposite of Marxism. SS00, in a word no; but to put it crudely, I do like to try to understand the man and what he stood for. Mass-murdering c*** yes, but his country did more than their fair share in defeating fascism. This isn't to enter into a we lost more people than you type debate. What Stalin then went onto do in retaining power was truly shocking and it's worrying to see that some in the left are now busily trying to conjure up a revisionist view of his period in power i.e. that a lot of the purges took place unbeknown to Uncle Joe. TBH, I don't think much happened that Stalin wasn't aware of; reminds me of an old boss I once had... In terms of studying history - do it on a daily basis mate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 SS00, in a word no; but to put it crudely, I do like to try to understand the man and what he stood for. Mass-murdering c*** yes, but his country did more than their fair share in defeating fascism. This isn't to enter into a we lost more people than you type debate. What Stalin then went onto do in retaining power was truly shocking and it's worrying to see that some in the left are now busily trying to conjure up a revisionist view of his period in power i.e. that a lot of the purges took place unbeknown to Uncle Joe. TBH, I don't think much happened that Stalin wasn't aware of; reminds me of an old boss I once had... In terms of studying history - do it on a daily basis mate serious question MJ, what apart from one was classed as left and the other right were the difference in hitler and stalin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonjag Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 serious question MJ, what apart from one was classed as left and the other right were the difference in hitler and stalin? Stalin had both spheres intact? (sorry....couldn't resist. I'll stfu now) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 Stalin had both spheres intact? (sorry....couldn't resist. I'll stfu now) actualy that is thought to be a bit of stalin propaganda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) serious question MJ, what apart from one was classed as left and the other right were the difference in hitler and stalin? Hi Jaggy and thank you for taking an interest in the murderous work of that great double-act Stalin and Hitler. To be honest, I'm not a fan of either so don't feel qualified to offer an answer. Stalin defo had the better mouser and, if the stories of drunken escapades are to be believed (they were in the Sunday Post in 1941 so must be true) would have been able to drink old 88 (that's code for Hitler) under the table. In this respect, he may have fitted in well at Firhill. In a fight, I'd take Stalin, you could have lederhosen boy (but enough of your fondness for jackboots and uniforms); so don't say that I'm not looking out for you. To try to get serious and I'm only answering this because you're going to tell me why Churchill was also a bit of a murdering chappie, I think the best way of answering this is to but matters into some form of historical context. In this respect it could be argued that in the second half of the twentieth century, we were taught to see both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as the bad guys. But IMO Hitler was worse, because his regime propagated the unprecedented horror of the Holocaust, the attempt to eradicate an entire people on racial grounds. Yet, and at risk of sounding totally contradictory, Stalin was also worse, because his regime killed far, far more people - tens of millions, it was often claimed - in the endless purges and use of the Gulag. For as long as I can remember - going back decades and going back even further to when I was a nipper going to Marxist Sunday school - the argument was always about the difference between the two regimes - suppose you could say quality versus quantity as in who was the better destroyer of lives - has set the ground rules for the politics of memory. Even historians of the Holocaust generally take for granted that Stalin killed more people than Hitler, so placing themselves under greater pressure to stress the special character and importance of the Holocaust; this, I hope you'll agree, is what made the Nazi regime worse than the Stalinist one. Plus the allies get to do this cos they won! But in conclusion and as we're talking about all of the harm both inflicted on fellow human beings, if there is a winner in the bad boy stakes, then I think Hitler. After all, the Brits and Yanks were happy for the Soviets to fight on their side during WWII. Hope the above makes some sense and isn't too flippant. Over to you for your thoughts on Winston... Edited October 20, 2012 by Meister Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrD Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 I was going to give you a long post but thought the easiest thing to do was to point you in the direction of the CWI site http://www.marxist.net/ if you go down the left hand column you'll see some decent publications listed. From memory, I'm not a member BTW, they still meet in Glasgow on a Monday night. If you're wanting a group (I want call them a sect) to join then I'll get you contact details. Without going into too much detail, the CWI are pretty much what's left of the old Militant Tendency / International Socialists; thus the references to the 4th International that seem to upset Siege Siege so much. A couple of other good reads - both biographies on Marx are Francis Wheen's Karl Marx: A Life (good on a number of levels especially because it portrays the old guy as an argumentative bevy merchant who'd an eye for the ladies) & David McLelland's equally good biography. McLelland is quite scholarly in his style but still a good read. If pushed and if you're after an easier read, I'd go for Wheen's book. I'm currently reading Trotsky's My Life; which I'm finding hard going. The more I read the more I think I might have fallen out with the grumpy old b******* if we'd ever met. Then again, he did live a good part of his life under house arrest and on the run from Stalin's hit men. Good luck with the reading group and good to see that there's still quite a lot of interest in Marxism. I wonder why Thanks for that MJ... ive read the francis wheen biography, a great read that one can do in one sitting easily due to the fact that its really enjoyable... group was good, really heavy going though but i think that might be due to how bloody hard to read volume 2 is to volume 1. Basicly the way id describe volume 2 so far is its like chapter 3 of volume 1 to the power of ten. Ive heard the SWP have just started a capital volume 1 reading group, that must be the first time they are urging their members to read marx.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrD Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 (edited) To try to get serious and I'm only answering this because you're going to tell me why Churchill was also a bit of a murdering chappie,......................................................... Over to you for your thoughts on Winston... churchill was a racist **** heres a quote from the great man.... I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. Edited October 21, 2012 by mrD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. Thanks for that MrD, even Nick Griffin would struggle to get away with that one. Erm, so in terms of Empire, it was okay for the British to adopt what can only be described as a fascist-type approach to establishing racial superiority. Then again, we did invent concentration camps and Churchill was quite good at chemical warfare; seem to remember he used gas on the Arabs (presumably in his eyes another inferior sub-species of human beings). Jaggy, no need to comment mate, the trap has been sprung and I was just at the wind-up! Just enjoy yesterday's victory; presume you were there? (I was in the S&G before the game, STUC demo in the morning with a good turnout from the POA - not sure if that's your TU?). But not even you could spoil my good mood; not that you ever do. I mean 7 - 0 against Airdrie with a team that is playing some lovely football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 Thanks for that MJ... ive read the francis wheen biography, a great read that one can do in one sitting easily due to the fact that its really enjoyable... group was good, really heavy going though but i think that might be due to how bloody hard to read volume 2 is to volume 1. Basicly the way id describe volume 2 so far is its like chapter 3 of volume 1 to the power of ten. Ive heard the SWP have just started a capital volume 1 reading group, that must be the first time they are urging their members to read marx.. But their members are told what pages to read and what the literal interpretation is; plus if they're good, they get to colour in Marx's beard with crayons. The Moonies for socialists IMO. Glad you're enjoying the reading group btw. I just got back into education after a 34-year break; something called work got in the way . Doing an access course and pick a Uni next year; apparently highers and HN type qualifications run out after about 10-years. mine were awarded by bodies that no longer exist and some are like Ian Paisley's divinity of degree - University of Sunny Dalmarnock and all that. At risk of sounding all mushy, taking the chance life never offered me in the past. Went along to the demo yesterday - NUS and all that (right on auld stoodent) but walked with the CP; but piss poor turnout IMO. Would like to say that it was because of the London demo but think would be making that up (and I make up enough on this forum to annoy one or two mates ). Cheers MJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrD Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 (edited) 34 years is way too long to devote to alienated labour .. i love academia, my game plan is to finish my degree, do a masters, do a phd and get a job teaching where i get an office overlooking a campus and beside me is a massive bookcase of obscure texts... edited to add: i made a new friend last week that i think was a member of the CP - she sold the morning star and has read all 4 volumes of capital, which is serious bragging rights IMO Edited October 21, 2012 by mrD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 SS00, in a word no; but to put it crudely, I do like to try to understand the man and what he stood for. Mass-murdering c*** yes, but his country did more than their fair share in defeating fascism. This isn't to enter into a we lost more people than you type debate. What Stalin then went onto do in retaining power was truly shocking and it's worrying to see that some in the left are now busily trying to conjure up a revisionist view of his period in power i.e. that a lot of the purges took place unbeknown to Uncle Joe. TBH, I don't think much happened that Stalin wasn't aware of; reminds me of an old boss I once had... In terms of studying history - do it on a daily basis mate Were you a youth at Celtic Park under Big Jock? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted October 23, 2012 Report Share Posted October 23, 2012 Were you a youth at Celtic Park under Big Jock? Now then now then, as it happens... you're wrong. Famous Radio 1 DJ with a fondness for a finger of fudge. No, I blame the Tories; it's always their fault in my world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.