The Soviet Union

[mediev]

the main problem I have with Communism is the fact that it has caused so many deaths in Russia and the surrounding countries of the Warsaw Pact. Is it fair to say that Communism, during Stalin's rule killed a lot more people than needed? I have problems accepting that an equal powerbase (as mentioned in Communistic doctrines) will ever be established, some people will always have more power (mafia's, criminals, even politicians who promised this free world had more money, better living and higher quality of life than the peasantry.

History is not the result of individuals drifting throughout events on a seemingly random pattern. Stalin's policies, for example, are no more the result of personality than Hitler's; both were representative of a class and acted in these class interests (though whether the stalinist bureaucracy demands a labeling as a "caste" or "class" is debatable). Yes, Stalin killed far more people than needed (as if people needed to be killed in the first place), and his policies acted to protect the interests of the caste he represented, ie the elite bureaucracy, hence the better living conditions and the like for the bureaucratic stratum and limitations of democratic rights.

Stalin was a mass murderer on a level with Hitler; I've seen the documentation, I've met the survivors--I lost half my family in the Ukraine to Stalin's hatred of the nation he always regarded as "rebels,"

Are you adapting the "man-made famine-genocide" line?

As a side note, I seem to recall reading some notes to various party officials by Lenin, shortly before his death, in which he expressed his distrust of Stalin's sense of balance and understanding of the issues involved in coordinating so many different peoples

Lenin's Last Testament detailed Stalin's removal from the post of General Secretary ("Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General", note that the Russian word for "rude" means more than social behavior), which was most likely brought about by Stalin's handling of the Georgian Affair, calling Lenin's wife a syphilitic whore, etc.

It's difficult to say really. Can you blame a society for not wanting to believe what Stalin said would happen? My personal opinion is that they allowed him to gather power, however, Communism will never be truly successfully carried out because every political system has a major flaw that stops it from being truly effective.

What did Stalin say would happen...? There was a bitter struggle between the left opposition and the stalinists (and the extremely weak right opposition), it wasn't a matter of "here Stalin have control of the party!". Communism is also not a set political system; as Marx states in the German Ideology, "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.", ie political conditions are organised around prevailing material conditions; in Russia, they took the form of the Soviets, based on the historical Obschina.

Lazarus, I would have thought that you were aware of the forum rules. Consider yourself warned. Flames, especially flames that gratuitously and repeatedly slam individual posters, won't be tolerated. Your post has been pulled.

Damn, I missed it! What did he say?

The former USSR had a whole division (Directorate) of the KGB dedicated to the support of 'various progressive movements globally'. So there was a good chance that your local greenpeace/anti-vietnam war/etc. organisation was being assisted and/or infiltrated by the KGB.

Ignoring the fact this sounds like something a far right fascist like Rush Limbaugh would say, I've never heard of a slightest bit of evidence to suggest the antiwar movement was "being assisted and/or infiltrated by the KGB". You're going to "really" have to provide the slightest bit of material evidence to support this (laughable) claim.

Why pick on Stalin?(@fable - I believe Stalin probably outdid Hitler in numerical terms, much of the evidence is only now coming to light)

It's probably true the toll of those imprisoned / deported / killed in the purges far outnumbered those methodically murdered by the nazi regime.

When Lenin seized power, he had been assisted (in southern Russia)by a large armed group who marched under the black flag and were 'revolutionary comrades and heros', unfortunately Lenin did not like the idea of a large bunch of armed anarchists marching around his lily white collective utopia so (while publically praising them) he had them all rounded up and executed.

Who was this "large group", exactly? The Makhnovschina was Ukranian, and was the only significant example of an anarchist movement during the revolution (though it only gained noticable support during the civil war, and they were only crushed by the red army AFTER the Makhnovschina attacked the Soviet Government).

In my Revolution, I will decide which books everyone will read, and what films they make. All films will use real writers who know how to write a decent plot and good dialogue. All the computer games will be non-linear with good NPC interaction, etc., and my propaganda machine will tell every parent that CPRG's are good for kids, and essential. Free pizza for everyone! I have lots more ideas where these came from..

The "cultural revolution" is just a fancy term for an "elimination" of bourgeois ideology and it's social roots; keep in mind that Mao fancied Stalin as a "great Marxist-Leninist" and the fundamental questions of Maoism and Stalinism are not radically different, ie maoism is a left current of stalinism.

[fable]

History is not the result of individuals drifting throughout events on a seemingly random pattern. Stalin's policies, for example, are no more the result of personality than Hitler's; both were representative of a class and acted in these class interests (though whether the stalinist bureaucracy demands a labeling as a "caste" or "class" is debatable)...

Hey, @Mediev! Look; I've got a gun. I'm angry at your statements; I'm a representative of repressed American rage and the television generation's saturation with violence.

Bang. You're dead.

Oh, but I'm not responsible, Your Honor. Not at all! My actions were those of a member of my class, and directly influenced by society's degenerate behavior. I wasn't involved at all.

What utter nonsense. Stalin made choices, as anybody else in his shoes would have made choices; these choices, though, were particular to Stalin. He chose to commit the atrocities he did, when he had options not to do so. Please, let's not indulge in the dialectic of Marxist Calvinism as a way of avoiding personal responsibility. Stalin did what he did.

Yes, Stalin killed far more people than needed (as if people needed to be killed in the first place), and his policies acted to protect the interests of the caste he represented, ie the elite bureaucracy, hence the better living conditions and the like for the bureaucratic stratum and limitations of democratic rights.

Agreement on this, except for one thing: Stalin didn't necessarily protect the "elite bureaucracy," since many of his actions, large and small, were governed rather by personal paranoia. The bureaucracy never felt "protected;" they made certain that Stalin's successor would have less control over the system.

[mediev]

Oh, but I'm not responsible, Your Honor. Not at all! My actions were those of a member of my class, and directly influenced by society's degenerate behavior. I wasn't involved at all.

You've missed my point entirely; while factors like personal jealousy may have motivated events like the Kirov assassination, it is ridiculous to claim the adaptation of the menshivik two-stage theory, for example, was motivated by "personal" ambitions or hatreds. While Stalin was obviously responsible for what happened in much of the Union's political life, it is important to not adapt a Richard Pipes-esque conception of history. As for "protection" of bureacracy, it's undoubtable they never felt quite safe with Stalin (cult of personality, paranoia, etc), hence the new representative, Khrushchev, and his speech at the 20th party congress.

[Weasel]

Originally posted by Curdis
In any of the major capitalist democracies it was seen (by the former USSR) as a way of steering public opinion, and sowing dischord. So I would have to whole heartly support Mediev's contention that this was the case (I can cite references if I really have too).

Finally the meaning of "progressive movements" the "friendly" USSR support. It was the wording that confused me..The "Evil Empire" the USA called it propaganda and brainwashing.

I believe I see a pattern here....(don't doupt me!!)...

I bet all the "progressive movements" the "friendly" USSR supported were in turn caused to fail because of the "Evil Empire" (AKA the USA) or it's little cretin supporter countries intervened.

[Curdis]

@Mediev,

I knew someone was going to make me actually go and do this research (refering to the KGB's involvement in western democracys, I've done the reading - people who understand the process of historical research will grasp that this is not the same thing), and go to the trouble of checking it, and then post it, only to have it ignored. I will do this for you. I would also like to point out that I am among a minority of members who does this (will back up claims with the supporting documents - not that other couldn't, don't misinterpret this, they just don't make the investment of time and energy to do so).

Your version of the Ukranian incident (25-9-1919)(especially the 'only after they attacked the Government' - it was the White Army and they were in pursuit on the orders of Trotsky given 14-6-1919) sounds straight out of a Stalinist authorised history of the glorious revolution. If you looked into it you may discover that there is a world more stuff happening before this - i.e. since 1917.

Regarding your Rush Limbaugh comment. I believe that that is borderline to what is exceptable behaviour (on this forum) and as a long time supporter of the labour left, who has the scars to prove it, I find it personally all the more offensive.

Note. I have hesitated in posting this for some time because I realise that I have strong feelings about the issues. I have re-read and checked my facts, I hope that the above can be seen as debate not diatribe or defamation. - Curdis !

[fable]

You've missed my point entirely; while factors like personal jealousy may have motivated events like the Kirov assassination, it is ridiculous to claim the adaptation of the menshivik two-stage theory, for example, was motivated by "personal" ambitions or hatreds.

I wasn't speaking about theories relating to the Mensheviks. I was referring to Stalin being responsible for his own actions. No "history of class struggles" can rationalize or apologize away 1) the existence of a Czar like Stalin within the Soviet state, pointing to the very real structural flaws within the system; and 2) the horrors perpetrated by Stalin, who was very much in control of his own actions.

While Stalin was obviously responsible for what happened in much of the Union's political life, it is important to not adapt a Richard Pipes-esque conception of history.

Harvard professors and their various theories about Soviet histories are irrelevant to this specific subject, as I see it. Stalin was responsible for what he did, not any theory nor anybody else in any other nation or time; and he got away with it.

[fable]

Ignoring the fact this sounds like something a far right fascist like Rush Limbaugh would say...

@Mediev, if you're going to post here, you're going to play it by the rules, and show the same considerate treatment to others that they've shown you. You've been warned once before for flaming. This is warn #2. Please don't make us take action against your access by going for a third warn.

I have also removed your extremely long post of the text of an address by Trotsky, which took up the better part of a page. When you want to offer that much material for the forum's consideration, please put up a hotlink, instead. And when you do offer text or hotlinks, they have to be part of the discussion, here, not simply one-way manifestos without explanation or interest in other poster's involvement.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Nippy
every political system has a major flaw that stops it from being truly effective.

Hmm...yes, they do. They all have hamans running them. Even in a theocracy, there are some people given more authority than others, which easily results in problems.

[Curdis]

Just the 'facts'

Having been challanged to provide the supporting evidence here goes.

Just before I get to the nitty gritty, I would like to return to the central point - 'a force of international stability and supported various progressive movements globally.'

Now who doesn't believe that the KGB exists/existed in the past.
Everyone still with me?
Who doesn't believe that the KGB would be actively trying to further the legimate aims of the USSR by keeping abreast of people and organisations of the left in other countries.
If you are not still with me then you have to ask why the KGB weren't doing this?
No resources? That sounds likely.
No interest? That sounds about as likely.
Hadn't thought of it? Now who is being naive.

Presuming that Soviet style communism is the holy grail and worth pursuing at any cost, then the USSR would be deeply interested in promoting the chances of political change in this direction, the most likely place to find people to seed the revolution is in the left organisations of other countries, surely this is a no brainer. May I ask (apart from the Afghani example) what constitutes a 'progressive movement?

To my sources.

The KGB's directorate responsible is the First Chief Directorate K.
Ref- 'KGB Today - the Hidden Hand' by John Barron, Coronet Books 1985. As to which organisations have been infiltrated, how and why, read the book. It certainly includes many anti-vietnam war organisations which was my original claim.

Specifically related to my claim about Greenpeace try 'The Truth Twisters' by Richard Deacon.

If you wish to continue with your claim that the USSR supported various progressive movements globally (but not by using the KGB). Lets hear which ones and how? - Curdis !

[Nippy]

Originally posted by mediev

History is not the result of individuals drifting throughout events on a seemingly random pattern. Stalin's policies, for example, are no more the result of personality than Hitler's; both were representative of a class and acted in these class interests (though whether the stalinist bureaucracy demands a labeling as a "caste" or "class" is debatable). Yes, Stalin killed far more people than needed (as if people needed to be killed in the first place), and his policies acted to protect the interests of the caste he represented, ie the elite bureaucracy, hence the better living conditions and the like for the bureaucratic stratum and limitations of democratic rights.

So are you suggesting that Stalin was taking interest in the class he represented? Why? Communism is about equal sharing of wealth and power between all people yet Stalin, for all intents and purposes, had the power of the old Tsar for decision making. No one would refute or dispute his power structure. There was no one able to make any other route to power without using armed uprising.

[Curdis]

I really must, must I?

Two days after supplying the 'material evidence' demanded and I have no response. I previously posted that I was disinclined to do so because it is a considerable amount of work and it would be ignored.

I must be psychic - Curdis !

[fable]

I suppose I could don a red hood and try to do a passable imitation of an old style Soviet era Communist, but you'd probably notice my snickering. Besides, I'm inclined to think that cultures change a lot slower than governments, even when governments change hardly at all. The Soviet Union quickly reverted to feudal Tsarism under its Boyar-like Commissars, and the "People's Republic" of China is as hierarchal, bureaucratic, and deservedly suspicious of the West as it ever was under its various long-lived dynasties.

[Curdis]

and the "People's Republic" of China is as hierarchal, bureaucratic, and deservedly suspicious of the West as it ever was under its various long-lived dynasties.

@fable, I have already warned VDali to stay on topic and not drift geographically. There is already a thread where the issues of culture in China are (potentially) being discussed. Desist from further 'Spam' or I'll be forced to stand ineffectually and tremble with impotent rage for some considerable time .

Also impersonating a Soviet Thug can become habit forming (ref - label on shoulder holster for a Beretta. circa 1976). - Curdis !

[fable]

Now, @Curdis, cease your impotent rage before you melt the SYM carpet, and bear in mind that you quoted only half a sentence. The other half was perfectly on target, and both halves went to form a single thought aimed at the subject in hand: the Soviet Union's seeming contradiction between a supposed Communist government, and a very real feudal style tsardom. Surely you can't object to that? Well, not and have a cookie at the same time.

In retrospect, I think problems began for the Soviet state when Lenin chose force rather than either accepted tradition or law as the tool du jour of persuasion. No provisions were made for restraining the private ambitions of public figures. The courts had little say. The legislative branch was broken up into many dozens of different bureaucratic entities that were assigned narrow responsibilities. There was no check on the drive to power which has been the bane of civilization in that region since a branch of Vikings came south before the 10th century CE, establishing brutal totalitarian city states. It's no mistake that the root word for "slave" is similar to "Slav." The former derives from the later Middle Ages, when the rulers of Moscovy and other centers of power used to regularly trade the large enslaved serf population along with furs to Western merchants for far-off luxury items.