[Adrien]

I saw Prometheus's second poll, i thought about it a little, and i realized that "Stalinism" was not a concrete "ideology" in my head.. So, could we build a political and economical definition of what Stalinism concretely is?

I precised the economical side because Skullers, i think it was him, said that he only admired this side of Stalinism.

[Cassius Clay]

Good point. I thought I would bring this up in the actual thread but didn't think it was worth the hassle. In my opinion 'Stalinism' or a 'Stalinist' is merely Marxist-Leninist. Ofcourse ask a Trot or a Capitalist there tell you it's the most evil thing since, well ever. Oh yeah and it's probably 'Beuracratic' and 'Totolitarian;.

[jaakko]

Well well...

When we talk of Scientific Socialism, why do we talk of 'Marxism'?
A: The ideology of Scientific Socialism and its philosophical basis, Dialectical Materialism, was created by Marx and Engels. Therefore this ideology is named 'Marxism'.

Why 'Leninism'?
A: Because Lenin was a true Marxist and because he lived in the era when pre-monopoly capitalism had just developed into monopoly capitalism, he was able to study the peculiarities of this new era. The study of the era of monopoly capitalism was culminated in his scientific definition of 'imperialism' as the highest and final stage of capitalism. Also, he was heavily involved in revolutionary movement. From these concrete experiences he could develope a solid doctrine for communists in party work and in labour movement (the role of the revolutionary newspaper etc.). This is just a rough summation. But as Stalin said, "Leninism is Marxism in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution".

Leninism is the result of combination of both Lenin's theoretical and practical ability and the emergence of the new, qualitatively higher stage of capitalism. Both precondities were necessary, because theoretical ability of some individual alone isn't enough to bring into another level a theory whose basis has already been laid. There must be a qualitative leap in the conrete-historical conditions before there can be an equally significant qualitative leap in theory.

When there appears new developments in the Scientific Socialism in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, I may accept them but don't accept a new '-ism'. I expect the new development of Scientific Socialism worthy of adding new '-ism' in 'Marxism-Leninism' to take place when a significant part of the world is steadily developing on the road of socialism towards communism. Even then, I don't consider it necessary. It could very well be that in those times Scientific Socialism will be developed by larger collectives rather than few exceptional personalities. It could very well be that we have already entered a phase where the theory is developed collectively, in which case there might not appear new "Lenins".

So now you might understand why I don't really like the concept of 'Stalinism'. I like to read Stalin's works and in no way belittle their value, it's not about that. Stalin contributed to the theory of Marxism-Leninism and defended it, but he didn't, and in those concrete-historical conditions, couldn't raise it on a qualitatively new level.

I have very limited use for the word 'Stalinism'. For me it means merely the opposition to all brands of revisionism that masquerades as 'Leninism', currently above all modern revisionism, as Khruschevism, Brezhnevism etc. and some other trends as Juche or Trotskyism.

What I also don't like about the word is that it was invented and originally used by Stalin's enemies. If I recall correctly, it was Khruschev who first used the word 'Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism' during the days of 'the cult of the individual'.

[C-Kokos]

Ok can we stop calling Trotskyists "Trots"?

It is really offensive and shows utter disrespect to your other comrades. Did I ever call you nazi-capitalist-counterevolutionary-bastards-undercover? NO!
So if Prom has the right to complain about me being provocative because of a mere post, I have every right to start an online demonstration here against that "Trot" thing which is only indicative of your ... (no I won't say that).[/quote]

[Krasniy Yastreb]

Stalinists would like to have you believe that Stalinism is merely Marxism-Leninism, as would the Trotskyists to a certain extent. Neither are Marxism-Leninism.

A definition of Stalinism is, how do I put this, the subscription to the ideals and methods of Mr. Dzhugashvili himself. Even the belief that Stalinism is Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism, as Stalin believed he was following those ideals, did he not?

As for what Stalinism stands for, I'd say gulags, bugged apartments and torture sessions. Only joking.

I think Stalinism stands for amazing industrial progress and strengthening of the party's power beyond it's intended sphere. That is basically what happened under Stalin. Some may disagree but that's my best shot.

[C-Kokos]

More precisely KY, it would be the moto on your sig inversed

[Krasniy Yastreb]

Haha, exactly comrade!

[Skullers]

Skullers, i think it was him, said that he only admired this side of Stalinism.

you kinda misunderstood what i said then...

[Sandino]

...wades into the cesspool once again...

Stalinism is the politics of a bureaucracy that hovers above a workers' state. It is inextricably connected with nationalist chauvinism (e.g. "the great patriotic war," "socialism in one country," etc.), rigid conformity under a single party dictatorship, massive amounts of deception, and killing ("liquidating") anybody who threatens your position of privilege.

The classic text on Stalinism is here:
The Stalin School of Falsification

In order to understand the difference between Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism, Trotsky's Stalinism and Bolshevism is a good primer.

[Adrien]

Admired was probably not the word, but i thought you said on one of these numerous posts about Stalin that you were more in the economical side than in the political side. Anyway, sorry for my mistake.

That was all very interesting, so maybe we could try to precise the subject: what precise measures in Stalin's era (not to say Stalinism) made that the industrial progress was like that?

[Ymir]

"Stalinism" is nothing more than a label created by revisionists and capitalists.


"Ok can we stop calling Trotskyists "Trots"?

It is really offensive and shows utter disrespect to your other comrades. Did I ever call you nazi-capitalist-counterevolutionary-bastards-undercover? NO!
So if Prom has the right to complain about me being provocative because of a mere post, I have every right to start an online demonstration here against that "Trot" thing which is only indicative of your ... (no I won't say that).[/quote]"

Kokos, you aren't my comrade. You made that clear.

[jaakko]

That was all very interesting, so maybe we could try to precise the subject: what precise measures in Stalin's era (not to say Stalinism) made that the industrial progress was like that?

I propose we don't go into that in this threat. I think it would be better if we stick to one issue at a time, which now is 'definition for Stalinism'. Trotskyites can give their definitions and the rest of us say what we think of the word 'Stalinism'. I believe that way we could minimize the chaos which usually follow anything that deals with Stalin or Trotsky. Ok?

[C-Kokos]

Kokos, you aren't my comrade. You made that clear.

When did I make clear that I am not the comrade of Stalinists... hmm my memory has betrayed me here...

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I admit that there are some unavoidable problems regarding the true definition of 'Stalinism', and as such, I really advise that you take Jaakko's approach by answering the question with a brief synopsis of your own objective understanding of the term.

Thank you for your cooperation.

-Prometheus

[Gothmog]

-I would say Stalinism can be defined by:

1-One party system dictatorship
2-Nationalization of the economy
3-State driven accelerated industrialization and modernization
4-Nationalism (and to a certain degree chauvinism-this is the main diference between Leninism and Stalinism)
5-Personality cult (the leader is infalible, lost of statues and so on)
6-Few tolerance for dissent inside the party (another diference with Leninism)

[Sheep...]

1-One party system dictatorship
2-Nationalization of the economy
3-State driven accelerated industrialization and modernization
4-Nationalism (and to a certain degree chauvinism-this is the main diference between Leninism and Stalinism)
5-Personality cult (the leader is infalible, lost of statues and so on)
6-Few tolerance for dissent inside the party (another diference with Leninism)

Sounds alot like INGSOC

[Skullers]

ignorant trots
"Stalinism" == Marxism-Leninism

[Koba SE]

I"d have to agree about the 'ism' part... Stalin, although he contributed greatly to the communist movement he didnt do so under changing theory, he applied theory how it could best be applied at the time.

I'd say 'Stalinism' is synonomous to Marxist-Leninism and heres why:

1. Revolutionary party: Lenin didnt strive for unity through compromising principles but instead standing by principles and uniting people under true Marxist principles... As did Stalin throughout the twenties. The second international was VERY similiar to the Bolshevik party in the mid twenties... you had peoples shifting sides for the sake of political gain and sacrificing their principles for the sake of a power bloc. Zinoviev and Kamanev are perfect examples for this... every six months they'd contradict themselves at total random. Trotsky increasingly started shedding his skin and promoting more and more menshevism as time went on. Permanent Revolution, mass 'democracy' and the likes.

2. Economics: NEP served its purpose to establish the means of production which would be assumed by the proletariat but that was it.. by no means was it an ends of socialism. When the time came to move on to dissolving NEP and handing over ALL means of production to the workers, Stalin initiated this step, with oppposition from the 'opposition' none the less! Stalin also recognized that you cannot escape the grip of capitalist exploitation unless you are not reliant upon their needs (part of the concept of socialism in one or a few nations) which promted the highly successful industrialisation campaign.

3. Socialism in one/few nations: Socialism in one nation is a Leninist principle as it was what is needed in the Imperialist world order (not capitalist but imperialist). Stalin, as did Lenin, recognized that the western European nations were so heavily oppressed that the fight for socialism was going to be a long hard battle to unseat the bourgeoisie imperialists who held their grip on society. This can only be proven by the British Miners Strike of 1926 where Imperialism was so intrenched it corrupted the workers organizations.

Stalin promoted the Leninist concept of socialism in one nation so that global socialism wouldnt stagnate and dispearse under the clutches of the imperialists. Socialism in one nation was a huge threat to the global bourgeoisie which generated a LOT of reaction from them which was an incredible help to the global proletarian movement (communist parties sprang up around the world and became ever stronger with the guidance and experience of socialism in one nation)

4. Diplomacy: Stalin didnt give in to capitalists and I know you Trots will whine about the 'non aggression pact' ... But Stalin was right in signing the pact, he recognized the west was trying to pit the nazi's vs the soviets from the get go... Stalin has also said that your enemies come in the form of diplomats seeking peace.

Stalin also didnt give into the imperialist demands in post world war two when the capitalists wanted to exploit the destruction in eastern europe and turn it into their 'new africa'. Diplomacy with Stalin was very clear cut... if it wasnt in the best interests of the proletariat... it didnt happen.

[Red Erik]

...wades into the cesspool once again...

Stalinism is the politics of a bureaucracy that hovers above a workers' state. It is inextricably connected with nationalist chauvinism (e.g. "the great patriotic war," "socialism in one country," etc.), rigid conformity under a single party dictatorship, massive amounts of deception, and killing ("liquidating") anybody who threatens your position of privilege.

The classic text on Stalinism is here:
The Stalin School of Falsification

In order to understand the difference between Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism, Trotsky's Stalinism and Bolshevism is a good primer.

It's funny that you take these positions Sandino... you're probably the best Trots around here... you don't agree with Trotsky on a single point!
He oposed Lenin on his views on the national question (so who's nationalist chauvinist?), Stalin didn't believe in socialism in one country as much as Trotski. But Trotski wanted the world revolution on thursday exactly 12 o'clock... that's scienticly impossible! "massive amounts of deception" well... that clearafies everything... you convinced me
"under a single party dictatorship" I agree with the Trots on this point... Stalin didn't organise enough party congeresses. But what the Trots want is out of the question... free elactions canonly cause counter-revolutionairy situations, and thats not gonna happen. Trots don't want socialism... they just want everybody to be so busy with being equal that they can enrich themselfs...

And Sandino... your source isn't really "objective" if you know what I mean...

Trots are just not-fully educated communists, I think. They read peices, but they can't have overview on what our goal is. Thats realising socialism and defending it. In Holland there is a plague we call the International Scocialists (IS) these people go to 14-year old kids, turn them in to little Trots, let them pay a significant amount of money for membership so they can say: "We're Trotskists, were cool". After a few years you see those same kids driving the most expansive cars... traitors.

My message: Join CP's not the IS...