[Plaro]

Other: Stalin was a crazy man gone delusional on the ideology of communism, thus causing incredible unnecessary suffering for great amount of people.

[Andropov]

Stalin was not a Communist in the traditional sense, but rather a National Communist- many of the ultra-cosmopolitan Old Bolsheviks who destroyed Russian churches and historical monuments, who were responsible for rewriting Russian history to virtually omit everything pre-1917, were executed and their policies turned around- under Stalin, pre-Soviet Russian history and Soviet Russian history, especially ancient Slavic history, were united- the Soviet system was legitimized not so much because of complex Marxist theory, but rather because age-old Slavic modes of collectivist social organization naturally lent itself towards such a system (which I agree with 100%). The Church too, was no longer oppressed as severely, and much effort was done to integrate Orthodox Christianity into the new state ideology. Stalin today in Russia is a figure admired by both Nationalists and Communists for his role in building a strong and virile society.

An excellent book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/National-Bolshevi ... 0674009061

During the 1930s, Stalin and his entourage rehabilitated famous names from the Russian national past in a propaganda campaign designed to mobilize Soviet society for the coming war. Legendary heroes like Aleksandr Nevskii and epic events like the Battle of Borodino quickly eclipsed more conventional communist slogans revolving around class struggle and proletarian internationalism. In a provocative study, David Brandenberger traces this populist "national Bolshevism" into the 1950s, highlighting the catalytic effect that it had on Russian national identity formation.


Beginning with national Bolshevism's origins within Stalin's inner circle, Brandenberger next examines its projection into Soviet society through education and mass culture--from textbooks and belletristic literature to theater, opera, film, and the arts. Brandenberger then turns to the popular reception of this propaganda, uncovering glimpses of Stalin-era public opinion in letters, diaries, and secret police reports.

Controversial insofar as Soviet social identity is commonly associated with propaganda promoting class consciousness, this study argues that Stalinist ideology was actually more Russian nationalist than it was proletarian internationalist. National Bolshevism helps to explain not only why this genre of populism survived Stalin's death in 1953, but why it continues to resonate among Russians today.

[Potemkin]

Controversial insofar as Soviet social identity is commonly associated with propaganda promoting class consciousness, this study argues that Stalinist ideology was actually more Russian nationalist than it was proletarian internationalist. National Bolshevism helps to explain not only why this genre of populism survived Stalin's death in 1953, but why it continues to resonate among Russians today.

I would agree with Brandenberger's thesis, with the important proviso that the Stalin regime was attempting to inculcate a (transnational) Soviet national consciousness rather than an exclusively Russian nationalism. Even in the 1980s, a university lecturer who claimed that Ukrainian is merely a dialect of Russian rather than a language in its own right was dismissed from his post for 'Great Russian chauvinism'. All this has become moot following the breakup of the Soviet Union, of course.

[Section Leader]

It was definitely a pan-nationalism, afterall Stalin himself was Georgian, not Russian.

The Soviet Union empowered the Russian nation within it simply because Russia was the largest and most populous of the republics.

[Andropov]

All this has become moot following the breakup of the Soviet Union, of course.

False. The regimes following the USSR's collapse have failed to create a national bond to unite the people of Russia- Soviet heroes, Soviet triumphs, Soviet ways of viewing the world are still in the hearts and minds of the vast majority of Russians, Ukranians, and Byelorussians.

[Potemkin]

False. The regimes following the USSR's collapse have failed to create a national bond to unite the people of Russia- Soviet heroes, Soviet triumphs, Soviet ways of viewing the world are still in the hearts and minds of the vast majority of Russians, Ukranians, and Byelorussians.

It has always seemed to me that the breakup of the Soviet Union was, among other things, the breakup of a nation. It's as though the United Kingdom were to fragment into its constituent nations - something would be lost: a transnational British identity. It is this transnational Soviet identity which the current regime in Russia and the other ex-Soviet states has failed to reconstitute. Of course they cannot reconstitute it, since the transnational political structure which formed its basis was dissolved in 1991.

[Plaro]

Stalin was not a Communist in the traditional sense, but rather a National Communist- many of the ultra-cosmopolitan Old Bolsheviks who destroyed Russian churches and historical monuments.

In 1936, when Red Square was being prepared for holding the military parades of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin ordered the square cleared of churches. Although efforts were made by Baranovsky to save it, he could not prevent the Kazan Cathedral from being demolished (though Baranovsky did manage to save another of Red Square's cathedrals, Saint Basil's Cathedral, from destruction). In its place, initially a temporary building housing offices for the Communist International was erected. It was later used as a summer café.

As a result, after the Revolution and, more specifically, the death of Lenin, the prominent site of the cathedral was chosen by the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin as the site for a monument to socialism known as the Palace of the Soviets. This monument was to rise in modernistic, buttressed tiers to support a gigantic statue of Lenin perched on top of a dome with his arm raised in the air.

Stalin was not a Communist in the traditional sense, but rather a National Communist- many of the ultra-cosmopolitan Old Bolsheviks who destroyed Russian churches and historical monuments, who were responsible for rewriting Russian history to virtually omit everything pre-1917, were executed and their policies turned around- under Stalin,

Well this is what I mean, why the heck execute people and cause unnecessary suffering because people have a different version of history? It is just simply mad. It is like being thrown in jail for having a different historical perspective of the holocaust.

especially ancient Slavic history, were united- the Soviet system was legitimized not so much because of complex Marxist theory, but rather because age-old Slavic modes of collectivist social organization naturally lent itself towards such a system (which I agree with 100%).

Old Slavs lived in feudal system, I do not think that an average communist will find it compatible with the ideals of proletarian dictatorship. And the imagined prehistoric tribal collective society that communist like to emulate was simply not in the existence anymore.

The Church too, was no longer oppressed as severely, and much effort was done to integrate Orthodox Christianity into the new state ideology. Stalin today in Russia is a figure admired by both Nationalists and Communists for his role in building a strong and virile society.

Look dude, he was mad, like the rest of commies are. Yes, sure there is a time and place for a little execution, massacres and mass murders in order to bring order and respect for authority.

Yet, this guy did this in order to achieve an imaginary paradise commie society in the imaginary future, now if that is not mad, then I do not know what is. Which in turned freaking traumatized the heck out of the country for fucking imaginary future that was never going to come true in the first place. Not to mention he and the commies took away the spiritual base of the country, therefore once they decided that the commie dream was not working anymore the country morally was left in shambles and completely distraught.

[Dagoth Ur]

This poll is shit. Either Stalin is perfect or a monster. This reeks of troll poo-poo and reactionary "Soviet" nationalism.

Voted Other because Stalin was a great leader but was only capable of anything because of the organized power of the people.

[Potemkin]

Can't sleep.... Someone on the internet is wrong....

Well this is what I mean, why the heck execute people and cause unnecessary suffering because people have a different version of history? It is just simply mad. It is like being thrown in jail for having a different historical perspective of the holocaust.

Yes, because that couldn't happen in the West. Oh wait... never mind.

Old Slavs lived in feudal system, I do not think that an average communist will find it compatible with the ideals of proletarian dictatorship.

Actually, the feudal system was not too onerous for the average Russian peasant before the time of Peter the Great. Peter re-organised the feudal system and intensified it as part of his process of strengthening and centralising state power in Russia. Peter the Great's modernisation of Russia was paradoxically based on intensifying the exploitation and oppression of the peasantry. It's not for nothing that Alexander Blok called him "the first Bolshevik". Equally paradoxically, the Russian peasantry were initially supportive of the Bolsheviks during the Civil War precisely because they hoped the Bolsheviks would rid them of the yoke placed around their necks by Peter the Great.

And the imagined prehistoric tribal collective society that communist like to emulate was simply not in the existence anymore.

Human culture (just like the human psyche) is like geological strata - the previous modes of existence are buried under later layers, but, in some deep sense, they still exist and can still exert an influence on existing modes of thought and modes of life. For example, the fact that Britain passed through feudalism and the USA did not actually matters and has a profound influence on the different perspectives those two countries have upon history and politics. Capitalism, culturally speaking, means something different in this country than it means in America.

[Andropov]

Plaro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obshchina

[Plaro]

Human culture (just like the human psyche) is like geological strata - the previous modes of existence are buried under later layers, but, in some deep sense, they still exist and can still exert an influence on existing modes of thought and modes of life. For example, the fact that Britain passed through feudalism and the USA did not actually matters and has a profound influence on the different perspectives those two countries have upon history and politics. Capitalism, culturally speaking, means something different in this country than it means in America.

In humanity there are three elements that exist; Mind, Emotions, and Spirit (or the Holy Spirit as it is known by most Christians).

Spirit is the only place in humanity in which truth exist, it is that which is unspoken and just. Eternal, unabiding thus abiding.

The transcendence of human modes of existence in metaphor you have provided as "geological strata", is just the result of the workshop of your mind and efforts of other minds' works you have come in contact with. Ultimately it is untrue, as all thoughts in their essence are not true. With attachment to this mental framework, one can experience this even on the emotional level.

(Just a little add on, this is mental framework or conditioning of the mind thus if attached to also conditions emotional body in Christianity known as sin. As only sin works in circular patterns, like karma (as it know in the east). This in turn closes the mind of people, makes enemies of "outsiders" as the loop needs resistance. Anyways I will stop here before I completely loose people)

Communism resides and places its faith in mental human effort and scientific transcendence of itself, also can be described as progressivism (I hope you follow me here). Ultimately anything that places its existence and faith in mental framework is bound to die, as all mental work and emotions die. Spirit, truth and true justice and governance is the only eternal, even if it takes many forms and shapes. It can be feudalism, dictatorship, or democracy, it does not matter, as long as there is truth and justice that is derived from the human spirit.

This is why communist or any other people who place faith and believe in doctrine or certain mental framework to make things "better" are bond to disappear in obscurity. Because that is in itself the nature of mental working or even any other physical (biological) work. Energy or spirit is the only thing that is eternal and not illusory.

Therefore, communist (openly without even shame, aka destruction of the church that preserved the tradition in Europe of understanding spirit) fought humans spirit and truth of its reality, modern liberalism is doing this as well. Fortunately mother nature always wins by just doing what it always does, yet the suffering that is created before these people who are blind exult themselves is immense and unfortunate.

Plaro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obshchina

Obshchina is similarly how in western Europe villagers organized themselves, it usually had a consul of elders, who managed the affairs if the village; that could have been disputes, criminal offenses, they even tried to help with marriage issues. Tradition was passed through them and stories. Ext. (in fact, if you observe many villages thought out the world have been organized in such communal matter) This indeed is a far-cry of tribal existence.

Yet Feudalism is what preserved this tradition, even in the article provided it states that Communist collectivization ultimately that is which destroyed this. Because Feudalism in its nature is politically and economically decentralized structure, it is more federal that anything came afterwards. Rather Communism sought to centralize everything, it is not entirely the consequence of its doctrine but more so of industrialization. As industrialization due to its quantitative output (increase in production) brought enormous monopolization in western Europe, that Liberal system allowed to breed unchecked, thus bringing economic monopolization, later to become political too. Therefore making society very centralized and dictatorial. It is funny, following a highly centralized and large monopoly like structure of western economy, Communist in Soviet Union did the exactly same thing, as the so called capitalist in the liberal "west".

[Potemkin]

In humanity there are three elements that exist; Mind, Emotions, and Spirit (or the Holy Spirit as it is known by most Christians).

Spirit is the only place in humanity in which truth exist, it is that which is unspoken and just. Eternal, unabiding thus abiding.

The transcendence of human modes of existence in metaphor you have provided as geological strata, are just the result of the workshop of your mind and efforts of other minds' works you have come in contact with. Ultimately it is untrue, as all thoughts in their essence are not true. With attachment to this mental framework, one can experience this even on the emotional level.

(Just a little add on, this is mental framework or conditioning of the mind thus if attached to also conditions emotional body in Christianity known as sin. As only sin works in circular patterns, like karma (as it know in the east). This in turn closes the mind of the people, makes enemies of "outsiders" as the loop needs resistance. Anyways I will stop here before I completely loose people)

Too late. How, exactly, does any of this Idealist claptrap relate to what I said?

[Plaro]

Never mind Potemkin...

[Potemkin]

Have you been taking lessons from onemalehuman, Plaro?

[Plaro]

Take it easy bro, I did not think you will misunderstand me that bad.

[Decky]

A genius leader, a man under whose leadership Russia transformed from ruins into a modern country

I know that after my death a pile of rubbish will be heaped on my grave, but the wind of History will sooner or later sweep it away without mercy - The gentle father of nations himself.

[Far-Right Sage]

Decky, your dedication to the Stalinist ideal despite the criticism which surrounds it is dare I say, admirable, despite my firm disagreement with it.

[stalker]

Decky, your dedication to the Stalinist ideal despite the criticism which surrounds it is dare I say, admirable, despite my firm disagreement with it.

Meh. There's more of a stigma around supporting Putin than supporting Stalin.

[Far-Right Sage]

While that is true in Russian society, it's a bit different I would imagine in Britain, where Decky hails from.

[Decky]

Decky, your dedication to the Stalinist ideal despite the criticism which surrounds it is dare I say, admirable, despite my firm disagreement with it.

Why do you say that?

And what exactly is your problem with uncle Joe (apart from the obvious problem you have with the liberation of Kaliningrad etc).

For example if you had been born Brazilian or some other nation with no historical problems with the Soviets (but still had the same political views). What would your issues with Stalin be?

I understand that as an ethnic nationalist you might find my request to separate your political views and your German nationalism odd but have a go.

What is your actual problem with the Stalinist Idea in abstract (forgetting the fact he saved the world from you guys or even the fact that it happened to exist in the Soviet Union)?

If you can't fair enough. I know if someone asked me to explain my politics without reference to class then I would laugh in their face.

While that is true in Russian society, it's a bit different I would imagine in Britain, where Decky hails from.

Almost all of my time is spend with members of the Proletariat or members of the Lumpen-proletariat. We are so badly educated and apolitical that it doesn't really come up. I would put money on most of them only having a very vague/ non existent idea of who Stalin was.

When if does come up I do of course defend the greatest champion we ever had.