Churchill quote - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it. Note: nostalgia *is* allowed.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Din
#236697
Stalin took over russia when it had just a plough and left it with nuclear weapons


just thought that i'd put this up and see what you guys thought
By Ocker
#236705
I guess it's fairly accurate.

Don't really know about 'taking over' though, but I'm not 100% on Stalin.

I do know he made Russia one of the leading industrial nations of the time though.
User avatar
By Rokossovsky
#236724
Stalin took over russia when it had just a plough and left it with nuclear weapons


Thats fairly true, Russia was backward and almost medieval before the revolution, the Bolsheviks helped transform it into an Industrial powerhouse (though not everyone was eager to help).

The technology was already in existance, especially as far as industry was concerned, all Stalin had to do was build it rather than invent it. Its a testament to the hard work of the Russian people (although many were just scared of Stalin).

I think Stalin assumed control by political maneuvering rather than 'taking over.
By Milorg
#236933
But then, it's always the question if the end justifies the means. Stalin wasn't exactly too concerned about the general welfare of his citizens. Sure, he did accompish great things, but at what cost..
User avatar
By jaakko
#236937
Milorg wrote:But then, it's always the question if the end justifies the means. Stalin wasn't exactly too concerned about the general welfare of his citizens. Sure, he did accompish great things, but at what cost..


Not concerned about the general welfare? Well I'd say general welfare was what he was concerned about. Life expectations rose during his lifetime, education system developed, so did all social institutions whose sole purpose was social welfare and security. You need further proof that this took place against his will, or that he would have preferred to make living better for the 5% that suffered instead of the working class and poor peasantry.
By Erik of NKP
#237027
Just a little comment; sure, individuals can make differences in history, but proposing that if not for Stalin the Soviet Union wouldn't have become an industrial power is absurd. It wasn't Stalin who built the Soviet Union, it was the Soviet people.

Some "communists" frequently praise Stalin for doing this and that; building the Soviet Union, defeating the Germans etc, but it doesn't seem to occur to them that they are at the same time then pulling away important foundations of marxist thinking; the material developments in the world is the force driving change. If Stalin wasn't there, somebody else would be there, and no matter who ruled the Soviet Union, it was the people who built the country and defeated the Germans.

Ofcourse you people know this (I presume) but since it wasn't brought up I just thought it appropriate to comment it.. :roll:
User avatar
By jaakko
#237056
Erik of NKP wrote:It wasn't Stalin who built the Soviet Union, it was the Soviet people.


But this is a truism.

If Stalin wasn't there, somebody else would be there, and no matter who ruled the Soviet Union, it was the people who built the country and defeated the Germans.


But not without leadership. Had there been a revisionist leadership (as it was later to be) the efforts of the people would have been in vain and no socialism would have been built. Of course Stalin was just one person, one leader, but nevertheless he represented those forces inside CPSU which aimed at building socialism and which carried out the correct policies required to repel the possibility of a united imperialist invasion of USSR and to defeat the Hitler-Germany lead invasion. Of course Stalin wasn't alone, he had the Marxist-Leninists of CPSU on his side, he had the vast masses of the proletariat and poor peasantry to support him. The role of individual in history is a complex issue. Without Stalin it could have very well been some other Marxist-Leninist.
By Din
#237069
i think that is is simply a case of simplifying things when your the boss you get all the glory as well as the blame
User avatar
By redcarpet
#255671
There are 3 major things I think we can all agree Stalin ensured there was, after he died:

1. Industrial might

2. Dictatorship

3. Military might.

There.
By Ixa
#255681
Redcarpet wrote:There are 3 major things I think we can all agree Stalin ensured there was, after he died:

1. Industrial might

2. Dictatorship

3. Military might.

There.


I agree with 1 and 3, but I think you are mistaken with number 2. Under
the leadership of Stalin, the Soviet Union was a worker's democracy. The
sensation that he was a dictator comes about through the attribution of
certain powers to Stalin which history shows that Stalin did not have. The
facts make it clear that Stalin was less powerful than every successive
American president. Such is the conclusion in "Soviet Union: a New
Civilisation" by British fabian economist Webb.
By Enigmatic
#255795
There's a difference between the prerogative powers an individual is granted by a constitution and their de facto power.
User avatar
By Trotskito
#255816
Without the war, the Soviet empire could never have conquered Eastern Europe to grab Hungary, Poland, Romania, etc. A lot of oil and food came from those nations- allowing the Russian part of the USSR to lighten their load and start industrializing.
This is the same imperialism seen by Great Britain when they colonized Canada or South Africa.

Stalin did destroy democracy in the USSR. It would have been democratic but he ordered his secret police to take people away in the night and operate show trials for his political rivals.
Of course, in a place like Russia, democracy may not always be the best plan.
By Din
#256253
Trotskito wrote:Without the war, the Soviet empire could never have conquered Eastern Europe to grab Hungary, Poland, Romania, etc. A lot of oil and food came from those nations- allowing the Russian part of the USSR to lighten their load and start industrializing.
This is the same imperialism seen by Great Britain when they colonized Canada or South Africa.

Stalin did destroy democracy in the USSR. It would have been democratic but he ordered his secret police to take people away in the night and operate show trials for his political rivals.
Of course, in a place like Russia, democracy may not always be the best plan.


says the trotskist, as explained above he did use democracy, stalin was not a dictator, but the head of a very powerful party that ruled a VERY large country, the USSR didn't "grab" those countries, but "liberated them from the Germans" and showed them the light of socialism, some if not all former eastern bloc countries would prefer to be back under the USSR as they did recieve funding that kept the countires afloat
User avatar
By Trotskito
#256793
Hey, I'm not saying it was a bad thing at all!
He became head of the party by liquidating all of his opposition- that is a bad thing.
Under his rule Russian imperialism was recreated. Not to say it's all up to him though, he needed the Germans to invade those countries first, so that he could 'liberate' them. For example, if the Soviet Union invaded Poland or Hungary in 1935, before Hitler did, it would be the Nazis who were seen as liberating!
It's just a matter of timing, and oppurtunism... It wasn't Stalin that brought the USSR from hand-plows to nuclear weapons, it was oppurtunist imperialism.
Am I racist in your opinion?

I do not want to be racist I want to purge myself […]

Thank you very much for your replies and reading s[…]

Trump and Russiagate

Russian trolls recognized the power of these voter[…]

The article to which I linked links to a case whe[…]