Kirov and the fantasy-prone

Chegitz Guevara mluziett at
Fri Oct 27 12:59:45 MDT 1995

On Thu, 26 Oct 1995, Maoist Internationalist Movement wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, Chegitz Guevara wrote:
> >
> > BTW, Stalin's "genorous" appraisal of himself, and mock humilty are very
> > touching. In fact, the Soviet people had been trying to replace the
> > butcher. Kirov was elected to head the party in 1934, though Stalin's
> > hacks stuffed the box. Then Kirov was assissinated by the GPU. The old
> Pat for MIM replies: Right into the present day there are massive
> signs of Stalin's profound popularity in the (ex-)Soviet Union.
> But I'd like to see a source on your saying Kirov got elected.

It was a PBS documentary on Stalin, I can't recall the name, but I
believe I have a copy of it in storage. The source in the show was a
former agent of Stalin's who was one of those who took part in the ballot
stuffing. The election of Kirov was by a landslide, his votes were triple
digits, while Stalin recieved less than ten. Please realize it has been
nearly 3-4 years since I last saw it, so I can't give specifics.

> Those who read MT#6--"The Stalin Issue"--will find that bourgeois
> academics continue to talk about this, but not the way C.G. does.
> Not that it matters, see below.

I ain't an academic, although I'm in school. I'm just trying to educate
myself and graduate, so I can get as far away from the university scene
as I can.

> > Bolsheviks were trying to get rid of Stalin, for which he had them tried
> > and killed. The people of Russia were trying to get rid of him, for which
> > he made war on them, and killed probably 3 million out right, and who
> > knows how many died in the gulags. Stalin stayed in power through
> > dirty politics and mass murder, not because the people of Russia wanted
> > him. In fact, Stalin was so hated at the time that the Nazi's were
> > welcomed as liberators, until they started killing everyone in sight.

> Pat for MIM replies: Since C.G. and many others whitewash the
> social-democratic
> role in assisting Hitler to power semi-legally and generally
> whitewash fascism across Europe by making it sound like only
> Stalin had to face a fifth column of Nazi-sympathizers, it doesn't
> surprise me to see him complain about Stalin's executions aimed
> at Nazi sympathizers AND fantasize about Kirov.

I don't at all white-wash the criminal role of the social-democrats in
allowing Hitler to take power. But I'm not arguing against social-dems.
I'm arguing against Stalin-worshippers. Talking about the SD's in this
context is a way for you to avoid the issue being discussed, just as it
is when the SD's talk about Stalin when we point out the crimes of the

> Too bad for you C.G., you don't have Stalin to blame for the rise
> of fascism in Europe today. The sad thing is you are set to
> impose your foolishness this time around too. It wasn't enough
> to see it once for people with the whitewash-social-democracy-line.

I don't necessarily see the rise of fascism in Europe. I see a the odern
version of the Black Hundreds, but not a finance-capital backed
petty-bourgeois movement with the purpose of destroying a powerful
workers' movement. I *DO* see a movement with many of those
characteristics in the U.S., called the Wise Use/militia/Pro-Life
movement. Despite the criminal role that the SD's often play, they are
still a working class movement. I still think that a United Front
strategy is superior to building isolated sects with no influence (notice
I omitted the word tiny, since large sects can be without influence as

> I hope that our readers will notice that the anybody-but-Stalin
> fantasy-opportunist line didn't find it necessary to say that
> Kirov STOOD for ANYTHING different than Stalin did. Though
> defending Trotsky in this same post, C.G. didn't find it necessary
> to point out that Kirov opposed Trotsky just as Stalin did.

I omitted the fact that Kirov didn't stand for anything different from
Stalin *BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVENT!* I does not matter that they had the
same agenda. The point remains, which you have attepted to evade, that
the Soviet bureaucracy tried to get rid of Stalin, and that he only
remained in power because of his war of terror.

> Hey, we at MIM don't care if Kirov did get elected, though
> it appears he didn't from the facts. His line was no different.
> It is only the idealists who twist and turn to avoid the
> realities of class struggle who must at any cost read into
> Kirov's popularity something that wasn't there. And by the way,
> Kirov wanted Stalin for party leader too, so a lot of difference
> it would have made, even in the leadership to have Kirov
> elected!

I don't think that history would have turned out much differently, except
maybe that the Republicans might have won the Civil War in Spain, and
maybe the purges wouldn't have been so bloody.

But why is Stalin *SO* popular today? Stalin represents a desire for a
return to the security of the Stalinist state, not approval of his
terror, or their lack of rights. Stalin is revered in the same way as
Kings are revered. "If only Stalin knew about the local party corruption,
he will change things." Watt Tylor thought the same thing about the King
of England. The Robin Hood myths express the same desire. Of course, the
place where Stalin worship is greatest is in Georgia, where they think of
him as the local boy who made the big time.

Marc, "the Chegitz," Luzietti

	"Behold, they are as one people, and they all have one language;
and this is only the begining of what they will do; and nothing that they
propose to do will now be impossible for them." -- GOD, on solidarity

     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list