Young Liberal Fascist (XII)

CKates at aol.com CKates at aol.com
Sat Feb 10 17:16:47 MST 1996


In a message dated 96-02-10 18:38:08 EST, Kevin Cabral writes:

>On Sat, 10 Feb 1996 Godenas at aol.com wrote:
>
>> But, Mark, if Stalin's ideas were such anathema, why did the anti-colonial
>> revolutions (based largely on Lenin-Stalin) of that era succeed to such an
>> astonishing degree?  And if anti-Stalinism (beginning with Kruschev) was
>> really what was needed to keep "communism" from "going down the toilet"
>> (anti-communists on this list seem to have a penchant for scatological
>> references--re: the editor of "Shiny Shit"), why did the {expletive
>deleted}
>> hit the fan forty years after Stalin's death?  Could it be that you've got
>it
>> ass-backwards?
>
>	The shit hit the fan because Lenin had earlier established the
>entire precendent for Stalin, and the totalitarian anti-socialist
>Soviet system when, after the revolution, he proceeded to dismantle the
>Soviets, and make the unions mere tools of the party. 

Totalitarian?? Anti-socialist?? How exactly can a socialist country be
anti-socialist?? Socialism is an economic and political system, not a matte
of political line. However, I completely support Soviet political line, which
was not anti-socialist. Soviet policy was based on national unity and the
building of a working class state, as well as the support of socialism and
national liberation movements worldwide. If only United States policy would
be like that of the USSR....if only U.S. economics would be like that of the
USSR...oh, well, one day we will have socialism here, and it will be truly
democratic, liberatory and free. The USSR had some flaws, but compare them to
the flaws of the U.S. government. Also, the USSR's flaws were not systemic,
as opposed to those of capitalist governments. The USSR was a democratic,
workingclass, socialist state. 
>
>	It wasn't just Stalin who can be held accountable for the
>destruction of the "Great Russian Experiment", a certain amount of blame
>has to rest of Lenin's shoulders for setting the precident for Stalin with
>his organizational, and social policy. Stalin meerly took advantage of
>Lenin's cult, and multiplied its influence in his own name. 
>
Lenin's Cult? If you know anything about Lenin, you know he did everything
possible to ensure that there was no such cult of personality. It was not a
mere experiment, but a glorious socialist society that will come forth again,
improved and strong. Lenin did nothing wrong in his organizational and socal
policy. Stalin committed crimes and made mistakes. However, not everything
Stalin did was wrong. Look at the industrializing of the nation, the victory
in WWII, the obvious ahievements of soviet society under Stalin.Stalin did a
lot of good things and a lot of the Soviet people felt great loyalty to him.
The fascists were on the attack. He and Dimitrov devised the Popular Front
strategy. "Stalinism" presided over the most revoluytionary time in U.S.
history and a very progressive one in Soviet history. The working class of
that time found it glorious. They were building the socialist society, their
society, building the Soviet system, their system, the CPSU, their Party. It
was a workingclass movement, a workingclass society. 
>	The Soviet system started becoming regressive within a year or two
>of the revolution. While hostile circumstances, such as the
>Imperialist/White cooperative invasion, made things worse than they should
>have been, it was Lenin's top-down approach which ended up killing the
>revolution until the Soviet system degenerated into its puppet condition
>when Krushchev inherited it. 					
>
>Kevin

Lenin  didn't have a top-down stayle. His leadership was based on the people.
It was certalinly not any sort of "puppet leadership"/.Neither did stalin for
that m,atter. charlotte


     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---



More information about the Marxism mailing list