Young Liberal Fascist (XII)
kcabral at freenet.columbus.oh.us
Sun Feb 11 16:01:29 MST 1996
On Sat, 10 Feb 1996 CKates at aol.com wrote:
> > 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
> as opposed to those of capitalist governments. The USSR was a democratic,
> workingclass, socialist state.
Socialism requires some sort of worker democracy, as well as civil
liberty. The USSR had neither.
> 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.
This is the classic Stalinist top-down approach to political analysis.
For the Stalinist it was not the people of the Soviet Union who defeated
Germany, but something inherantly holy about General Secretary Stalin, and
the anti-socialist Soviet command economy. The obvious achievements of
Soviet society under Stalin? What were those, mass-murder of political
factions, massive slave labor camps, intentional starvation of peasantry,
an aristocratic bureaucracy, Stalinist military oppression in the examples
of Czechoslovakia and Poland? Please explain the great accomplishments
besides industrialisation, which in your book would make Ulysses S. Grant
one of the great leaders of all-time.
> 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.
No, it wasn't a working class society. It was the Party's society,
which was ran by a class of aristocrats who lived a vastly different
lifestyle than the masses they directed. This approach, begun by Lenin,
was why their was nothing socialist about the Soviet Union.
> 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
Stalin wasn't a top-down leader? Neither was Lenin? I'm sure
volunteers were lining up to be exiled to Siberia to work in slave labor
camps. I bet Trotsky volunteered to be murdered, or perhaps the worker's
volunteered to have their worker's councils destroyed. Yea, the Soviet
Union really must have been a real worker's state; just like the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea or even China. Don't you wish
America was more like, say Albania or Romania in the 80s? Its beautiful
enough to make any True Believer blush..
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism