Text of Khrushchev's speech??
mstainsby at SPAMhotmail.com
Mon Aug 9 02:02:32 MDT 1999
>>I am neither praising nor attacking Stalin.
>>Not all Marxists consider Stalin "non Marxist".
> I agree, you are doing neither. You are however, assuming
>Stalin/ists are Marxist, this is all I point out.
>>It only serves division in a tiny, little movement.
> Division comes from many angles. Yes, keeping Stalinsim out of
>Marxism shortens the territory of Marxism. Division of course also
>occurs with the inclusion of Stalin. From the standpoint of unity,
>either way presents problems, and so the only solution is to find the
>truth of the matter and to accomplish that.
I will repeat this again: You have a page that purports to be "inforamtion"
to be judged from. Yet, you already judge the information. I set up an
anti-free Tibet website, get insults and hate mail from liberals. It doesn't
really bother me, even though these are people who (sometimes) do really
>>point. Now, what we need to do is find a way to eliminate this,
>>being selective about a divisive question, like Stalin, Trotsky
>>etc.. will not promote neccessary unity at all.
> How can unity be achieved in ignorance? Unite with that I do not
>know, that I do not understand? There is no sword over our heads at
>present, action without thought is not necessary.
I constantly work in coalitions involving Stalinists, Trotskyists, etc. They
get things done, have the same goals as set out in the coalition and we
don't talk about land reform in the twenties when we try to stop the bombing
of Iraq. There is no lack of thought here, these are excellent comrades who
simply don't think themselves into a tizzy.
> Is it correct that Stalinists are intolerant of other working class
>parties, and will be intolerant up to the point of execution of those
>who follow different paths if necessary? Is this a part of Stalinism?
>If so, how can you explain the contradiction: be tolerant of those
>who are intolerant?
Then exclude Trotsky. Louis Proyect has been fantastic in describing the
bizarre attitudes of Trot parties/sects. Start a trend! End the
exclusionism, your site was on the right track before!
>>being called either a Stalinist or a Trotskyist
> I called you neither Macdonald. I only pointed that you include
>Stalinism with Marxism, with this as your premise, we were butting
>heads. My opinion is open, and my knowledge is not certain, what I
>need in order to follow this unity with Stalinism is an understanding
>of how Stalinism, with all aspects of its theory in analysis, fits
>into Marxism. The problem we are having is that you are saying it is
>"wrong" or "pretensious" to define Marxism for the purpose of naming
>groups Marxist or not; but without such a definition, we cannot know
>if Stalinism is Marxist or is not. At present we have time to discuss
By deleting Stalin, your site promotes the idea that the discussion should
be closed, for "we" already have the answer- Stalin really BAD!
It's a typical, knee-jerk reaction to the Stalinophobic population at large;
most of whom accept Trotsky because they have never heard of him.
>Some perspective at marxists.org:
> We do include these writings, not side by side, but they are there,
>without any bias attached in the form of notes before a document,
>neither distroted in any way.
> David and I have changed the Reference page. The opening is a bit
>more thorough now, and generally it looks better.
A start- but not what I call a finish.
PS- I thought it was going to be a debate over Stalin, but you saw where is
was coming from. For that, I gladly continue talking.
To criticize the people's shortcomings is neccessary, as we have already
said, but in so doing we must truly take the stand of the people and speak
out of whole hearted eagerness to protect and educate them. To treat
comrades like enemies is to go over to the stand of the enemy.
Mao Tse-tung, "Talks at the Yenan forum on literature and art".
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
More information about the Marxism