Welcome to Gaia! ::

What say you about how to deal with Stalinism?

Should we simply overpower them with the voice of reason (them being [hopefully] a minority), or should we purge them (the ultimate irony)?

What Would Trotsky Do?

Hey how ya doing? xd

and what voice of reason?

I doubt the OP even has an understanding of what Stalinism is, by the Stalin tradition's standards or even the Trotskyite.

I think really the biggest tenants or questions brought up in the so-called "dogmatic" period or the Stalin-era are:

Socialism in One Country
Periods of increasing social/international tension following the revolution
non-conflicting classes (Sovietized peasants and proletarians)

The idea of socialism in one country was backed up by Lenin (though of course not for a protracted period of time). It is stupid to even bring up Marx or Engels here - they were both revolutionary enough to have not said "Oh well, I guess nobody else is in a state of revolution let us throw in the towel." Note their support for the Paris Commune, which did not spread far beyond Paris proper. It was never explicitly stated that the USSR was the only country for socialism, or that only socialism was possible in the USSR - but that for now - socialism was only extant in the USSR and it had to be defended at all costs.

The idea of increasing social tensions came from the NEP period fights between the kulaks and the proletarian state where, after the revolution, the dispossessed and those reactionaries which still existed within the NEP frame work began open economic warfare with the USSR 8 years after the end of the civil war. Which is contrary to what Marx and Engels envisioned, thinking the revolution itself would clear a lot of these conflicts out of the way.

The third idea was again from Soviet experience, in that peasants had enough of a stake in the Soviet society not to openly oppose it despite their predisposition towards petty-bourgeois or bourgeois ideas being peasants (and traditionally owners of property).

That's not to say I defend all of Stalin's actions or policies - there are plenty of things which are reprehensible and unforgivable, which are so well known that I don't even feel like mentioning them. But we should likewise be objective and not gloss over all of the achievements which were made under his direction. The same goes for Trotsky, who, even though I disagree with a great deal of his writing, ought never to be forgotten for his contributions to the Russian revolution!

Ahuh...
Now let us look at the bullshit in detail:

The only time anything is said at all on this subject is ONCE in ONE sentence which directly contradicts all of the rest of his writings both before and since. In the context of the article [in a fight over 'united states of europe'] he was obviously talking about a dictatorship of the proletariat, that is the groundwork, the ultimate prerequisite for socialism and not socialism itself.


No, bringing them up is valid and not stupid. Unless your point is that Stalinism was not so revolutionary, that for them it was either 'socialism in one country or the death of the revolution'? I doubt you are trying to imply that.

No, the dogma of 'S1C' (for ease of repetition) comes from later 1924 when Stalin said that the SU had all that was required to build socialism. And then in the 30's we find the SU proclaimed a 'socialist' state.

What this in and of itself is little. But it is symptomatic of all of Stalinism. We find Stalinism at the same time reveting back to the pre-April slogan of the "Democratic Dictatorship" and the menshevik 'stages' strategy in the colonial wold by a political (and not merely military) alliance with the colonial or 'anti-imperialist' bourgeoisie and in the imperialist centres with the 'Popular Front' which was a political alliance with the 'republican' or 'left' or 'democratic' or 'anti-fascist' imperialists.

There was a complete lack of PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION in their strategy.

For ******** sake.

I have to deal with feminist-conciliationist who want to import alien class ideology into the workers' movement. I have to deal with Ultra-Leftists who occasionally come in here spewing s**t about Anarchism, no vanguard or destroying organisation. I have to deal with Tank's Council-Stalinism and the almost complete lack of faith in the proletariat seen in the members of the guild, treating the working class as some kind of Deus Ex Machina to rise to the fight come armagedon ragnarok the revolution.

Probably get angry call the state a deformed worker's state, run away to Mexico and get an ice pick in the head.

In other words Trotsky didn't have effective ways to combat Stalinism other than calling them reformist. And considering that Lenin's works were gathered under Stalin and made more coherent while Trotsky stood to the sidelines I don't think looking to Trotsky is really advisable.

ah ******** someone already said it?

This is why not having regular internet sucks.

Nice try, but you aren't Comrade M-troll.

Kotka agrees with the idea of the Feminist-Marxists who say that marxism inadequately explains women's oppression and wants to bring alien class ideology in to explain it. You were there when she said it, so stop trying to deflect this into implying some sort of failing on the woman question on my part.

So if you have something to say, bring it up. Show me where I lack on the woman question. Otherwise, cease your bullshit opposition.

I fact, I believe I remember you saying that we should ignore agitation on the family, so where the ******** do you get off saying I lack in anything when I am the only consistenly marxist person here?

Bringing s**t up (s**t which didn't happen, thus the lack of a precise charge or evidence) to accuse me of not having a decent position on the woman question only shows your own lack of political backing on this question.

You claimed that we should use the term 'Feminist-Marxism' to refer to the attention payed to the woman question. That is bullshit. The attention payed to the woman question is evident in propaganda, in the programme one subscribes to. Adding the title 'feminist' is merely a way to suck up to bourgeois feminists.