Become eligible to register here

[Intermundia]

Miza

Stalin on the other hand was just power hungry

http://fountainoflanguage.com/stalin/index.html

http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm

Also, being a revolutionary means going in and out of the prison system. It comes with the package. There wasn't a place Stalin went without causing some kind of uprising.  

[CynicismandMisanthropy]

Sorry it took me awhile to get back, bad thing happened. Then they became worse things.

Aerlinniel

You say why you disagree with Trotsky, but are there any reasons why you would back Stalin other than disagreeing with Trotsky?

Of course, Stalin made his coffee in total accordance with the Diamat method. I personally do not regard Stalin as a great hero of the motherland, and see Trotsky as the better man. But this isn’t about whose Great Leaders wins the personality contest it’s about ideology. Now there’s no denying that Stalin was not the theorist that Trotsky was, but he did more than just act as a statesman. He laid out the ideas of "Socialism in One Country", which would be refined and expanded upon by Maoists and others. I suppose you could also argue that Stalin helped set up the Soviet policy concerning nationalities with his 1913 work Marxism and the National Question. Though I’m not as familiar with that subject, so I could very well be wrong. Of course Stalin wasn’t perfect obviously otherwise revisionism would not have gripped the Soviet Union. The purges were disorganized and clumsy, understandable given the state of the USSR, but still responsible for the rise of right wing opportunism and liquidation of Leninism.

Aerlinniel

Slavery then? Yes, it would be a good way to use them, but why do it? If that was used in a clever way by the media you could end up with big portions of the population turning against you, being invaded by another country that just needed an excuse or being overthrown by a popular opportunist, as a result of the way this was used by the media.

I doubt it particularly since such sentences would be shorter than just staying in prison, and far more beneficial to the inmate. They would be to give back to the community through either continuing to provide for their families through employment or toiling on a work crew that does work for cities and regional governments. Besides we have to rehabilitate the bourgeois somehow, and I don’t see how we could do that while they’re stuck in a cell.

Grach

Well that's a dodgy reason to make a political point.

The latter one? That was an unfunny funny moment, I apologize.

Grach

The most prominent example of this conflict of interests between the peasantry and the workers state came in the form of the Kronstadt Rebellion.

But wasn’t it the red army, who was composed primarily of peasants although of the lower rung, that ultimately ended the rebellion?
As for where I learned the stuff about Lenin well it was from this thing by Kostas Mavrakis.
Sorry lame response is so lame, if it’s any conciliation I’m actually working on a post for the guild and it should be up soon if all goes well.  

[Aerlinniel I]

CynicismandMisanthropy

Of course, Stalin made his coffee in total accordance with the Diamat method. I personally do not regard Stalin as a great hero of the motherland, and see Trotsky as the better man. But this isn’t about whose Great Leaders wins the personality contest it’s about ideology. Now there’s no denying that Stalin was not the theorist that Trotsky was, but he did more than just act as a statesman. He laid out the ideas of "Socialism in One Country", which would be refined and expanded upon by Maoists and others. I suppose you could also argue that Stalin helped set up the Soviet policy concerning nationalities with his 1913 work Marxism and the National Question. Though I’m not as familiar with that subject, so I could very well be wrong. Of course Stalin wasn’t perfect obviously otherwise revisionism would not have gripped the Soviet Union. The purges were disorganized and clumsy, understandable given the state of the USSR, but still responsible for the rise of right wing opportunism and liquidation of Leninism.

I won't actually argue against that, since I don't feel any need to defend Trotsky, since, I either agree a bit with both or a just don't like them.

CynicismandMisanthropy

I doubt it particularly since such sentences would be shorter than just staying in prison, and far more beneficial to the inmate. They would be to give back to the community through either continuing to provide for their families through employment or toiling on a work crew that does work for cities and regional governments. Besides we have to rehabilitate the bourgeois somehow, and I don’t see how we could do that while they’re stuck in a cell.

Of course by enforced labour the person in question could be 'rehabilitated'. I also agree that it would be more productive than locking them up or just killing them off. Plus they could also provide for their families... if their families aren't being 'rehabilitated' (more like enforcing views anyways). But as I said before:

Aer

I would chose the third one, I would allow them to live on. As a lower class or as everybody else. While doing that I would also try and make them reject their ideas or simply make them accept the new regime, and swear not to try and overthrow it. If that failed though I would go on with option 4: exile. Abandon them in some island so they can't do any harm

I am not partidary of locking them up OR killing them. Of course the enforced labour has some good things, but why would they change their views? If I had to be 'rehabilitated' I wouldn't suddenly accept the other ideology just so I can live. Why would they then do that? I would instead expect them to become more active opponents of the new regime due to hate or just because of them doing the enforced labour. By letting them live on you can also give them work, and also avoid having to build any new areas for the 'rehabilitation'. Of course you could try to change them... but in another ways that would not be so direct and possibly brutal, for example with adverts or making them read or talk to experts. They would also contribute to society by working, therefore being able to "give back to the community through either continuing to provide for their families through employment" as you said. Of course then they would be able to join and fight against the regime, something that wouldn't happen if they in special 'rehabilitation' zones. That could be also dealt with in another way. How about state terror? Ensure that they weren't doing anything against the regime, or trying to convince people to side with them. What to do with the rebels? Just like I said before, not killing them or enslaving them (or forcing them to do work in special areas). Just exile them, drop the off in a far away place with no one there. If they survive there then good for them, if they don't then they won't be able to do any harm. Of course when doing this ensuring that they can't escape from where they have been dropped at.  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Cynic

As for where I learned the stuff about Lenin well it was from this thing by Kostas Mavrakis.

Yeeeeeeahno. reading through this thing, and it does two things. On the one hand it quietly adopts propositions put forward by Trotskyism, drops those of Stalinism, without saying it is doing either.

The second thing it does is falsify the position taken by Trotsky, and then puts a roughly accurate, if somewhat distorted, position which corresponds to the facts against a straw man.

Not an example, but I am putting this first, because it is one of the most glaring things I've read thus far:

Quote:

Trotsky rewrites history. He isolates two moments: 1905 and 1917; he disregards the period that separates them (an episode no doubt of little use to his argument); and this is what the history of Bolshevism becomes. According to him, in 1905, Lenin formulated 'a hypothesis': revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. This hypothesis depended on an 'unknown': the political role of the peasantry. October 1917 reduced the unknown and Lenin's hypothesis (which envisaged the possibility of a peasant party with a majority in the revolutionary government) was invalidated since it was the dictatorship of the proletariat alone which triumphed' On the contrary, it was Trotsky's 'prognosis' that was confirmed.

Trotsky's position here is simply lied about. I'm too lazy to grab my own quotes at the moment, but suffice it to say that Trotsky's position was not that the "slogan" of the democratic dictatorship had been invalidated, but that it was algebraic. With the advent of the revoltion, it was given definite content, and that content matched up with the theory of permanent revolution. Rather than Lenin being wrong on that question, it was merely that Trotsky had been more correct. It may be a very fine distinction, but it is this kind of distortion that permeates what I've read in this work so far.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that it keeps calling 'the revolutionary dictatorship...' a slogan. this isn't correct. It wasn't just a slogan, but the slogan was the condensation of a theory. The theory was not simply an exhortation for the workers to take power, allied with the peasantry. The theory said that the revolutionary government would be a dictatorship of two classes, and that this would represent a phase in the bourgeois revolution, roughly equivalent to the period of the Jacobin dictatorship during the Great French Revolution. To call this, therefore, just a slogan is the mark of great dishonesty.

Let us look at how Lenin deals with this slogan:

Quote:

This argument is based on a misconception; it confounds the democratic revolution with the socialist revolution, the struggle for the republic (including our entire minimum programme) with the struggle for socialism. If Social-Democracy sought to make the socialist revolution its immediate aim, it would assuredly discredit itself. It is precisely such vague and hazy ideas of our “Socialists—Revolutionaries” that Social-Democracy has always combated. For this reason Social-Democracy has constantly stressed the bourgeois nature of the impending revolution in Russia and insisted on a clear line of demarcation between the democratic minimum programme and the socialist maximum programme. [X]

Lenin is here saying very clearly, and this point runs through this article, holding it together, that this is a bourgeois revolution, and as such the proletariat should stick to the minimum programme of the Social Democracy. This is no mere slogan!

Now that we've dealt with that pice of dishonestly, let's compare what lenin and Trotsky said of the coming revolution. (I provide a link, because I can't quote any sufficiently concise part). By comparing the two, we see that while Lenin's position was infinitely more revolutionary than the liberal-tailist Mensheviks, it was abstract, in that it didn't take into account the actual course of a revolution with a revolutionary proletarian government. Compare the reality of the 1917 revolution: The Soviets were the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, they were carrying out the tasks of the bourgeois revolution, but under Bolshevik leadership were going past that, not hindered by any 'chinese walls'.

Ugh, I'll post this and do more later, because I'm feeling ******** crook, and it's taken me forever to type even this much...  

[Naiax Sidorenka]

The reason mine was so short was because of my disinterest in the questions that were proposed. They assumed you support the bolsheviks and are a militant, while I, being a reformist and pacifist, support neither.  

[The Curse]

Naiax Sidorenko

The reason mine was so short was because of my disinterest in the questions that were proposed. They assumed you support the bolsheviks and are a militant, while I, being a reformist and pacifist, support neither.

I forgive you Naiax, but you still need more posts don't you? =P  

[Naiax Sidorenka]

The Curse

Naiax Sidorenko

The reason mine was so short was because of my disinterest in the questions that were proposed. They assumed you support the bolsheviks and are a militant, while I, being a reformist and pacifist, support neither.

I forgive you Naiax, but you still need more posts don't you? =P

I honestly don't care enough to bother.  

[Aerlinniel I]

Naiax Sidorenko

I honestly don't care enough to bother.

but that means no voting sad
and no voting is bad, even if you don't like any of the candidates