Quote from Libertarian: "you have not said why this can not be done by a workers federation. If the planning was done before a revolution, and everyone new exactly what to do, then there would be no need for this centralised state. Areas could work independently from each other, while still keeping an overall level of co ordination. Each area would know what was happening in another area and it would be co ordinated in relations to those happenings."

Well, federation is still a state structure. I see that you don't support stateless society, but you support decentralized state. You yourself said that the state keeps on functioning after the socialistic revolution.
So, why does proletariat and all working people need to have CENTRALIZED STATE after the revolution? The main reason is that economical activity on the places has to be controlled by one planning center. Such kind of control is more efficient than self - control and self - planning of decentralized subjects of a workers federation. It must be understood that for realization of effective economy planning some kind of central governmental body is needed, so it will supervise all subjects of a state federation..
The other reason why proletarian state has to be of CENTRALIZED character is that such kind of state has to implement common internal and external policy. Here, I would like mainly to talk about internal policy as it presents the most important problem for a young proletarian state. Political center supervises activity inside certain subjects or areas of state and is obliged to maintain one political direction. The oppression of the bourgeois class is also one of the main functions of state central body.

And also the old truism is that any state participates in international relations, as this state is surrounded by another state and has to be recognized by the world community. So, central body of a proletarian state has to take care about realization of strong foreign policy and direct its efforts on building friendly diplomatic relations with other states, no matter if these states are socialistic or capitalistic. Of course, economical cooperation has to be settled mainly with socialistic states.

Quote from Libertarian:" You clarified your point again, that if you do not believe in Socialism as a transitional phaze, then you are not a marxist. And I will clarify again, that this is not the case. You do not have to believe in everything to be called a Marxist."

Have you ever heard Marx's definition of a STATE? State is the machine of oppression of one class by another. As long as there are antagonistic classes in whatsoever society, the freedom in this society will be limited by a state's law. When proletariat and working people defeats bourgeois class as the result of hard political class struggle, in other words when socialistic revolution takes victory in a definite capitalistic state, proletariat of that state organizes its governmental organs on the ruins of a past bourgeois state machine. One state machine has to come on the place of another state machine. In our case 'proletarian' state machine is needed in order to oppress bourgeois class.
So, you consider yourself 'marxist', but you don't know the basics of Communist theory, moreover and much worse, you don't even want to learn and keep on repeating revisionist crap. Who taught you that? Have you learned that bullshit in your so called 'marxist- leninist party"?

Quote from Libertarain: "Then do you agree that Stalin was not a Marxist?"

I don't want this thread to become a place for discussion of Stalin's policy. That topic deserves separate thread. But I would answer you simply. I have read many of Stalin's theoretical works and have to say that they 100% conform to theories of both Marx and Lenin. Also Stalin's policy was a correct one, it was determined by the historical moment, internal and external factors of objective and subjective character. However I don't have any time to discuss it with such uneducated people as all you.

Quote from Libertarian: "The US might have a bigger capitalist mentality, but the workers are still oppressed and they still have the ability to emancipate themselves."

What I know is that US workers hate communism. Of course this hate was caused by US anti- communist propaganda. The fact is that there is no any force inside the US, which is able to educate workers and to lead them in their struggle.
*US bourgeois atmosphere completely penetrated into workers life. Many american workers dream how it would be good for them to become at least petty - bourgeois parasites. Do you really believe that they want to destroy the system? Anyway, they are weak and they are not ready for the struggle. I am sure that they don't even have any idea about what revolutionary situation means.

Quote from Libertarian: "You say that the Dictatorship of the Proletariate is not a dictatorship of a vanguard, yet all the examples of revolutions have turned out to be just that. A group of intellectual elites working in the "interests of the workers". "

Communist party is also called proletarian vanguard. Vanguard is mainly formed of workers, and that is why it is called PROLETARIAN. So why do some workers form a part of vanguard while others not? The reason is that some workers have class-consciousness, they gained it as the result of years spent in theoretical learning and practical struggle; vanguard workers realize interests of their class, better than other representatives of the class. That is why Communist Party knows the needs and interests of ordinary workers, in other words workers know the interests of the workers and defend the interests of all working mass.
*In their turn, ordinary workers may become the members of the communist party, as it all depends on them. Non- party members/ for example in the USSR/ could participate in LOCAL self - governing. Thus, the dictatorship of the proletariat was the democracy for all workers.

Quote from Libertarian: ".workers cant organize revolutions by themselves
Why not? Why does it have to be a party."

What is wrong with the party if it mainly consists of workers?

Quote from Libertarian: "I do understand what marxism is about, but I do not necessarily agree with it all.
Bourgeois term or not, it was Totalitarian socialism. "

Don't make me laugh. The latter statement proves that you don't understand anything in Marxist theory!

Whether or not you think I understand Marxist theory is irrelevant and inconsequential. We obviously disagree on this point. I can see why you think a State is necessary, but I do not think the reasons you have given are satisfactory.

I think to safegaurd a revolution, or at least a Anarchist revolution, the mass movement has to have a class consience. It can not be a group of intellectuals leading the masses, it has to be the intellectual masses leading themselves.

I can accept your argument about the need for a body of people to operate international affairs, while the revolution is still young. However, after the victory of an inernational revolution I do not think it will be necessary to have such a body.

As for internal defence and the economy, I do not agree that this centralized government is necessary. I do accept your point that such a federation could be classed as a state structure, but the word state holds many bourgeois connections. Which this vangaurd wish to keep. I am sorry, but I do not agree.

In furture I think it is important for comrades to stay out of ths play ground mentality of trying to belittle each others knowledge of philosophy and marxist theory. It isnt productive and it just makes arguements nasty. I am not interested in talking with people who's level of debate can be so ignorant.

*Quote from redstar: " To be a "Marxist" in your view is to study and memorize "the holy words of the scriptures" without a moment's thought as to what these guys were really saying, much less why."

Actually, you, redstar, don't even know who I am, you know nothing about me and you don't have any right to talk shit about me.
You, redstar, just showed your weakness, you are too weak, man, both morally and theoretically.

Quote from redstar: " You constantly repeat: "read Lenin and Stalin" with the same fervor as the Christians in the religion thread keep saying "read the bible"."

Don't you pervert my words, I also advised everybody to read Marx and Engels. And you seem to propagandize complete ignorance.
If you like, then you can call their works the bible, Marx himself didn't even criticize those who called "Das Capital" the bible of the working movement. The point is that there are certain fundamental principles of the communist theory, which has to be understood by every Marxist and realized in practice, if, of course, there are definite objective and subjective preconditions for their implementation.

Quote from redstar: " If that were true, why should you or I or anyone do it for them? What's the point? "

The point is the same which Marx, Engels and Lenin had - to fight injustice.
After all, workers are not inferior to separate intellectuals, but they have to be educated and guided by certain theoreticians and finally workers themselves grow theoretically, and become those intellectual - leaders of the movement.
The fact that workers are the main force of the socialistic revolution shouldn't be undermined.

What I meant saying that workers are not able to organize revolution by themselves was that Communist Party has to help and guide workers in their struggle. My prior formulation was not clear enough, I have had to say that ordinary workers (non- party members) can organize revolution with the help of their colleagues (members of the communist party) and representatives of intelligentsia (also party members).

Quote from redstar:" The problem with Leninism-Stalinism-Trotskyism-Maoism is that, at best, it teaches workers how to change masters...when what communists need to do is teach workers how to liberate themselves from all masters. "

Marxism- Leninism teaches workers to liberate themselves from oppressors. Proletarian state and its leaders can be oppressors only in the relation to bourgeois class representatives, but socialistic state can't oppress workers living in it, as it is characterized by the public property on the means of production.

Quote from redstar: " historical materialism is a bunch of "crap" and people can "by command" create any social order that they "will", regardless of material conditions."

I've never said that. Historical materialism teaches that the law of the class struggle is one of the main laws of historical development of any society.
For the successful socialistic revolution to take place in the capitalist society certain situation (revolutionary situation) is needed; level of states' development is not of great importance. The practice of the past perfectly proves the corectness of the statement above.
Keeping in mind marxist- leninist theory and historical practice of the victorious socialistic revolutions, it is possible to make a prognosis that one of the 'third world' states which at the certain historical moment would appear to be the weakest link in the imperialistic chain and the latter condition will be characterized by the presence of a revolutionary situation in that particular state, this state will be ready for the socialistic revolution to take place. However such subjective factors as the strength of workers movement in that state and the level of activity of the communist party in that state should also be considered. All as a whole determine the readiness of a particular "third world" state for the socialistic revolution and further transformation of that state into a socialistic one.
Now will you, redstar, explain all 'comrades' when the developed countries will step into the socialistic future? Tell us when US bourgeois class will be so kind to give its property into the public use for all people…

Quote from redstar: " If Marx said A and Lenin said B and you want to uphold B, then you think you can assert that Marx also said B and no one will notice. "

You have to keep in your revisionist mind that Marx and Lenin lived during different historical periods of capitalistic development. Marx had lived during 'wild' capitalism or the capitalism, which had been just developing, and Lenin lived *during the time when capitalism stepped into its last stage of development or in other words Lenin lived during imperialism.
Thus, if Marx had said A regarding the certain issue, and Lenin said B on the same issue, then it meant only that historical conditions changed and Marx's A just would not work at the definite changed moment.
Marx himself admitted in 1860s or 1870s (don't remember exactly) that 'Communist Manifesto' was already in some aspects outdated, as certain conditions changed and therefore the strategy and tactics of the class struggle of the proletariat had to be developed to fit new historical realities.
Vladimir Lenin developed Marxism in accord with the imperialistic conditions. Lenin's conclusion that imperialistic chain can and must be broken in the point where its weakest link is situated is genius indeed.

Quote from Libertarian: " I think to safegaurd a revolution, or at least a Anarchist revolution, the mass movement has to have a class consience. It can not be a group of intellectuals leading the masses, it has to be the intellectual masses leading themselves"

Educational work has to be realized in order to achieve such level of intellectual development of the working masses you talk about. This work may be done only by the party, or by the proletarian vanguard. And, of course, such work will take decades and would definitely be accomplished already during socialism. *And only then all masses would be ready for taking part in state governing fully and completely.

Quote from Libertarian: " I can accept your argument about the need for a body of people to operate international affairs, while the revolution is still young. However, after the victory of an inernational revolution I do not think it will be necessary to have such a body. "

Think about what you have said! It will take centuries for the world socialistic revolution to take victory. World revolution will definitely be achieved, but it is a step by step process.

Quote from Libertarian:" I do accept your point that such a federation could be classed as a state structure, but the word state holds many bourgeois connections"

The main question you have to ask yourself is whether a particular state belongs to workers or not. If workers own a democracy in a definite state, then this state is ANTAGONISTIC to all bourgeois states.

Quote from Libertarian: " In furture I think it is important for comrades to stay out of ths play ground mentality of trying to belittle each others knowledge of philosophy and marxist theory."

I hope that comrades will not listen to you and learn from Marxist posts. Unfortunately there is a lack of latter on this board. *


(Edited by Revolution Hero at 9:35 pm on July 2, 2003)

I have read Stalin, and I have also read his want to abolish the individual. *He was not a Marxist, saying it hurts the theory. *Saying Stalin was a Marxist says that all of the people's fears of "horrible communism" are actually true. *Take up for Stalin you are taking up for a state capitalist. *Fuck Stalin. *

I'm not sure what to do on the State, it seems it will go bad either way. *I do not want a vanguard of rulers, as it has always been in the past, to make decisions for the working class, instead of the working class making their own decisions. *We need direct democracy to solve this I think.

Please bring on the quote from Stalin to back up your words. Yeah, and also provide it with the name of the work you will take it from.



"Take up for Stalin you are taking up for a state capitalist."

*Give your definition of 'state capitalism', so I will be able to smash your arguments completely.

*I didn't want to discuss Stalin, but your words have just made me to defend true communist.

Hero, your as irrelevant and ignorant as your politics.

How can you take up for the man who ruined communism? *Ridiculous.

State Capitalism? *It was more like State-monopoly capitalism, ...the monopoly of the state controlling production. *This means a government, not the representative of the people, controlling the means of production and distribution, making money off of it, and not serving the people.

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." -Nikita Khrushchev

That is one quote from Stalin's great successor.

Stalin represents every stereotype of communism we need to destroy. *He is the worst curse to communism. *Lenin hated him, Trotsky hated him, he was a fuck up.

You're not a Communist, you're a Stalinist.

Actually, you, redstar, don't even know who I am, you know nothing about me and you don't have any right to talk shit about me.

I am uninterested in your personal characteristics, RH, and I am not "talking shit" about you.

I have been on this board for nine months now, and I have read a great many of your posts. *Your style of argument is: *Thus and such is so because Lenin (or Stalin) said it was so. * That's not Marxism...it's religion---specifically, Soviet-era Leninist-Stalinist orthodoxy.

The idea of using the tools of Marxism to analyze a situation is as alien to you as a Russian Orthodox priest trying to "analyze" the resurrection. *To you, things are either "articles of faith" or heresy (revisionism).

I don't know, maybe it's a "Russian" thing. *An argument could be made that Stalin was as much a "patriarch" as he was a communist. *But I've noticed here and on other boards that people from Russia seem to have a "religious" interpretation of Marxism that simply does not allow for the possibility of doubt or questioning.

That's my impression, anyway.

... but socialistic state can't oppress workers living in it, as it is characterized by the public property of the means of production.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. *A Stalinist verbal formula is substituted for evidence and asserted as true...when the evidence is clearly in the other direction (1953 Berlin, 1956 Budapest, etc.). *What did the Soviet working class have to show for 74 years of "socialism"? *So little that when the USSR collapsed in ignomy, not one worker in a hundred thousand raised his/her voice in protest.

Now will you, redstar, explain all 'comrades' when the developed countries will step into the socialistic future?

No, RH, I will not tell you "when"--I am not a prophet. *What I will tell you is what Marx and Engels would have told you: *pre-capitalist societies cannot become socialist/communist without first passing through capitalism. *All your "victorious socialist revolutions" in pre-capitalist countries have, in fact, become capitalist or are in the process of doing so.

Contrary to your assertion, Marx was right and Lenin & Co. were wrong.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the Leninists were "evil" or "stupid"...I'm saying that the evidence demonstrates that they were wrong.

What is stupid and may be "evil" is the refusal of today's religious "Marxists" to accept the clear and overwhelming evidence and move on.

What you (and some others) need to do, if you can, is go back and read Marx and Engels not as "scripture" but as a way of looking at history and the contemporary world and making sense of it all. *Their ideas are tools, not "holy writ".

And perhaps you've heard the saying: *a good workman respects his tools.

You chose to have the portrait of Lenin as your personal avatar, so you claimed to be Leninist, didn't you? Well, actually you don't even know Lenin's definition of socialism. In one of his works Lenin defined socialism as state monopoly directed on the wellbeing of all working people (I will post the quote later).
Soviet state officials indeed served the interests of all people. They didn't make any profit, they were not owners of the means of production, as all property on the means of production was in a public use.


You posted the following quote from Khrushchev : "Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."

And before doing that you had said the following: "I have read Stalin, and I have also read his want to abolish the individual."

Ha! This is funny indeed. Did you mean that the quote from Khrushchev is somehow connected with your first false statement? Did you mean that the Khrushchev's quote proved the correctness of your words about Stalin?
Talking about "abolishment of cult of the individual" (the best translation would be "cult of personality"), Khrushchev talked about abolishment of so-called Stalin's cult of personality. Cult phenomenon was Khrushchev's invention and had nothing in common with the true reality.

Anyway, Stalin never had wanted to abolish individuality of the soviet people. You can't prove your statement and therefore I proved you to be a blatant liar!


*

Redstar, I don't have time to write a reply to you...maybe I'll post reply later.

I'm sorry, but Lenin did not view socialism as state monopoly capitalism, I know the quote you are talking about (I think), or I know one that relates to that. *And I think you know what he means by that (it's obvious). *He's not saying that state capitalism as we know it with the rich, etc. exploiting, he meant it as the working class using state capitalism against the bourgeois. *Now, that is a way of looking at it, it's not exactly how it sounds. *Stalin did not do this how Lenin said, he turned Lenin's workers' state into a bourgeois state, turned it into state monopoly capitalism towards the workers, etc.

Here's an article I found on What went wrong in Russia:

Russia
What went wrong?

The Russian revolution of October 1917 was the most important event of the twentieth century. It changed the face of history. The Russian workers, organised and led by the Bolshevik Party, smashed the state power of the capitalists and the rich. They broke up the bosses' police force and bureaucracy. All armed power and authority passed into the hands of the working people. They set themselves the task of building a world socialist society, based on mutual co-operation and production for need instead of profit.

But the revolution never finished its job. The task of building socialism still lies ahead of us.

Under Stalin in the 1920's and 30s, Russia became a monstrous caricature of socialism. Instead of being a society controlled by the workers it became a totalitarian dictatorship. Workers were not allowed any freedom to express their ideas and had no control over their workplaces, their communities or their country. The so-called socialist state was not used to protect and fight for people's rights but to spy on people and make sure there was no opposition to Stalin and his government. Millions of people, including socialists, were sent to die in labour camps if they disagreed with what was happening.

So are the pessimists right when they say socialism is an impossible dream? Is capitalism just something we have to learn to live with? Will all revolutions start with hope but end in tyranny?

In 1917 the backbone of the Russian Revolution was the Soviets. These started out as councils made up from delegates of workers, peasants and soldiers. They came together to organise the fight for freedom - against the Tsar (the Russian King), against the factory owners, against police persecution and against war.

They were real democracy in action. If your delegates broke their promises or did not argue what you wanted, you could get them out immediately and replace them with someone who did! But they weren't just talking shops. Decisions would be implemented by them as they were made, whether it was a call for a demonstration, a strike, an occupation or the setting up of armed workers' defence to challenge the Tsar's police.

It was Lenin and the Bolsheviks who first realised that Soviets could be the basis for a whole new society once the capitalist class had been overthrown. They could be the foundation of a totally new type of state, where workers could directly plan and implement decisions on what was produced and how it was distributed. They could do this better than a 'normal' parliament which is elected only every five years and can then break all of its promises without being held to account.

The new workers' state pulled Russia out of the bloody First World War which the rich were fighting for profits. They gave the land to the peasants and the factories to the workers. They introduced free abortion, divorce on demand, and tried to set up decent public dining, laundry and nursery facilities, to allow women to have control of their lives instead of being treated like men's property. Homosexuality was legalised and racist anti-Jewish groups were suppressed .They sacked army officers and let the soldiers elect new ones. Their aim was to rotate all government duties so that, as Lenin put it, "all may, for a time become 'bureaucrats' and therefore nobody can become a bureaucrat".

But the Bolsheviks faced serious problems. Russia was a very backward country: 70% of production was based on farming using extremely old-fashioned methods. Only 20% of the population could read or write, limiting office tasks to a minority of the population. The industry of the country had been totally drained by the War.

Even worse, in the middle of 1918 armies from 14 different capitalist countries invaded Russia. They wanted to crush the new workers' state before it could get off its feet. All production had to be geared towards defence rather than development. Compromises that normally would never have been contemplated had to be brought in to defend the state. Plans to elect officers were temporarily scrapped, because they needed military expertise immediately! This meant re-appointing former Tsarist officers to the army, under armed guard. Those workers most committed to socialism were the first to join the Red Army and go to war to defend the revolution. Thou sands of committed revolutionaries were wiped out. To meet the needs of the desperate war effort, the running of the factories was centralised in the hands of appointed officials rather than elected delegates. Again this often meant ex-Tsarist officials. But these measures were seen as temporary, necessary evils to be reversed as soon as possible.

The Red Army, led by Leon Trotsky, defeated the counter-revolutionaries and drove them out. But Russia was devastated. Worse still, the revolution was isolated.

The Bolsheviks had always realised that Russia could not achieve socialism on its own. The most urgent task was to spread the revolution world wide. There would need to be successful revolutions in more advanced countries, like Germany and Britain, so that Russia could get technical help. If the workers in the advanced countries could take power then they would be able to send aid to Russia. They would be able to make steel for new railroads, they could help Russia set up new factories, engineers could come and help them build up industry. Without the revolution spreading, the Russian revolution would go down to defeat. That is why they formed the Communist International. It was made up of Communist Parties all over the world who were trying to spread the revolution.

But no help came. In Germany the revolution after the war was betrayed by the Social Democratic Party. Like the Labour Party in Britain today they were reformists. They opposed revolution and just tried to get a few reforms by working within the system. The workers missed their chance to take power.

In Italy the workers seized control of the factories and the peasants took over the land. They wanted revolution. But their leaders in the reformist Socialist Party said no. The workers paid a terrible price for this missed opportunity. Once the capitalists could see that the Socialist Party were not going to make a revolution, they put Mussolini's Fascists in power.

Only in Hungary did the workers take power for a short time, but they were crushed by invading armies. The Russian workers were alone.

It was the isolation of the revolution that led to its defeat. Some people say this was inevitable that all power corrupts and so the revolution was bound to go wrong. But what these pessimists ignore is that the revolution started to go wrong because of real practical problems.

The failure of revolution to spread to the West meant that Russia had to trade and do deals with the capitalists and make all sorts of compromises just to keep things going. A whole new layer of middlemen emerged, and for them compromise was not a necessary evil but a whole way of life. These people became the new bureaucrats. They looked to Stalin to protect their privileges. And they fought a long and bloody campaign to take over the Bolshevik party and the workers state.

Stalin banned all opposition and persecuted all the real socialists in the party. The leaders who had made the revolution were framed up, banished and killed one by one until only Stalin was left. The bureaucrats reversed the socialist measures that had been taken after the revolution. Abortion and homosexuality were banned again. Women were told 'your place is in the family'. The Soviets were turned into bodies to rubber-stamp Stalin's orders. Previously the Bolshevik Party was full of internal debate and discussion. But now the Chief demanded obedience and nothing more.

The idea that only world-wide revolution could build socialism was abandoned. The Stalinists argued that socialism could be built in one country alone - Russia. This was rubbish, but the last thing the bureaucrats wanted was revolution or upheaval in another country upsetting their relations with foreign capitalists. In time Stalin ordered the Communist International not to fight for socialist revolution in their own countries but make deals with capitalist parties who he thought would be friendly to Russia. To keep capitalist governments friendly Stalin got Communist Parties to sabotage workers' revolutions in countries like France in 1934 and during the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39. In this way he blocked the one thing that could have saved the Russian Revolution - more revolutions abroad.

But there were people in the Communist Parties that fought against Stalin. Trotsky and his supporters fought to keep the idea of world revolution alive. They fought for an end to the Stalin dictatorship and for the workers to seize back power from the bureaucrats.

The Stalinists responded with vicious repression of the Trotskyists. First they were expelled from the Bolshevik Party, then driven into exile. They were framed up in show trials and accused of everything under the sun. They were imprisoned, tortured and slaughtered in their thousands. Stalin's agents finally caught up with Trotsky in Mexico in 1940. He was killed by a blow to the head from an ice pick

Why did the Stalinists bother? Because the Trotskyists never gave up fighting. Every time the Communist International betrayed workers they fought against the betrayal. Every piece of repression, every lie the Stalinists told, the Trotskyists countered with real revolutionary politics. Once they recognised that the Communist International would never be revolutionary again, they tried to build a new International, the Fourth International.

Stalinism was a disaster from start to finish. But it was not the inevitable result of revolution. It was the opposite of revolution. By the 1980s Stalin's successors ended up trying to bring capitalism back to Russia - the very system the Russian Revolution had overthrown. That is why today Russia is filled with unemployment, poverty and crime.

To end as we started: the tasks of revolution still lie ahead. They fall to working class youth. Who do not bare the scars of lost battles. Who do not fear the bosses and their police. Who do not look to parties like Labour who will only betray them. And who capitalism has nothing to offer.

Stalinism may have succeeded in destroying the Russian revolution. But there is a new generation rising. We will make new revolutions. We will learn from the past and do everything in our power to build an international movement from the start.

Today, hand in hand with groups in France, Austria, Britain, Germany, Sweeden, Australia, and beyond, REVOLUTION is fighting to build an international working class youth movement. Youth are the future - join REVOLUTION and shake the world.

How can you take up for Stalin? *Yes, maybe his writings "conform" to Marxism-Leninism, but what he actually DID was to turn the whole thing over to the capitalist system. *He murdered millions! *How can you take up for a man who outdoes Hitler by something like five times!?

Here's another article:

Modern History Sourcebook:
Stalin's Purges, 1935

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1936, Stalin began to attack his political opponents in a series of" purges" aimed at destroying the vestiges of political opposition to him. What follows is the official explanation from textbooks published before Stalin's excesses were repudiated by his successors.


The achievements of Socialism in our country were a cause of rejoicing not only to the Party, and not only to the workers and collective farmers, but also to our Soviet intelligentsia, and to all honest citizens of the Soviet Union.

But they were no cause of rejoicing to the remnants of the defeated exploiting classes; on the contrary, they only enraged them the more as time went on.

They infuriated the lickspittles of the defeated classes - the puny remnants of the following of Bukharin and Trotsky.

These gentry were guided in their evaluation of the achievements of the workers and collective farmers not by the interests of the people, who applauded every such achievement, but by the interests of their own wretched and putrid faction, which had lost all contact with the realities of life. Since the achievements of Socialism in our country meant the victory of the policy of the Party and the utter bankruptcy of their own policy, these gentry, instead of admitting the obvious facts and joining the common cause, began to revenge themselves on the Party and the people for their own failure, for their own bankruptcy; they began to resort to foul play and sabotage against the cause of the workers and collective farmers, to blow up pits, set fire to factories, and commit acts of wrecking in collective and state farms, with the object of undoing the achievements of the workers and collective farmers and evoking popular discontent against the Soviet Government. And in order, while doing so, to shield their puny group from exposure and destruction, they simulated loyalty to the Party, fawned upon it, eulogized it, cringed before it more and more, while in reality continuing their underhand. subversive activities against the workers and peasants.

At the Seventeenth Party Congress, Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky made repentant speeches, praising the Party and extolling its achievements to the skies. But the congress detected a ring of insincerity and duplicity in their speeches; for what the Party expects from its members is not eulogies and rhapsodies over its achievements, but conscientious work on the Socialist front. And this was what the Bukharinites had showed no signs of for a long time. The Party saw that the hollow speeches of these gentry were in reality meant for their supporters outside the congress, to serve as a lesson to them in duplicity, and a call to them not to lay down their arms.

Speeches were also made at the Seventeenth Congress by the Trotskyites, Zinoviev and Kamenev, who lashed themselves extravagantly for their mistakes, and eulogized the Party no less extravagantly for its achievements. But the congress could not help seeing that both their nauseating self-castigation and their fulsome praise of the party were only meant to hide an uneasy and unclean conscience. However, the Party did not yet know or suspect that while these gentry were making their cloying speeches at the congress they were hatching a villainous plot against the life of S. M. Kirov.

On December 1, 1934, S. M. Kirov was foully murdered in the Smolny, in Leningrad, by a shot from a revolver.

The assassin was caught red-handed and turned out to be a member of a secret counter-revolutionary group made up of members of an anti-Soviet group of Zinovievites in Leningrad.

S. M. Kirov was loved by the Party and the working class, and his murder stirred the people profoundly, sending a wave of wrath and deep sorrow through the country.

The investigation established that in 1933 and 1934 an underground counter-revolutionary terrorist group had been formed in Leningrad consisting of former members of the Zinoviev opposition and headed by a so-called "Leningrad Centre." The purpose of this group was to murder leaders of the Communist Party. S. M. Kirov was chosen as the first victim. The testimony of the members of this counter-revolutionary group showed that they were connected with representatives of foreign capitalist states and were receiving funds from them.

The exposed members of this organization were sentenced by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. to the supreme penalty - to be shot.

Soon afterwards the existence of an underground counter-revolutionary organization called the "Moscow Centre" was discovered. The preliminary investigation and the trial revealed the villainous part played by Zinoviev, Kamenev, Yevdokimo and other leaders of this organization in cultivating the terrorist mentality among their followers, and in plotting the murder of members of the Party Central Committee and of the Soviet Government.

To such depths of duplicity and villainy had these people sunk that Zinoviev, who was one of the organizers and instigators of the assassination of S. M. Kirov, and who had urged the murderer to hasten the crime, wrote an obituary of Kirov speaking of him in terms of eulogy, and demanded that it be published.

The Zinovievites simulated remorse in court; but they persisted in their duplicity even in the dock. They concealed their connection with Trotsky. They concealed the fact that together with the Trotskyites they had sold themselves to fascist espionage services. They concealed their spying and wrecking activities. They concealed from the court their connections with the Bukharinites, and the existence of a united Trotsky-Bukharin gang of fascist hirelings.

As it later transpired, the murder of Comrade Kirov was the work of this united Trotsky-Bukharin gang....

The chief instigator and ringleader of this gang of assassins and spies was Judas Trotsky. Trotsky's assistants and agents in carrying out his counter-revolutionary instructions were Zinoviev, Kamenev and their Trotskyite underlings. They were preparing to bring about the defeat of the U.S.S.R. in the event of attack by imperialist countries; they had become defeatists with regard to the workers' and peasants' state; they had become despicable tools and agents of the German and Japanese fascists.

The main lesson which the Party organizations had to draw from the trials of the persons implicated in the foul murder of S. M. Kirov was that they must put an end to their own political blindness and political heedlessness, and must increase their vigilance and the vigilance of all Party members....

Purging and consolidating its ranks, destroying the enemies of the Party and relentlessly combating distortions of the Party line, the Bolshevik Party rallied closer than ever around its Central Committee, under whose leadership the Party and the Soviet land now passed to a new stage - the completion of the construction of a classless, Socialist society.

I note with regret that this thread, which was originally intended to discuss the possible convergence of anarchist and modern communist thought has degenerated into yet one more Stalin-Trotsky theological dispute...more or less along the same lines as different denominations of Islam fight over who was the "true and legitimate caliph" back in 800CE.

"Judas Trotsky"? *By that measure, was Stalin "Christ"?

Why are people looking for the "right" church?

bleeeeeeh! i think any one calling themselves a (persons name here) ist might as well be worshiping that person. its like saying i believ in the teachings of christ or something. why can u just be a communist with your own ideas added in? why do u have to label yourself after some philosopher or in this case some fucking exploitative dictator? i just dont understand why people have to limit themselves to certin boundries in an ideology like only believing in the teachings of stalin. fuck that man, be yourselves, dont be worshipers of philosiphers. peace.

You are right.