Stalin is trending

Post Reply
User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:48 pm

Image

Stalin did Not Deport German Communists to Hitler
October 1, 2021
By Grover Furr – Sep 23, 2021

A critique of an essay by Alex de Jong in Jacobin magazine, August 2021.

In August 2021, the social-democratic magazine Jacobin published an article by Dutch writer Alex de Jong titled “Stalin Handed Hundreds of Communist Over to Hitler.” The assertion in the article’s title is false. De Jong’s article, and other articles and books that make this claim, all commit the following three cardinal errors:

Rehabilitations

They assume that persons declared “rehabilitated” by the Khrushchev and Gorbachev regimes in the former USSR were in fact innocent of the crimes for which they were punished.

Many or most of the Germans and Austrians deported from the USSR to Germany between 1937 and 1941 were declared “rehabilitated.” However, in reality this does not at all mean that they were innocent of the charges against them. Anticommunist researcher Marc Junge notes:

… rehabilitation in the Soviet Union remained an arbitrary political and administrative act, which was primarily determined by the political expediency of the measures, but not by the correctness of criminal law. (Junge, Bucharins Rehabilitierung, Berlin, 1999, p. 266)

In Chapter 11 of my 2011 book Khrushchev Lied, I studied the rehabilitation reports that had been published by 2003. I showed that none of them contains any evidence that the person “rehabilitated” was innocent. It was politically convenient for Gorbachev (and earlier for Khrushchev) to claim that many persons convicted of serious crimes during the “Stalin period” were falsely convicted. But Gorbachev’s men did not make public the investigative files that included the evidence against the defendants or – in the case of the Germans and Austrians – even the “rehabilitation” reports.

In 2010, my colleague Vladimir L. Bobrov and I published an article on the “rehabilitation” of Nikolai Bukharin, who had been convicted of participation in the Right-Trotskyist conspiracy and executed in March 1938. There we showed that in 1988 “the Soviet Supreme Court deliberately lied about a document they cited as evidence in “rehabilitating” Bukharin. That document, finally published in 2006, in fact provides more evidence of Bukharin’s guilt!

To date we have no evidence that any of these people were innocent of the charges of which they were convicted. In those cases where we have any evidence at all, it points towards their guilt.

Conspiracies

Books and articles that claim that the Germans deported to Germany were innocent all assume that the conspiracies of which they were claimed to be guilty were bogus – did not exist.

Naturally, if no such conspiracies existed, then those convicted of participation in them, including the Germans, must be innocent. This too was claimed by Khrushchev’s and Gorbachev’s men. However, evidence from former Soviet archives shows that such conspiracies did indeed exist and were dangerous and widespread.

The investigations and trials of the period 1936-1938 broke up serious conspiracies by Trotskyists, followers of Grigory Zinoviev, military leaders, and others. The image of a “witch hunt” served the interest of anticommunists and those who, like Leon Trotsky, denied his own conspiracy and his collaboration with the Germans, Japanese, domestic fascists, and his own clandestine followers against the Stalin regime.

Failure to use the NKVD investigation files on the defendants of the 1930s.

These have been available to researchers for some years. These files normally include interrogations, confession statements, face-to-face confrontations between accusers, the investigators’ report, the prosecution’s indictment, and transcripts of the trial.

No claim that a given person is innocent or guilty can have any validity unless this, the evidence, has been studied. Neither de Jong nor his sources have studied investigation files on even one of these figures. I have obtained NKVD investigation files on a number of prominent oppositionists. One of them is Osip Pyatnitsky, leader of the Comintern until 1935, arrested in 1937, convicted and executed in 1938. De Jong could have done likewise.

Heinz Neumann had been a leader of the “left” – i.e., the anti-Stalin, anti-Soviet — opposition in the German Communist Party. De Jong claims that the charges against him and his wife, Margarete Buber-Neumann, were “trumped up.” This is false. The only evidence we have concerning the charges against Neumann – for example, in Osip Pyatnitsky’s confession statements, points towards Neumann’s guilt.

One of the women imprisoned and then deported to Germany with Buber-Neumann was Betty Ol’berg. She was the wife of Valentin Ol’berg who, at the 1936 Moscow Trial, confessed to travelling to the USSR to assassinate Stalin on instructions from Trotsky. We now have a great deal of evidence from the Soviet archives that corroborates Valentin Ol’berg’s confession.

One confession statement by Betty Ol’berg was published in 2013. In it, she admits that she and her husband had bought fake Honduran passports with the aid of both the Gestapo and of Trotsky’s son, Leon Sedov. Valentin Ol’berg was executed, but his wife was not – possibly because she cooperated with the prosecution.

Like similar articles, de Jong’s claims that the deported Germans and Austrians were (with a few exceptions) communists. This too is false. Conviction of a serious crime entailed expulsion from the communist movement. In addition, some of those deported had been expelled from their own parties as oppositionists. For the Soviets, therefore, none of them was communists when they were deported.

De Jong writes: “It is thus difficult to be sure how many people suffered the same fate as [Margarete] Buber-Neumann. A conservative estimate is that over six hundred were deported or expelled.”

Where does de Jong get this number? He cites the 1990 book by anticommunist historian Hans Schafranek, Zwischen NKWD und Gestapo. Schafranek concludes that there could not have been more than 300.

De Jong notes that Buber-Neumann called the deportations “Stalin’s gift to Hitler.” However, de Jong does not tell his readers that a careful study by the anticommunist German socialist Wilhelm Mensing concluded that this was not so.

• No “500 bitter opponents of Hitler” were deported to Germany. A little over 300 persons were deported. The Nazi regime did not punish most of those deported.

• The deportations of 1939-1941 were not aimed at communists
• There is no indication that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-aggression Pact was the motivation for the deportations.
• There is no evidence that those deported from the USSR to Germany in 1939-1941 were persecuted there. On the contrary, there is evidence that some of them, including former communists, were not molested.

Mensing also reveals that many of those deported had been convicted of one crime or another.

De Jong discusses Austrian communist Fritz Koritschoner but does not even know the charges against him. Schafranek, de Jong’s main source here, does not know either. Here, as elsewhere, de Jong simply assumes that “rehabilitation” means innocence – and it does not.

Concerning Austrian socialist Georg Bonner, de Jong writes:

A group of twenty-five deportees transferred in December 1939 included ten Schutzbündler. One of them was Georg Bogner. He had fought during the February 1934 uprising in his hometown of Attnang-Puchheim before fleeing to the Soviet Union. The Soviet secret police arrested Bogner in 1938. By late December 1939, he was in the custody of the German intelligence service, the Sicherheitsdienst, in Warsaw.

De Jong fails to add that Bogner, arrested on March 25, 1938, was not put on trial until December 14, 1939 – plenty of time for an investigation.

Bogner’s Austrian comrades had their doubts about him long before the Soviets arrested him. An anticommunist German page on Bogner states:

The Schutzbund [Protection League] collective noted that Bogner had joined a fascist organization in 1934. De Jong fails to mention this.

About Ernst Fabisch, de Jong writes:

Fabisch had joined the Communist Party of Germany (Opposition), or KPO, when he was nineteen. Led by Heinrich Brandler and August Thalheimer, the KPO was a communist current that formed part of the so-called “Right Opposition” in the movement, associated with Soviet politicians such as Nikolai Bukharin, Stalin’s last major rival. It rejected the KPD’s sectarian hostility toward Social Democrats and other socialists and argued for unity against fascism.

This is all wrong. By the 1930s, Bukharin was no “rival” of Stalin’s. Moreover, we have a great deal of evidence of Bukharin’s guilt from the former Soviet archives. As for “unity against fascism,” that had already been the Comintern and Soviet position for more than two years by the time Fabisch was arrested by the NKVD on July 29, 1937.

According to the only information I can find about him Fabisch was charged with “counterrevolutionary activity” and “membership in an armed group.” The German Wikipedia page says Fabisch was convicted of “membership in the Brandler group.” This group, expelled from the German Communist Party in 1929, was part of the international Right Opposition, which attacked the Stalin leadership of the USSR.

On November 15, 1937 (Schafranek, 136, has November 17) Fabisch was first sentenced to a term in a labor camp, and on January 5, 1938, sentenced to deportation as an undesirable foreigner.

De Jong writes: “As historian Hermann Weber pointed out, out of forty-three top leaders of the KPD, more died in the custody of the Soviet secret police than were killed by the Nazis.”

Who were they? Why doesn’t de Jong mention even one of them? In fact, Weber seems to have copied this list from one issued by Gorbachev’s men on August 3, 1989, which contains no investigation and no evidence.

De Jong writes: “Stalin disbanded the Polish Communist Party in 1938 …” This too is false.

On November 28, 1937, Comintern leader Georgi Dimitrov sent Stalin a draft resolution by the Comintern Executive Committee proposing the dissolution of the Polish Communist Party along with the reasons for it. On it in Stalin’s handwriting is the note “This dissolution is about two years late.”

Even then, the dissolution did not take place until August 16, 1938, and not by any order of Stalin but by a vote of the Comintern Executive Committee. (Dimitrov and Stalin, 1934-1943, 26-32) Therefore, Stalin did not order it – or it would have happened two to three years earlier! More evidence that Stalin was not a dictator – something the C.I.A reported in the early 1950s.

Neither Buber-Neumann nor any of the others deported to Germany by the Soviets were communists at the time they were repatriated to Germany. All had been convicted of some serious, but not capital, crime. Conviction would have meant expulsion from the communist party, if they had not quit or been expelled earlier.

In discussing the case of Hugo Eberlein, de Jong fails to mention that he appears in a summary of investigative materials concerning Comintern figures sent to Stalin by the NKVD on April 20, 1938, where some of his confessions are summarized. This document is even available on the Internet.

Soviet sources state that on July 30, 1941, Eberlein was convicted of “participation in an anti-Soviet Right-Trotskyite organization,” for which he was sentenced to execution. Eberlein had been in the anti-Thaelmann opposition in the German Communist Party.

De Jong writes: “Buber-Neumann, Fabisch, Bogner, Eberlein, and many others were victims of a witch hunt. Their ultimate fate depended on arbitrary bureaucratic decisions.”

This is a deliberate falsification, since de Jong had no way of knowing this. In every instance where I can find any evidence at all, the defendant received a trial after an extensive investigation.

For the past few years, NKVD investigative files from the 1930s have been available to researchers. But de Jong doesn’t care about evidence! However, if you don’t care about evidence, you don’t care about the truth.

De Jong is ignorant of Soviet history of this period. He writes:

The impulse behind the deportations was primarily internal to the Soviet system. Stalin’s purges had begun as an attack on a well-defined group of people: communists who were seen as potential supporters of the opposition. Over time, the use of torture and other forms of pressure to coerce suspects into naming names combined with a generalized atmosphere of paranoia and distrust and the bureaucratic imperative of arrest quotas to widen the number of targets inexorably.

This too is all wrong. The arrests and trials of conspirators were not “attacks” on anyone. They were investigations of conspiracies against Stalin and the Soviet leadership, and prosecutions of the conspirators. Today we have a great deal of evidence against these conspirators from former Soviet archives.

Only persons actually suspected of conspiracy, not “potential supporters of the opposition,” were put on trial. The Soviet government did not authorize “arrest quotas” but instead set “limits” – maximum, not minimum numbers — of arrests.

The late Stephen Cohen, whose work I have criticized elsewhere, concluded in a 2003 article that Nikolai Bukharin was not tortured. However, torture and phony charges were indeed used by Nikolai Yezhov, head (People’s Commissar) of the NKVD from August 1936 until November 1938. Yezhov and his men killed more than six hundred thousand Soviet citizens, the vast majority of whom must have been innocent of any crime. Documents from former Soviet archives have shown that Yezhov had his own dangerous conspiracy against the Soviet state. (see Furr, Yezhov vs Stalin, 2016)

Yezhov was persuaded to resign – evidently with some difficulty, according to historian Yuri Zhukov — in November 1938, and was replaced by Lavrentii Beria. Beginning in December 1938, the massive crimes of Yezhov and his men were investigated and uncovered, and the guilty parties tried and convicted.

There is no reason to doubt that Eberlein’s letter to his wife Charlotte is genuine.[1] In it, he describes his brutal treatment at the hands of Yezhov’s NKVD men. Mikhail Shreider, a former NKVD man under arrest, wrote in his memoir that in prison he had met Hugo Eberlein, who had been badly beaten.

Later, Shreider met Lavrentii Beria, who had replaced Nikolai Yezhov as head of the NKVD. When Beria heard from Shreider about Eberlein’s torture by Yezhov’s men, he expressed surprise and disbelief but promised an investigation. (NKVD Iznutri 136; 168) There is no reason Shreider would fabricate a story that made Beria look good.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

De Jong seriously distorts the nature of the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the USSR, often called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and, by anticommunists, the “Hitler-Stalin Pact.”

The Pact did not “divide the territory of the Baltic states and Poland between” Germany and the USSR. It designated Eastern Poland as a Soviet “sphere of influence.” This meant that a shrunken state of Poland could exist there, hostile to Nazi Germany and a buffer between the German army and the Soviet border.

The USSR did not “attack” Poland. The Polish government had fled the country without appointing a government-in-exile. Since by international law a state must have a government, the Germans informed the Soviets that there was no more state of Poland. That meant that to the Germans the secret protocol concerning a Soviet “sphere of influence” in Eastern Poland was no longer valid. Had the Red Army not occupied Eastern Poland, German forces could have rolled up to the pre-1939 Soviet border.

This area — “Eastern Poland” – was in reality Western Byelorussia and Western Ukraine. It had been seized by imperialist Poland in the 1919-1921 war from a weakened Soviet Russia. Therefore, in 1939 the USSR regained the territories it had lost in 1921.

The Polish government fled Poland into internment in Romania on September 17, 1939, the same day the Red Army entered Western Belorussia. September 17 is now a holiday – “Unification Day” – in Belarus.

De Jong claims that the USSR’s deportation of these Germans and Austrians was “a shocking betrayal,” and that Stalin “shamefully broke the promise” of the “right of asylum.” As we have shown, the persons repatriated to Germany had been convicted of serious crimes, while those who had once been communists no longer were.

De Jong claims that “Our own understanding of socialism should keep its promises and have human dignity at its core.” I would suggest, however, that the litany of falsehoods and omissions in de Jong’s essay suggest something else.

Socialists, communists, and all those who work for a better world free of capitalist exploitation and war, should “seek the truth from facts” and seek the facts from evidence. If de Jong had stuck to the evidence that has long been available – about the German and Austrian deportees, about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, about the opposition conspiracies against the Stalin government in the USSR – he could never have written this essay.

Instead of relying on evidence, de Jong has taken demonstrably fraudulent claims of professional anticommunists at face value. The result is yet more falsehoods, to poison the minds of people today who want to learn from the successes, as well as from the failures, of the communist movement of the past.



[1] Ruth Stoljarowa, Wladislaw Hedeler: «Deine Liebe zu unserer Sache hat dir wenig Freude und viel Leid gebracht.» Die junge Kommunistin Charlotte Scheckenreuter als Mitarbeiterin und Frau Hugo Eberleins in den 1930er-Jahren, aufgezeichnet nach den Akten in Moskauer Archiven, [Your love for our cause has brought you little joy and much suffering.” The young Communist Charlotte Scheckenreuter as a co-worker and wife of Hugo Eberlein in the 1930s, recorded according to the files in Moscow archives] in: Jahrbuch für Forschungen zur Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung, I (2008), 31 ff.



Featured image: Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin

(Marxism-Leninism Today)

https://orinocotribune.com/stalin-did-n ... to-hitler/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Thu Mar 31, 2022 11:50 am

Tskhinvali will be renamed Stalinir
colonelcassad
April 27, 2020

Image

In South Ossetia, they followed the example of the DPR and LPR, and just like in Donetsk and Lugansk, they returned to the city on holidays associated with the Second World War, the former name, by a happy coincidence, also associated with Stalin. As well as in the DPR, the Ministry of Culture of South Ossetia also will be engaged in the popularization of the name associated with Comrade Stalin.

I would suggest that all these initiatives come from one center, which is "suddenly" located in Russia. Earlier, one could see in this the intrigues of Surkov, who just oversaw the LDNR and South Ossetia with Abkhazia, but there was nothing like that under him. But as you can see, the new broom sweeps in a new way. Hence the old names of Donetsk, Lugansk and Tskhinval that returned from oblivion. The concept itself is normal, while it actually shows that there is nothing that is not just a street (in Tskhinvali, by the way, there is a Stalin street https://geodzen.com/ge/tskhinvali/stalina ), but a city can be called in honor of Stalin. Plus, the return of the name, at least on Victory Day, once again reminds us under whose leadership this victory was won. A trifle, but nice.


Stalinir. 1951 year.

It is worth noting that the Communist Party of Georgia openly welcomed the decision of the authorities of South Ossetia https://vz.ru/news/2020/4/27/1036533.html . Stalin unites.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/5 ... =3userpost

New monument to Stalin in Georgia
colonelcassad
February 21, 10:34 am

Image

In Georgia, recently opened a new monument to Stalin. Grant-eaters from Radio Liberty are indignant.

A monument to Joseph Stalin appeared in the Georgian village of Variani. It is reported by Formula TV company. Variani is located in the Gori municipality, Shida Kartli region, where the figure of Stalin is still popular - the Soviet dictator was born in this region, in the city of Gori.

Local residents told reporters that they erected the statue on their own initiative and on private property. The monument to Stalin stands in a public place, near a rural spring.

One of the heroes of the Formula report said that he restored the monument himself, adding that the majority of the village population - 90% - "respects the leader." A local resident also spoke about his attitude towards the Soviet dictator, noting that a portrait of Stalin hangs in his house, and at feasts he raises a toast to the leader of the USSR.

The opposition and civil activists in Gori are demanding a response from the local authorities. If it turns out that the monument is on municipal territory, this will be a violation of the Freedom Charter, which prohibits the use of communist and totalitarian symbols in public places, they emphasize.

“This is a continuation of Russian propaganda. What Russia is doing, for example, in Ukraine in the form of a war, in Georgia it is doing in the form of a hybrid war. I think that local and central authorities should speak loudly about this, stopping such illegal and ugly cases,” one of the local civil activists said in an interview with a TV channel.

https://www.ekhokavkaza.com/a/31711600.html - zinc

Last night, after a number of such inflammatory publications, the monument was doused with paint https://lenta.ru/news/2022/02/20/stalinnn/ from cans. Judging by the fact that even Radio Liberty admits that 90% of the villagers respect the leader, it is clearly one of the newcomers, who are shamefacedly called "civil activists." How they are twisted by Stalin. Adequate comrades Georgians respect for courage.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/7 ... =3userpost

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Mon Apr 04, 2022 1:25 pm

100 years ago the era of Stalin began
colonelcassad
April 3, 17:59

Image

100 years ago, on April 3, 1922, Comrade Stalin headed the RCP (b), becoming the General Secretary.
In fact, from that day on, Stalin received real political power, which he later consolidated in the hands of his political group, defeating Trotsky and Co., who competed with him. For the next 31 years, the country lived in the Stalin era, which radically changed both Russia and the rest of the world.

Image

And this is how modestly this landmark event for Russia was reflected in the Pravda newspaper.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/7537224.html

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Mon May 09, 2022 1:53 pm

Holiday of the winners
May 9, 1:13 am

Image

Today is the day we celebrate Victory Day, the day we won. The day we mourn is June 22, the day we were attacked.
The losers mourn on May 8th. Yes, in general.

Now, when there is a war with the historical epigones of German Nazism, the value of this holiday is only increasing.
Our ancestors did a titanic work and defeated German Nazism. Their legacy will be dealt with by our generations. No one will do this but ourselves.

Happy holiday comrades! Happy Victory Day!

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/7603284.html

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:23 pm

AN INTERVIEW WITH AYMERIC MONVILLE ON STALIN
Posted by MLToday | Jun 27, 2022

An Interview with Aymeric Monville on Stalin

Image
l
Aymeric Monville, French philosopher, director of the Les éditions Delga publishing house in Paris, deputy editor-in-chief of La Pensée magazine, in an interview with the Pravda correspondent in Western Europe, Andrei Dultsev, about the problems of perception of the historical and theoretical legacy of J.V. Stalin in Western European historiography.

_________

Andrei Dultsev [AD]: You have just published a book about Stalin, And For a Few More Canards: Counter-inquiry on Stalin and the Soviet Union. What do you think is the problem of the perception of Stalin in the West today?

Aymeric Monville [AM]: In the West, historical analysis, if you can call it that, is based on a comparison of Hitler and Stalin, which is necessary above all to justify Western democracy. The vision of World War II is based on the fact that an objective collusion between Western capitalism and Nazism, which are in fact two sides of the same economic formation at different stages of political development, is being pushed into the background, and the term ‘totalitarianism, itself ill-founded, is used as a propaganda and ideological tool to show that Nazi Germany and “Stalinism” are the main threats to the society of Western values’.

With my book, I want to return the Marxist view of things to the public space. That is, a conspiracy between Western democracies and Nazism, the perception of which suffered in the West under the influence of the ferocious anti-communism of the post-war era, which was also implanted in France, which is the weakest link in the political structure of the West. After all, France is the country of the Commune, a country of a very strong workers’ movement, a country where (along with Italy) there was the most powerful Communist Party outside the socialist community. Therefore, it is interesting to analyse the development of the vision of the USSR and the Stalin era here.

The Black Book of Communism, which was imposed on us, received extremely negative international reviews from the scientific community, due to its intellectual fatuousness. But it was in France that this book was written, to begin to change
the way things are viewed in the scientific community.

If in the countries of Latin America there is a coup d’état and the coming to power of a military junta, then universities are surrounded by tanks and professors are killed. But in France Marxists are tolerated even in universities. Here there is a different revolutionary tradition, which some time ago was once again confirmed by the example of the movement of ‘yellow vests’; therefore intellectuals are waging a fierce struggle, trying to change minds by ‘soft methods”, from within.

This intellectual battle for minds is being waged by the infantile method of demonising such an ordinary phenomenon as the cult of personality’; and, judging by the result, this method has so far been effective in deforming consciousness.

Demonisation is part of the construction of a picture of the apocalypse, with Stalin as a ‘red tyrant’ and Katyn executioner. In fact, all this serves anti-Soviet propaganda, denigrating the USSR and deepening modern Russophobia. It is here that the friendly attitude of the French people towards the Soviet people, their gratitude, is a lump in the throat of anti-communists of all stripes, because, as Maurice Thorez once said, “France will never enter a war against the USSR.” This statement by Thorez is primarily associated with the sacrifices made by the Soviet people on the altar of victory in the struggle for the liberation of Europe from fascism.

When the representative of the Russian Federation was not invited to the May 8 celebration in France last year, the memory of the Soviet feat, the memory of the 27 million victims of the Soviet people in this massacre unleashed by Hitlerite Germany, was spat upon for the first time. The demonisation of Stalin certainly contributes to the whipping up of this hysteria. This is reflected in the results of opinion polls: while, at the end of the war, the majority of French people were convinced that it was the Soviet Union that played a decisive role in the defeat of Nazism, today the situation is the opposite – most people believe that the United States won the war.

This is first of all a consequence of the influence of Hollywood. American films have led the population here to believe that it was the United States who came to liberate France, when in fact they came to impose Operation Overlord, which aimed to make France a vassal of the United States. We owe our relative independence to the strong Communist Party, which actively participated in the struggle against the German fascist occupation.

It should also be noted that it was General de Gaulle (few people mention this fact, since they usually write only about his merits) who ordered the destruction of the chapel at Fort Mont-Valérien near Paris, where many Resistance fighters were shot [the walls were demolished, the crypt was preserved -AD]. On the walls of the chapel, the Resistance fighters wrote before their execution: “Long live Stalin!” For General de Gaulle, this was a thorn in the eye, because it became obvious that the role of the communists in the Resistance movement was overwhelming and the traces of this memory had to be erased.

AD: Although in the municipalities where the communists remained in power in the post-war years, both squares and boulevards with the name “Stalingrad’ have been preserved ….

AM: Undoubtedly, Khrushchev’s report at the XX Congress of the CPSU influenced the French Communist Party.

Nevertheless, the PCF remained a party that did not immediately recognise those parts of the report that seemed simply insane (for example, that the USSR was allegedly not ready for war). The French communists refused to renounce Stalin. But in the end, revisionism won out, and today it is very strong. For real communists, the issue has not been resolved.

I will cite as an example a collaboration with the wonderful writer, Domenico Losurdo, which is very important for me. I translated Losurdo’s works from Italian into French and facilitated the translation of his books into other European languages, and this is where I ran into censorship. As long as Losurdo criticised liberalism, he was published, including in English publishing houses. Criticism of liberalism is perfectly permitted.

But as soon as he came out in defence of real socialism, even China, the British stopped publishing him. This is censorship. It’s not even a matter of the author’s personality, but the fact that a certain theme is rejected – Lenin’s thinking and a clear orientation towards socialism as a social model. Leftists refer to all sorts of Trotskyist stereotypes – “party bureaucracy” etc – but just don’t talk about the construction of real socialism.

AD: As a member of the Honecker Committee on the Affairs of Political Prisoners – the leaders of the former German Democratic Republic who were persecuted in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) after the collapse of the Wall – do you think that this battle against Stalin, which is being waged by the European pseudo-leftists (Greens. Social Democrats, the ARTE channel), is a continuation of the historical revisionism to revise the results of the Second World War, initiated by historians and politicians of the FRG?

AM: The best example of this is the ARTE channel’s documentary about Katyn, where authoritative European historians in all seriousness rely on the documents transferred to Poland by Yeltsin, on which in 1940 instead of VKP(b)” was written “CPSU”, which testifies to the grossest historical fake. The same is the case with the Mednoye memorial complex, where 6,000 shot Poles were allegedly buried, but whose bodies were never found. Unfortunately, only historians are aware of these inconsistencies.

But, far worse than these historical disputes, the film does not recognise the real borders of modern Poland. It is wrong to say that Stalin ‘invaded Poland after the German-Soviet pact. These were the Belarussian and Ukrainian lands captured by the Poles after the Civil War in Russia. The problem of Poland’s borders is important for the Germans. This means that for the Germans Poland should be pushed to the east, so Germany could lay claim to the territory of today’s western Poland, which would open the door for the new Drang nach Osten [Drive to the East].

One can, of course, argue that current politicians do not know history and are not interested in it, but I think that this is sometimes a trick, because among them there are those who know it very well. I think that responsible politicians knew what they were doing on 22 June 2021, when Europe announced sanctions against Belarus. Considering the brazen financing of Nazi movements in Ukraine, one can safely assert there are plans for a new ‘fourth Reich’, hence solidarity with the German communists is urgently needed. We see the extent to which the German Communist Party (DKP) is persecuted, and the same applies to Junge Welt, which for me, like Pravda, is the standard of Marxist thought today. But Junge Welt in Germany is actually under threat of extinction.

Last year, even the Association of Victims of the Nazi Regime was attacked in Germany under the pretext of “extremism.” Undoubtedly, our creation of the Honecker Committee in France was symbolic, because it was this communist that the West German authorities imprisoned in the early 1990s in the same Moabit prison in which the Nazis threw him in the 1930s. West German justice knew perfectly well what it was doing. We must defend communists everywhere, all over the world in the face of anti-communist repression.

AD: One of the books that came out recently in your publishing house is a book by Italian historians Daniele Burgio, Massimo Leoni and Roberto Sidoli about Trotsky’s collusion with the Nazis, about previously unknown documents of the second ‘Moscow trial’ (against Pyatakov and Radek).

AM. This book seems to me absolutely necessary, because it talks about the second ‘Moscow trial’ in January 1937 and provides irrefutable evidence of the collaboration of Trotsky and the Trotskyist centre in the USSR with the Nazis. I insist on the word “irrefutable”, given that Khrushchev’s report cast doubt on this entire period.

Undoubtedly, the period of party purges had its dark spots, but it is necessary to distinguish between the activities of the People’s Commissar Yezhov and ‘Yezhovism’ and the Moscow trials. The problem is that “Yezhovism”, and later the very report of Khrushchev at the XX Congress, defamed the “Moscow trials”: this term has become in Europe a synonym for a falsifed trial.

Through this publication, I want to demonstrate that the second “Moscow trial”, in particular, was justified. This is confirmed by the state of the sources of the case, which cannot be denied; this is the problem of Trotsky’s archives, which the inconsistency of his texts of that period, his statements before the Dewey Commission. The book carefully compiles Trotsky’s lapses, his previously unknown letters that were found in the archives which prove, for example, that he was in con tact with Radek, although both denied this,

The main subject of the investigation of the historians was the secret flight of Yuri Pyatakov to Trotsky in Oslo in December, 1935. We have all the evidence that the Norwegian authorities lied by denying it. To meet with Trotsky, Pyatakov took advantage of an official mission: in December 1935, he flew to Berlin on the instructions of the Party in order to search for suppliers of industrial goods (after the Nazis came to power, economic relations between the USSR and Germany which at the end of the 1920s were more than intense, and remained so for some time). Then, from Berlin, Pyatakov flew to Oslo lo see Trotsky for a one-day meeting, which could not be done without the complicity of the German authorities, who gave him a visa.

The question is, rather, why did Pyatakoy undertake such an action, knowing that he was under the supervision of the Soviet embassy? Because Trotsky presented him with the fait accompli of an alliance with the Nazis. And because Pyatakov decided to meet with Trotsky at any cost and with such a risk, since from their point of view there was a possibility of a coup d’état in the USSR.

AD: Do you agree that behind the attack on Stalin lies an attack on anti-fascism and the ideas of socialism in general?

AM: Further in 1939, Trotsky took a position in support of the independence of Ukraine, publishing four articles in which he passionately stood for it, supporting nationalists and knowing full well that Ukraine was the key for the Germans to the Caucasus and the oil rigs of Baku. These facts must be matched with the positions of today’s Trotskyists and Western leftists. Being anti-Stalinists, and following Trotsky’s line, they side with the social democrats in defending the European Union.

Take, for example, the Dimitrov trial in Nazi Germany in the face of absolute lawlessness and the Nazi terrorist regime, Dimitrov courageously defended himself, and Goering could not prove anything against him. So why did Pyatakov and Radek, who had all the means of defence, in the face of socialist democratic justice, not do something like this?

Of course, the Stalinist period is controversial, but considering it, one must understand that Stalin was a man endowed with the greatest political responsibility for the fate of the world in the twentieth century. Yes, Stalin is a man of contrasts, who sometimes had to make difficult political choices. But it is a shame that the books of this ‘wonderful Georgian’, as Lenin called him, are not being published in Europe today.

AD: In your book A Few More Canards you also return to the real number of repressions in the USSR, rejecting the nonsense about “hundreds of millions murdered”. To what extent is your book capable of making a breakthrough in changing the balance of power in the battle for historical truth?

AM: I like to participate in debates using the slightest opportunity and platform. But given the West’s strategy against the USSR and Stalin, I have little hope. In the case of our new book, Pyatakov’s Flight, we prove to our opponents the historical correctness of the Moscow trials. Moreover, if you familiarise yourself with the materials of those trials, you will see that such an amount of evidence is impossible to fake.

However, what, in fact, to prove? If in December 1935 Trotsky boasted that Pyatakov had come to him in Norway, then later Trotsky perjured himself before the Dewey Commission in saying that he, while in Norway, fell on skis and could not meet with anyone. Yes, there was a fall, but it happened ten days later, after Pyatakov’s visit. We also proved the inconsistency of the reports of the Oslo airport, where the words “not a single foreign plane arrived” were played up. But Pyatakov flew in from Berlin on a Norwegian plane.

Further: Trotsky’s diary up to 1935 has been published, but his notes of the last years of his life were never published…. We are pleased to disclose all these facts. Our main task is to restore historical justice with an approach open even to non-Marxists. I believe that in the long run, we will prevail.

AM: At the same time, Stalin’s texts are extremely important and modern: it is necessary to study his works on linguistics, on the national question, on the problems of socialism in the USSR. It is necessary to study Stalin precisely as a theoretician. I read the book by Viktor Trushkov, Stalin as a Theorist, with great interest and I have great respect for the tremendous work he has done.

In France, we are far from this, we must first study the historical role of Stalin, understand the organisation of the Land of Soviets, the architecture of the economic breakthrough of the first five-year plans, the role of market mechanisms in the transition from capitalism to socialism. This is all part of the analysis we need in France.

AD: This year in France Hitler’s book Mein Kampf was republished, with commentaries by historians, in a circulation of 55,000 copies, which is a record today. At the same time, no one publishes Stalin’s works, and Lenin and Marx are extremely rare on the shelves ….

AM: In les Éditions Delga we do not publish the classics of Marxism-Leninism, this is not our format, but we are going to publish, for example, the transcripts of the “Moscow trials” in order to expose the lie in the West that they were falsified. Many people here have a false opinion that, after the assassination of Kirov, Stalin, like a crazy tyrant, pressed all buttons on all floors. That’s bullshit.

AD: Why is Stalin the first target for anti-communists of all stripes?

AM: Jean-Paul Sartre once said that, after the Hungarian events of 1956, the bourgeoisie breathed a sigh of relief: they found something to criticise behind the Iron Curtain”. Until 1956, the bourgeoisie was constantly under attack unilaterally due to the injustice of capitalist society, its internal disorder, and in 1956 they saw that a conflict was brewing within the socialist bloc – and they played this card. This is the whole tragedy of the XX Congress.

For the bourgeoisie, after the war, Stalin became a kind of monolith that had to be destroyed at any cost. They promoted tales of the horrors of the Gulag to justify their own crimes – while the Soviet penitentiary system based on re-education, in which there were libraries, independent activities of prisoners and treatment (the same Solzhenitsyn was cured of cancer), is incomparable with the Nazi death camps, in which lampshades were covered with human skin.

In the same way, it is wrong to call Stalin the red tsar – he never was, he remained until the end of his days a Bolshevik. a Leninist. Stalin is a collective image of what the anti-communists cannot accept. The Soviet experience, Stalin, and to some extent the success of today’s China, are causing headaches for the capitalists. For them, this is an incomprehensible matrix. They are unable to comprehend the reasons for the economic and military miracle of the Stalinist USSR. Hatred of Stalin gives us Marxist Leninists the key to realising the hatred of the imperialists for any form of social organisation more modern than capitalism.

https://mltoday.com/an-interview-with-a ... on-stalin/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Sat Jul 30, 2022 4:53 pm

Theses on „Stalin’s repressions”
Translated by Ekaterina Smirnova

I. The repressive policy of the dictatorship of the working class in the USSR was science-based, had a defensive character, being a form of social protection of the gains of the revolution in the class struggle.

II. State coercion in the USSR was used in accordance with the existing legal framework, socialist legality and revolutionary expediency. Any violation of socialist legality committed by the use of state coercion was a crime and was punished accordingly under the Soviet laws, damaging the authority and power of the working class. The concepts of “distortions”, of “acceptable mass victims” (“if you hew trees the chips must fly”) have nothing to do with the state policy of the USSR.

III. The system of state coercion in the USSR was the most humane state violence in the history of mankind, including the functioning of correctional labor institutions and the applicable penalties. Any seeming cruelty of the Soviet punitive system is reasoned by the false facts or incorrect comparison of different historical and socio-political conditions. The state of any bourgeois country of that time and in similar conditions was more repressive and tougher than the USSR.

IV. The so-called Stalin’s repressions are a myth. All historiography and its serving institutions were created by the forces of imperialism for the largest falsification in history in order to discredit communism. Since the first Five-Year plans the world oligarchy essentially had nothing to oppose communism in theory and practice, so it was forced to use the myths created by Trotsky and Khrushchev, to frame up the relevant documentary, pseudoscientific, literary and artistic base in order to have a reliable ideological and political weapon in their hands. Detailed examination of any element or aspect of the theory of “Stalin’s repressions” (national operations, NKVD Order No. 0047, about 650 thousand death sentences for 16 months of 1937 — 1938, etc.) reveals its complete failure and falsity of the proposed facts. All the theorists of Stalin’s repressions, including Zemskov, are the falsifiers of history.

V. Along with the myth of “Stalin’s repressions”, anti-communist historiography is extremely rich in other various anti-scientific interpretations, up to the most raving. But the main thing in it is a number of “generally recognized” myths, which are based on false documents and other falsified sources. The most popular among them, in addition to “Stalin’s repressions”, are “genocide of the peasants” (“Holodomor”), “huge losses of the USSR in the war with Finland”, “secret agreements between Stalin and Hitler” (“secret protocol” to the Soviet-German Treaty of Non-Aggression), “Katyn shooting of the NKVD”, “huge losses of the USSR in the Great Patriotic war”. These historical “facts” based on fakes are included in the history textbooks of all bourgeois countries and have become the core of bourgeois historical science, the basis of modern anti-communism. Modern anti-communism = anti-Stalinism.

ВКонтактеFacebookЖивой журналTwitterSkypeWhatsApp

https://prorivists.org/eng_stalins-repressions/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Fri Aug 05, 2022 2:54 pm

Joseph Stalin arrested in Sri Lanka
August 4, 15:45

Image

In Sri Lanka, Joseph Stalin was arrested for holding unsanctioned demonstrations in support of the workers.
And it's not a joke.

Joseph Stalin arrested for holding protests

On August 3, the trade union leader of Sri Lanka, Joseph Stalin, was arrested. Stalin is the secretary of the Union of Teachers. was at the forefront of the protests that led to the removal of President Gotabai Rajapaksa.

Named after the leader of the USSR, Joseph Stalin, is the highest-ranking activist arrested after the protests that led to the president's resignation. “He is being arrested for holding a demonstration in May in violation of a court order,” police told reporters ( https://www.news24.com/news24/world/new ... n-arrested -for-holding-protests-20220803 ) during his detention.

There is also information about the arrest of other activists accused of damaging state property during months of protests against the backdrop of the economic crisis and energy collapse, which peaked on July 9.

Tens of thousands of people stormed Rajapaksa's palace, forcing him to flee the country and then retire.

Rajapaksa's successor, Ranil Wickremesinghe, promised tough measures against "any troublemaker".

https://t.me/pravda_gazeta/1622 - zinc

Freedom to Stalin!

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/7779100.html

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Tue Sep 06, 2022 2:28 pm

Theses on „Stalin’s repressions”
Translated by Ekaterina Smirnova

I. The repressive policy of the dictatorship of the working class in the USSR was science-based, had a defensive character, being a form of social protection of the gains of the revolution in the class struggle.

II. State coercion in the USSR was used in accordance with the existing legal framework, socialist legality and revolutionary expediency. Any violation of socialist legality committed by the use of state coercion was a crime and was punished accordingly under the Soviet laws, damaging the authority and power of the working class. The concepts of “distortions”, of “acceptable mass victims” (“if you hew trees the chips must fly”) have nothing to do with the state policy of the USSR.

III. The system of state coercion in the USSR was the most humane state violence in the history of mankind, including the functioning of correctional labor institutions and the applicable penalties. Any seeming cruelty of the Soviet punitive system is reasoned by the false facts or incorrect comparison of different historical and socio-political conditions. The state of any bourgeois country of that time and in similar conditions was more repressive and tougher than the USSR.

IV. The so-called Stalin’s repressions are a myth. All historiography and its serving institutions were created by the forces of imperialism for the largest falsification in history in order to discredit communism. Since the first Five-Year plans the world oligarchy essentially had nothing to oppose communism in theory and practice, so it was forced to use the myths created by Trotsky and Khrushchev, to frame up the relevant documentary, pseudoscientific, literary and artistic base in order to have a reliable ideological and political weapon in their hands. Detailed examination of any element or aspect of the theory of “Stalin’s repressions” (national operations, NKVD Order No. 0047, about 650 thousand death sentences for 16 months of 1937 — 1938, etc.) reveals its complete failure and falsity of the proposed facts. All the theorists of Stalin’s repressions, including Zemskov, are the falsifiers of history.

V. Along with the myth of “Stalin’s repressions”, anti-communist historiography is extremely rich in other various anti-scientific interpretations, up to the most raving. But the main thing in it is a number of “generally recognized” myths, which are based on false documents and other falsified sources. The most popular among them, in addition to “Stalin’s repressions”, are “genocide of the peasants” (“Holodomor”), “huge losses of the USSR in the war with Finland”, “secret agreements between Stalin and Hitler” (“secret protocol” to the Soviet-German Treaty of Non-Aggression), “Katyn shooting of the NKVD”, “huge losses of the USSR in the Great Patriotic war”. These historical “facts” based on fakes are included in the history textbooks of all bourgeois countries and have become the core of bourgeois historical science, the basis of modern anti-communism. Modern anti-communism = anti-Stalinism.

https://prorivists.org/eng_stalins-repressions/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Sun Oct 16, 2022 2:39 pm

The Demonization of Stalin is About Hiding His Great Contributions to Revolutionary Theory
OCTOBER 16, 2022

Image
Poster titled "Forward to Communism" showing Stalin leading thousands of people. Photo: Russian State Library.

By Rainer Shea – Oct 7, 2022

Why is “Stalinist” used as a pejorative, despite there not even being an actual ideology called “Stalinism?” Because under the worldview that anti-communist propagandists and their ideological lackeys seek to cultivate, studying Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory is associated with being complicit in the myriad of atrocities which Stalin is accused of. The false image of Stalin that these propagandists have manufactured is meant to serve as a representation of Marxism in general.

The dishonest nature of this rhetorical tactic is found in the very framing of the “Stalinist” insult. The implication of this insult is that a cult of personality has always existed around Stalin, one which those who study Marxism have by extension bought into. But this idea comes from the misleading narrative that such a cult existed around Stalin. The “Stalin has a cult of personality” claim was originally cultivated by opportunistic individuals within the Soviet government, who sought to discredit Stalin by portraying him as vain and those who supported him as naive. Stalin criticized and ridiculed the idea that he deserved any sort of cult around him, making the accusation that Marxist-Leninists are merely indulging the wishes of an egomaniac totally absurd.

It’s also dishonest in that it portrays the fictional “Stalinism” ideology as something to associate with indefensible crimes against humanity. The claims that paint Stalin as some sort of genocidal war criminal all originate either from Nazi propagandists, or from anti-communist authors whose assertions have been debunked, or from those opportunistic Soviet leaders I mentioned. The “Stalin starved Ukraine” claim comes from the Third Reich, which got the U.S. media to broadcast their lie. The accounts of the Soviet gulags and the Great Terror that Westerners usually get exposed to come from discredited sources like Robert Conquest and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. The claims that Stalin was to blame for the Soviet legal system’s miscarriages of justice come from Nikita Krushchev, who’s been debunked on every single one of his charges against Stalin.

The Failed Serotonin Theory of Depression: A Marxist Analysis


It all comes back to what Che Guevara said: “In the so called mistakes of Stalin lies the difference between a revolutionary attitude and a revisionist attitude. You have to look at Stalin in the historical context in which he moves, you don’t have to look at him as some kind of brute, but in that particular historical context. I have come to communism because of daddy Stalin and nobody must come and tell me that I mustn’t read Stalin.”

What information have the deceivers, demagogues, and manipulators who’ve slandered Stalin been seeking to turn us away from? What kind of knowledge was Che referring to in his statement about how powerful Stalin’s writings were? As I dive into Stalin’s works, I get a sense of how good a job he did of making proletarian revolutionary theory comprehensible, and therefore how dangerous his ideas are to the ideological defenders of capital.

The first Stalin passage I came across that struck me in this way was this one, from Chapter One of his book The Foundations of Leninism:

Imperialism is the omnipotence of the monopolist trusts and syndicates, of the banks and the financial oligarchy, in the industrial countries. In the fight against this omnipotence, the customary methods of the working class-trade unions and cooperatives, parliamentary parties and the parliamentary struggle-have proved to be totally inadequate. Either place yourself at the mercy of capital, eke out a wretched existence as of old and sink lower and lower, or adopt a new weapon-this is the alternative imperialism puts before the vast masses of the proletariat. Imperialism brings the working class to revolution.

This passage starts to give us a sense of why Che was moved to become a communist from reading Stalin. In it, he summarizes the reasons behind why workers and poor people will never have their interests represented under the existing state structure. And he supports this argument not simply by stating that the capitalist state is innately bad, but by explaining how even the supposed options for change that the proletariat is offered won’t be effective for as long as the capitalist state exists. He calls this harsh reality about life under capitalism the “first contradiction” of imperialism, where the development of capitalism towards its imperialist form fortifies the despotic power of the capitalist state and leaves the proletariat with no option other than revolution.

He then explained that imperialism’s second contradiction is the weakening of capital which emerges when the different imperialist powers inevitably fight amongst each other for dominance, and that imperialism’s third contradiction is the vast disparity between oppressor countries and exploited countries which inevitably leads towards revolutions within the exploited countries.

These innate weaknesses in the system we live under, said Stalin, are going to lead to “the acceleration of the advent of the proletarian revolution and to the practical necessity of this revolution.” Here we see Stalin, with the knowledge he had gained from the first world war and the Russian revolution, expanding upon the prediction from Marx that capitalism will one day eat itself. Stalin explained why the events of the early 20th century had totally vindicated the Marxist view of where capitalism was headed. And all the wars, revolutions, and economic crises under capitalism since then have only further proven Marx (and Stalin by extension) right.

Having established why capitalism was doomed to collapse and create the seeds for revolution, in the second chapter of The Foundations of Leninism Stalin explained why these post-collapse conditions would be able to specifically facilitate a proletarian revolution in the vein of the Bolshevik rise to power. He did this by repudiating the nonsense claims from the opportunistic bourgeois reformists, who used a series of dogmatic beliefs to say that the creation of a new workers’ democracy was unrealistic:

First dogma: concerning the conditions for the seizure of power by the proletariat. The opportunists assert that the proletariat cannot and ought not to take power unless it constitutes a majority in the country. No proofs are brought forward, for there are no proofs, either theoretical or practical, that can bear out this absurd thesis…Second dogma: the proletariat cannot retain power if it lacks an adequate number of trained cultural and administrative cadres capable of organising the administration of the country; these cadres must first be trained under capitalist conditions, and only then can power be taken. Let us assume that this is so, replies Lenin; but why not turn it this way: first take power, create favourable conditions for the development of the proletariat, and then proceed with seven-league strides to raise the cultural level of the labouring masses and train numerous cadres of leaders and administrators from among the workers?

The Dialectical Ascension From the Abstract to the Concrete


In this section, he explained how relatively easy the task of creating a Marxist-Leninist workers state would actually be. The liberals, who continue to assert in various ways that the current conditions make it impractical for a dictatorship of the proletariat to be newly established in any nation, are proven wrong by these and the other arguments Stalin put forth. And as for the similarly demoralizing false belief that a revolution can only happen after an unlikely set of conditions arise within a given country, in Chapter Three Stalin applies Leninism to expose the truth:

Formerly the proletarian revolution was regarded exclusively as the result of the internal development of a given country. Now, this point of view is no longer adequate. Now the proletarian revolution must be regarded primarily as the result of the development of the contradictions within the world system of imperialism, as the result of the breaking of the chain of the world imperialist front in one country or another. Where will the revolution begin? Where, in what country, can the front of capital be pierced first? Where industry is more developed, where the proletarian constitutes the majority, where the proletariat constitutes the majority, where the there is more culture, where there is more democracy-that was the reply usually given formerly. No, objects the Leninist theory of revolution, not necessarily where industry is more developed, and so forth. The front of capital will be pierced where the chain of imperialism is weakest, for the proletarian revolution is the result of the breaking of the chain of the world imperialist front at its weakest link

And how can the chain of capital become weak in a given country? Through the unavoidable processes of imperialist and capitalist collapse that Stalin explained earlier. Whether the bourgeoisie will it or not, their system is going to result in increasing class tensions due to unacceptable worker conditions, the mutual weakening of the imperialist powers due to their own greed, and rebellions from the colonies that the imperialists have forced into subjugation.

I still have a lot more of Stalin’s works to read, but after absorbing these ideas of his, I’ve already gotten a sense of why his works are seen as so threatening to the guardians of the ruling class hegemony. The realities he exposes about the self-defeating nature of capitalism and the practicality of proletarian revolution are terrifying to the world’s exploiters, because they have the potential to show the masses why it makes logical sense to join the side of Marxism-Leninism. In the face of Stalin’s works, all the bourgeois propagandists can do is throw out slanders and keep repeating “Stalinism” as an epithet, unable to stop people like Che from coming to communism because of Stalin’s contributions to theory.

https://orinocotribune.com/the-demoniza ... -theory-2/

A little 'over the top', which we have learned to expect from Mr Shea. While I have certainly found the writings of Stalin useful for their plainspoken-ness sometimes he is a bit 'mechanistic'.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
blindpig
Posts: 10592
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle Island
Contact:

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Wed Dec 07, 2022 4:59 pm

Monument to Stalin unveiled in Naberezhnye Chelny
December 7, 11:01

Image

“Let the younger generation see an example”: a monument to Stalin was erected on the school grounds. 5 years ago, they wanted to create a memorial to the repressed here

A monument to Joseph Stalin was erected on the territory of a private school in Naberezhnye Chelny. This was told to our colleagues from 116.RU by the director of the Dare to Dream family school Maxim Evteshin.

Now the installation work is going on. The sculpture will appear in the closed territory of the institution. The monument will officially open in the spring. But judging by the footage circulating on social networks, the monument is already in place.

“The composition is being built with the aim of raising students' interest in our recent history, without linking it to the role of an individual, about which one can talk endlessly and never come to the truth,” Evteshin explained.

The director listed the events of the Stalin era, to which he would like to draw the attention of the younger generation. Here is the list without changes:

annual reduction in retail prices;
construction of more than 1,500 major industrial facilities, including DneproGES, Uralmash, KhTZ, GAZ, ZIS, factories in Magnitogorsk, Chelyabinsk, Norilsk, Stalingrad;
the construction of the world's first nuclear power plant and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by our country;
provision by the state of free apartments, free education, medicine, etc.
Yevteshin expressed the hope that the youth will be able to "repeat and surpass all the good deeds of the Stalin era." We add that children in grades 1-5 study at a private school.

The 116.RU journalist also asked, for example, how much the monument cost and at whose expense it was installed. However, Yevteshin promised to answer the rest of the questions only at the opening.

https://msk1.ru/text/politics/2022/12/06/71875406/ - zinc

Image

The official opening of the monument is scheduled for spring. In social networks, a number of residents of the motor city supported the installation of such a monument, thanking the school for the initiative.

“I will definitely go and have a look! Worthy memorial! School - well done! writes a local resident.

“The living would be returned from the other world,” the user comments on the news.

“Well done, you still need the same Stalin alive,” agreed a resident of Chelny.

“It needs to be resurrected in general, before the New Year everyone would have been bombed,” writes another man.

At the same time, the photojournalist of BUSINESS Online was not allowed into the school grounds. The picture had to be taken outside the gate. It also became known that the director of the loudspeaker announced that the educational institution would not give any more comments on the monument.

A private educational institution is engaged in the education of children of school age. “We give children a national education in classical traditions in an atmosphere of a large family,” the description of the school’s page on social networks says. The school administration also believes: “Education should also fulfill the most important social task - to translate the cultural, historical, moral, value heritage into the future, to create the future itself according to certain already created models.”

https://www.business-gazeta.ru/news/574747 - zinc

As he wrote in the middle of the 2000s, the opening of new monuments to Stalin in Russia is historically inevitable. This is far from the last monument to Stalin in Russia to be erected in the coming years.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/8016142.html

Google Translator
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply