Stalin is trending

User avatar
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle island

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Wed May 08, 2019 1:49 pm

Stalin on Khrustaleva
May 8, 16:09


By the holidays, already familiar poster with Stalin appeared on Khrustaleva Avenue in Sevastopol.
Until 2014, the local Ukrainian authorities fought with such posters, trying to prevent the "Union of Soviet Officers" from hanging posters with Stalin in Sevastopol.
After 2014, Stalin was already hanging around a lot and got used to it. Stalin and Stalin, so what.

Google Translator
"We ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."

User avatar
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle island

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:07 pm

here is a bit from Losurdo's Stalin book which we all await in English translation. Dunno if this is from the forthcoming publication or something else.



"We ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."

User avatar
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle island

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Sat Jun 22, 2019 3:19 pm

Grover Furr on the continuing revolution in Stalin-era history

Exposing the psychological warfare that has been waged against workers under the banner of ‘Soviet studies’.
Grover Furr

Friday 21 June 2019

Grover Furr, professor in mediaeval literature and specialist in Soviet history debunks ten of the greatest anti-Soviet and anti-Stalin lies.

** Grover Furr will speak in London on Wednesday 24 July 2019 **
Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, Holbourn. WC1R 4RC
6.30pm on Wed 24 July 2019
Join us!

“No book that is not hostile to Josef Stalin can be published by an academic publisher.” There is no objectivity to be found in any officially-sanctioned ‘research’ about his period of leadership of the USSR. It is well-paid and widely disseminated psychological warfare.

Having learned the Russian and Ukrainian languages so as to be able to investigate the source material thoroughly, including the archives of the USSR that were opened in 1991, Professor Furr reveals with certainty and authority that the story presented to the general public about Stalin and socialism in the USSR is entirely false.

His findings confirm the Soviet and communist understanding that the class struggle intensifies rather than abates after the victorious revolution of the working people. They confirm that it absolutely necessary for the working class to establish its revolutionary dictatorship to defend and continue the revolution.

Ten common lies disproven by Prof Furr as slander and falsification
1. ‘Stalin was against democracy’

In fact, he was the moving force behind the 1936 constitution – the most democratic ever written.

2. ‘Khrushchev spoke the truth in his 1956 “secret speech”‘

In fact, it was lies from start to finish. As a result of those lies, the world communist movement halved over the next two years.

The capitalist press, anticommunist authors like Robert Conquest, and fake socialists such as the anarchists and Trotskyists all echoed Khrushchev’s lies.

Revisionist ‘official Soviet history’ from Khrushchev to Gorbachev paved the way to counter-revolution. ‘Stalin and Beria’s crimes’ were a complete fabrication by Khrushchev.

3. ‘The murder of Sergei Kirov was organised by Stalin’

Kirov was the first secretary of the Bolshevik party in Leningrad, and was murdered in December 1934 by Leonid Nikolaev, who was part of conspiracy to put Grigorii Zinoviev into power. Fourteen men were indicted, tried, convicted and executed for his murder in 1935.

Over the course of three years, a wider plot was uncovered, and links to Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev were proven, as well as to a military group around Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky.

In 1936, 1937 and 1938, the ‘Moscow trials’ were held, in which these anti-Soviet plotters were exposed. The Soviet narrative around all this is true, and Trotsky was also linked to this conspiracy.

4. ‘Stalin was like Hitler’

This lie was peddled once again in Bloodlands, a book by Timothy Snyder, professor at Yale, who has written dozens of articles for the New York review of books, the Times, etc. In his book he repeated the old imperialist trope of equating Stalin with Hitler and was lauded with prizes and rave reviews as a result. Snyder’s works have been translated into 26 languages and distributed around the world by a grateful imperialist media machine.

He claims that during World War 2 the Soviets killed between six and nine million civilians. Professor Furr checked every footnote and reference in Snyder’s book, reading the original sources in Polish and Ukrainian. He found every alleged ‘crime’ to be false and that Snyder was deliberately lying about the evidence as well as citing lying sources.

Not a single accusation against Stalin held up to scrutiny. These dedicated anticommunists could not find a single actual crime to accuse him of! This fact in itself is compelling evidence that there are no such crimes.

5. ‘Trotsky was wrongly accused by Stalin’

In fact, in the 1930s Trotsky was conspiring against the USSR and formed a coalition with right-wingers in the party with the aim of overthrowing socialist rule. Pierre Broué, his biographer, discovered letters between Leon Sedov (Trotsky’s son) and Trotsky that proved the existence of the block between Trotsky and the rights within the USSR, formed in 1932.

6. ‘Trotsky was a loyal Bolshevik’

Most shocking of all his crimes, Professor Furr found irrefutable evidence that Trotsky conspired with the Japanese and German governments against the USSR during WW2.

If his plans had been successful, the Soviet people and resources would have been put at the disposal of the fascist forces. The outcome of the war would have been completely different. The unmasking of this plot was a vital step in the defeat of fascism.

7. ‘The Moscow trials were faked’

In fact, all the evidence shows that the defendants were not coerced and that they were indeed guilty of assassinating Kirov and planning to assassinate Stalin, Molotov, Kaganovich and others, and of attempting to organise a coup with the aid of the Japanese and the Germans.

Nikolai Yezhov (head of the NKVD head in 1937-8) was also proven to be conspiring with the Germans.

8. ‘Yezhov was falsely accused’

The evidence proves that Nikolai Yezhov really did head a conspiracy against the USSR and its leadership, and collaborated with Nazi fascism.

9. ‘The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a betrayal; the Soviet Union “invaded” Poland in 1939’

The pact was not an alliance; it was a vital step in buying the Soviet Union more time to build its defences, and all the allies agreed at the time that the USSR had not ‘invaded’ Poland but merely stopped the Germans from advancing over its entire territory after the Polish government collapsed and fled.

10. ‘The Soviets perpetrated the Katyn massacre’

In April 1943, during WW2, the Nazis claimed to have found the bodies of Polish officers allegedly shot by the Soviet army and buried in mass graves. This was Nazi propaganda designed to split the antifascist alliance, which was beating the German war machine.

In fact, all the evidence proves that Katyn was a Nazi German crime and that the allegation against the USSR was a lie.

Professor Furr also touches on other disputed topics such as Soviet collectivisation, the Dewey Commission (a group of Trotskyists who set up an inquiry into the charges against Trotsky), the alleged ‘Holodomor’ (famine in Ukraine).

The standard narratives about all these – taught to school and university students and propagated in books, films and TV shows – says Professor Furr, are all part of a great anti-Soviet lie.

“No book that is not hostile to Stalin can be published by an academic publisher,” he says. There is no objectivity to be found on this topic; it is pure psychological warfare against the workers of the world.

‘Soviet studies’ in the west, he concludes, is simply “propaganda with footnotes”. ... a-history/
"We ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."

User avatar
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle island

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:32 pm

A completed first draft translation of Losurdo's book "Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend" Translation by David Ferreira @Igualitarista

Introduction: The Turning Point in the Historical Depiction of Stalin
1. How to Cast a God into Hell: The Khrushchev Report
2. The Bolsheviks: From Ideological Conflict to Civil War
3. Between The Twentieth Century and The Longue Durée, from the History of Marxism to the History of Russia: the Origins of "Stalinism"
4. The Complex and Contradictory Course of the Stalin Era
5. The Distortion of History and the Construction of a Mythology: Stalin and Hitler as Twin Monsters
6. Psychopathology, Morality, and History in the Reading of the Stalin Era
7. The Depiction of Stalin between History and Mythology
8. Demonization and Hagiography in the Reading of the Contemporary World

Note: the translation was done using the Portuguese edition of the book, often consulting the Spanish edition, not the original Italian edition. ... xw93A/edit
"We ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."

User avatar
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle island

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Fri Jul 26, 2019 1:32 pm

Workers in eastern Europe and former Soviet states prefer socialism
As the dystopian reality of bourgeois exploitation and ‘democracy’ hits home, Stalin and communism are viewed with respect and longing.
Proletarian writers

Friday 26 July 2019

Hundreds of supporters gather to mark Josef Stalin's 139th birthday in Moscow's Red Square, 21 December 2018.

Former Soviet leader Josef Stalin’s approval rating has hit a record high of 70 percent amongst Russians, according to a study published by the Levada polling centre. (Stalin’s approval rating among Russians hits record high, The Moscow Times, 16 April 2019)

We are used to reading opinion polls, and being justifiably sceptical about their findings. Very often, a tiny proportion of the public is polled, and the methodology is key to determining the responses and therefore the outcomes. In ‘the west’, so-called ‘opinion polling’ is in general a technique of population manipulation, rather than one of enquiring science.

In this case, however, we note the general hostility of those conducting such polls – as evidenced by the liberal sprinkling of their reporting with the terms ‘regime’ and ‘dictator’ in relation to the socialist and workers’ states, while they refer to the corrupt capitalist kleptocracies now installed as having brought the great benefits of ‘freedom, jeans, open borders and coca-cola’. Understanding that bourgeois biases were stacked against an accurate recording of the people’s hatred of their present exploitation, we can begin to glimpse a greater truth that lies beneath.

With this in mind, it is worth examining some of the opinion polls of the peoples of the former socialist countries, 30 years on from the counter-revolution.

Over the past decade, polls have been conducted in each of the former democratic republics, allowing us to gauge their experience of the wonders of free-market (ie, monopoly) capitalism. A number of well-known western-European capitalist journals seem to be shocked at their reported results. Bourgeois journalists couch their own surprise in customary cynicism and dismiss the longing of eastern European workers for the return of the decency and optimism of their lost socialist systems as ‘nostalgia’. In Germany, they have even coined the term ‘Ostalgia’ – a longing for the return of the socialist (east) German Democratic Republic (GDR).

Subtly twisting words to suit their agenda, these reporters attempt to cover up the truth when discussing the reality of working-class power and actual opinions of east European workers, derived from the lived experience of workers from the former socialist states. This kind of con game has long existed when discussing any country that doesn’t have a system of government of which western capitalism approves.

The full articles are linked to, and we invite you to read them – bearing in mind that every piece of data is used as a pretext for a subjective and irrelevant conclusion in order to launch an unwarranted attack on socialism. If the youth want socialism, they are ‘young and naive and not experienced enough in life’. If the old that lived under socialism want their socialist systems back, they are ‘nostalgic’ fossils, lamenting for their lost youth.

If we ignore the commentary and listen instead to the source, we will find that our old comrades – who have lived and experienced both socialism and the capitalist reaction, counter-revolution and restoration – themselves provide detailed and nuanced reasons for preferring socialism.

This is all the more remarkable given that most of those old enough to have lived under socialist systems in Europe did so when revisionism was already busy uprooting the gains of the planned economy and preparing the necessary conditions for the counter-revolution. In many cases, the years they experienced were the years of relative stagnation and decline (although the socialist countries never experienced absolute recession before capitalist restoration) that paved the way for full counter-revolution.

Russia and the former Soviet union
“The majority of Russians polled in a 2016 study said they would prefer living under the old Soviet Union and would like to see the socialist system and the Soviet state restored.” (Most Russians prefer return of Soviet Union and socialism, Telesur, 19 August 2017)

Ex-Soviet bloc
“Reflecting back on the break-up of the Soviet Union that happened 22 years ago next week, residents in seven out of 11 countries that were part of the union are more likely to believe its collapse harmed their countries than benefited them. Only Azerbaijanis, Kazakhstanis, and Turkmens are more likely to see benefit than harm from the break-up. Georgians are divided.” (Former Soviet countries see more harm from break-up, Gallup, 19 December 2013)

East Germany
“Today, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, 57 percent, or an absolute majority, of east Germans defend the former east Germany … ‘life was good there’, say 49 percent of those polled. Eight percent of east Germans flatly oppose all criticism of their former home.” (Majority of east Germans feel life better under communism by Julia Bonstein, Spiegel, 3 July 2009)

“A remarkable 72 percent of Hungarians say that most people in their country are actually worse off today economically than they were under communism … This is the result of almost universal displeasure with the economy. Fully 94 percent describe the country’s economy as bad, the highest level of economic discontent in the hard hit region of central and eastern Europe … The public is even more negative toward Hungary’s integration into Europe; 71 percent say their country has been weakened by the process.” (Hungary: Better off under communism? Pew Research, 28 April 2010)

Czech Republic
“Roughly 28 percent of Czechs say they were better off under the communist regime … Only 23 percent said they had a better life now.

“More goods in shops, open borders and better cultural offer are considered the biggest successes of the system that was installed after 1989.

“On the other hand, the voucher privatisation, the worsening of human relations and work of the civil service are its biggest flaws, most Czechs said.” (Many Czechs say they had better life under communism, Prague Daily Monitor, 21 November 2011)

The former Yugoslavia
“A poll shows that as many as 81 percent of Serbians believe they lived best in the former Yugoslavia ‘during the time of socialism’ …

“Forty-five percent said they trusted social institutions most under communism with 23 percent choosing the 2001-03 period when Zoran Djinđic was prime minister. Only 19 percent selected present-day institutions.” (Serbia poll: Life was better under Tito, Balkan Insight, 24 December 2010)

People in other parts of the former Yugoslavis, scarred by the ethnic wars from the 1990s and still outside the EU, are nostalgic for the socialist era of Josip Broz Tito when, unlike now, they travelled across Europe without visas.

“Everything was better then. There was no street crime, jobs were safe and salaries were enough for decent living,” said Belgrade pensioner Koviljka Markovic, 70. “Today I can hardly survive with my pension of 250 euros ($370 a month).” (In eastern Europe , people pine for socialism by Anna Muderva Reuters, 8 November 2009)

A 2010 poll found that 41 percent of the respondents would have voted for Ceausescu, had he run for the position of president. And 63 percent of the survey participants said their life was better during communism, while only 23 percent attested that their life was worse then.

Some 68 percent declared that communism was a good idea, just one that had been poorly applied. (In Romania, opinion polls show nostalgia for communism by Elena Dragomir, Balkan Analysis, 2011)

Ukraine, Lithuania and Bulgaria
“The poll showed 30 percent of Ukrainians approved of the change to democracy in 2009, down from 72 percent in 1991.

“In Bulgaria and Lithuania the slide was to just over half the population from nearer three-quarters in 1991.” (In eastern Europe, people pine for socialism, Reuters, 8 November 2009)

“In Bulgaria, the 33-year rule of the late dictator Todor Zhivkov [1954-89] begins to seem a golden era to some in comparison with the raging corruption and crime that followed his demise.

“Over 60 percent say they lived better in the past, even though shopping queues were routine, social connections were the only way to obtain more valuable goods, jeans and coca-cola were off-limits and it took up to 10 years’ waiting to buy a car.

“‘For part of the Bulgarians (social) security turned out to be more precious than freedom,’ wrote historians Andrei Pantev and Bozhidar Gavrilov.” (Reuters, op cit)

Why people miss socialism
It’s seemingly easy for the bourgeois press, who have to report these unfavourable findings to dismiss them as mere nostalgia. “Oh everyone loved their youth,” they clamour, “it is their youth they are nostalgic for, not socialism!”

It’s therefore worth taking a look at what people themselves have to say about their lived realities.

“Most east German citizens had a nice life,” says one former citizen, Mr Birger. “I certainly don’t think that it’s better here [reunified Germany] … The people who live on the poverty line today also lack the freedom to travel.” [We note that the ‘freedom to travel’ was denied not by the eastern republics but by the aggressive encircling imperialist powers, who put the entire existence of the socialist nations on a war footing, as they continue to do with the citizens of north Korea and Cuba, among others, today.]

“From today’s perspective, I believe that we were driven out of paradise when the wall came down,” one person writes, and a 38-year-old man “thanks God” that he was able to experience living in the GDR, noting that it wasn’t until after German reunification that he witnessed people who feared for their existence, beggars or homeless people. (Spiegel, op cit)

In the case of the GDR, it doesn’t seem to be mere nostalgia talking. It is far better to have a secure life and dignified existence without poverty than to have the ‘freedom’ to wander from town to town, half starving and homeless, or be forced to journey to a foreign land to offer your life and labour for cheap exploitation as your domestic economy has collapsed under the direction of the local kleptocrats and imperialist financiers. In any event, travel within the socialist world was possible and every worker had the right to long and well-paid holidays, maternity leave, carer and sick leave, and more.

What is important here is that an average worker interviewed does not go along with the propaganda narrative of the author. Political scientist Klaus Schroeder, director of an institute at Berlin’s Free university that studies the former communist state is cited in the Spiegel article, admitting: “I am afraid that a majority of eastern Germans do not identify with the current [capitalist and imperialist] sociopolitical system.”

Another point of attack we often see in the bourgeois press is that those who miss their socialist system do so because they were the lazy and untalented elements who therefore enjoyed the security of the state. In fact, a successful businessman interviewed in the article says that although he has personally done well, he is unhappy with unequal wages and pensions, and misses “that feeling of companionship and solidarity”.

Succinctly summing up bourgeois democracy, he says: “As far as I’m concerned, what we had in those days was less of a dictatorship than what we have today.” And he concludes that, as one of the fortunate ones: “I’m better off today than I was before, but I am not more satisfied.”

Speaking of Romania, the Balkan Analysis article concludes that it is not some nostalgia for their communist past that makes people long for socialism, but the fact that “people have felt increasing social and economic pressures and therefore their desire for social security guarantees has increased, regardless of education levels, age or social status”. In other words, economic insecurity has worsened under capitalism, bringing with it an increase in social dislocation, poverty, crime and unhappiness.

For the Russians, the case is simple: in 2017, Russians were spending more than half their income on food. The return of capitalism has meant a complete stripping away of any security for the vast majority and incredible enrichment for a miniscule minority.

Bulgarians are now also enjoying the ‘freedom’ to spend the bulk of their income on food: “We lived better in the past,” says 31-year-old Anelia Beeva. “We went on holidays to the coast and the mountains, there were plenty of clothes, shoes, food. And now the biggest chunk of our incomes is spent on food. People with university degrees are unemployed and many go abroad.” (Reuters, op cit)

“Looking on the surface, I see new buildings, shops, shiny cars. But people have become sadder, more aggressive and unhappy,” says renowned Bulgarian artist Nikola Manev.

Disillusionment with bourgeois democracy
This exponential rise in poverty and disempowerment has gone hand in glove with a disillusionment with bourgeois democracy. Just two countries polled out of the eight countries here were barely ‘satisfied’ with their democracy. (Hungary dissatisfied with democracy, but not its ideals, Pew, 7 April 2010)

Another common myth the bourgeois press propagated before the overthrow of socialism in 1989 was that eastern Europe was somehow imprisoned by its political and economic links with the USSR. The term ‘captive nations’ was ubiquitous in the bourgeois press. The president of the US was required every year to declare something called ‘Captive Nations Week’.

The bourgeois press and its propagandists continue to turn reality on its head, maintaining that eastern Europe was ‘free’ before the Red Army liberated it from Nazi occupation at the end of WW2, and that the new people’s democracies that later united in a security alliance (the Warsaw Pact) to defend themselves from the belligerent imperialist Nato bloc (whose bloodstained record is well known to our readers) was a prison of nations. In fact, before WW1, all of those states (with the exception of Czechoslovakia, which was so nonchalantly ceded to fascist Germany in 1939 under the Nazi-British pact sealed by British prime minister Neville Chamberlain) were ruled by oppressive and dictatorial monarchs or despots of one kind or another.

This disillusionment with bourgeois democracy can be seen in Hungary, for example. Seventy percent of Hungarians think it is very important to live in a country with honest multi-party elections, but only 17 percent believe this describes ‘democratic’ Hungary well. This also shows how, that despite their anger, the Hungarian proletariat have not quite seen off the fraud of the ‘multi-party’ bourgeois system, which provides a cover for the fact that behind the parties lies one ruling class that cannot be voted out of power.

Liberals who read this worry about a ‘disillusionment with democracy’, missing the point that bourgeois democracy is an illusion of democracy. In the west, you can change the ruling party or president but you can’t change the policies. Democracy in the former socialist republics has meant the policies of privatisation of public industry and services – the seizure of wealth that had been built up by the people and was formerly used only to benefit the people, but which are now being asset-stripped and turned into vehicles for profit-making. Capitalist restoration has brought a parasitic outgrowth of rentier cliques, whose only interest is in exploiting the national economy and leeching from its citizenry whatever they can get their blood-soaked hands on.

The capitalist counter-revolution: a modern imperialist holocaust
Those intellectuals and counter-revolutionaries who assisted in the dismantling socialism in Europe and the USSR had hopes of joining the parasitic imperialist club and living like the millionaire class of the USA, Britain and Germany. Instead, their people have become like those of capitalist Mexico – a source of cheap labour for western European and North American capital to exploit for superprofits, whether utilised in situ, or transported abroad.

After the counter-revolution, eastern Europe was systematically de-industrialised. Its formerly free states became new colonies – places to dump western goods, giving a much-needed shot-in the arm to global capitalism, which was just then heading into deepening recession. And with the de-industrialisation of eastern Europe’s economies, jobs were destroyed, forcing much of the young and able-bodied workforce to pack their bags and head for Germany, Britain and France, migrating to the centres of imperialism to find work.

The dire economic situation in many of the former socialist countries was accompanied by a historically unprecedented demographic decline. The return of the ills of unemployment, classical capitalist poverty and the desperation they bring have dragged all the ugly features of capitalist exploitation in their wake: mass drug-addiction, tuberculosis, HIV, prostitution, violence, crime and mental illness.

The birth rate has plummeted while life expectancy has declined by seven years in the territories of the former USSR and abortion rates have soared. This is rarely talked about, but represents a real capitalist holocaust and the deaths of unknown millions of European workers.

As mass privatisation and de-industrialisation were forced on the former German Democratic Republic, that once prosperous and proud nation required west-German subsidies of €130bn annually. Without employment prospects and with their society in ruins, east Germans migrated en masse. What freedom! A stunning population decrease of 2.2 million people from 16.7 million in mid-1989 to 14.5 million in 2005. (Communist nostalgia in eastern Europe: longing for the past by Kurt Biray, Open Democracy, 10 November 2015)

In Bulgaria, the devastating ramifications of economic privatisation and ‘democratic transition’ translated into the loss of jobs and professional occupations in the country’s villages. Mike Donkin, a BBC reporter and journalist, said in 2006 that Bulgaria had the fastest rate of population decline in all of Europe, “and the sense of abandonment is even greater in the countryside … Scattered across the landscape now are dozens of deserted or almost deserted villages.” (Maria Todorova and Zsuzsa Gille, Post-Communist Nostalgia, 2010)

The liquidation of collective farms reduced workers who remained in the countryside to subsistence farming and 19th-century production techniques, leading the young to leave not only the countryside but also the country. No wonder Bulgarians long to return to their lost socialist paradise.

A similar decline has been suffered in Poland. “As people leave, the economy is suppressed which encourages yet more people to up sticks and seek better opportunities abroad.

“And of course it tends to be the most entrepreneurial who leave, while more conservative-minded workers stay behind. Job-creating businesses which might have been set up in Warsaw or Krakow end up being established in London or Berlin.” (Poland asking workers to come home is shocking indictment of EU membership says Ross Clark, The Express, 24 August 2019)

The author claims this is an indictment of the European Union. In fact, it is an indictment of capitalism.

The Polish economy was hit particularly hard by the 2008/9 crisis, yet for the economy to be smaller in 2015 than it was in 2008 is an indication of the extent of the plundering of east Europe’s economies since the fall of socialism.

These results are not chance occurrences; they stem from the anarchy of the market in which capitalist nations compete to plunder the natural resources, cheap labour and markets of the former workers’ republics.

Is it any wonder that workers in the former socialist bloc are starting to see through the anticommunist propaganda with which they have been bombarded for years? Is it any wonder that the name of Josef Stalin is once more being associated with freedom, dignity and social justice?

We look forward to the day when the workers of eastern Europe are able to recover from the stunning blow that was dealt them by the collapse of revisionism and the capitalist counter-revolution, restoring and rebuilding a socialist society even better than the one they had before.

Stalin was a thousand times right when he predicted: “I know that after my death a pile of rubbish will be heaped on my grave, but the wind of history will sooner or later sweep it away without mercy.” (1943, quoted in Felix Chuev, Molotov Remembers, 1991)

The socialist genie is out of the bottle and will not be put back; the workers will not be kept down forever. Whatever its twists and turns, history has a way of moving forward; a temporary defeat is not the end of the road but merely a dip in the long march of humanity towards communist freedom. We have no doubt that the workers of Europe and the world will ultimately build socialist societies that empower them to develop their talents, harnessing their collective labour and the fruits of the earth to rationally plan a bright, hopeful and sustainable way of life for humanity. ... socialism/
"We ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."

User avatar
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle island

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:39 pm

About the "villain" Joseph Vissarionovich
Joseph Vissarionovich suffered from a vicious passion for factories.

Each month, he put into operation factory after factory, factory after factory, enterprise after enterprise, forcibly forcing people to work for them, enslaving them with free apartments, enslaving them by a continuous reduction in prices, spreading diseases with free medicine, stupid universal free education.

Companions from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union made great efforts to eliminate the catastrophic consequences of his vicious passion for factories - first, the liquidation of Stalin's personality cult, and then the results of his personality defect - factories, factories, railroads, and power plants.

The “villain” Vissarionych so dirtied the country with his factories from Koenigsberg to Sakhalin that the party comrades had to heroically bankrupt them for many years, cut them into scrap metal, compare them to land or convert them into flea markets and office centers, freeing workers from overwork by a vigorous price increase that was not available for paid housing, paid education, commercial medicine, theft and theft of public property. It took a lot of time for the Party comrades from the CPSU to improve their health by propagating debauchery, vulgarity and selfishness.

All this ultimately allowed the former workers to be free and unemployed, free from morality and happy to introduce them to hard drugs, various dope, alcohol and tobacco, treating their brains with moronic TV shows and vulgar shows.

Excerpt from the textbook of the history of the Russian Federation for the faint of heart ... rionovicha
"We ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."

User avatar
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle island

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Mon Sep 02, 2019 11:10 pm


A resident of the city of Achinsk in the Krasnoyarsk Territory erected a monument to Stalin in the courtyard of his own house.

Such an idea, in his own words, came about after his son, in preparation for the final exam in history, had questions about Stalin’s personality and his role in history. Having understood and found the answers, the student wanted to perpetuate the memory of the Soviet leader.

A bust made in 1937 was found in an ad on Avito in Penza, they arranged delivery, and spent four days on the installation: they themselves laid out a pedestal, a platform of paving slabs and the bust itself.

The most interesting thing is that the bust is formally located in the courtyard of a private house, but in fact it stands on its unfenced part, on the street. Some residents already carry flowers to the monument.

Military observer Boris Rozhin commented on this situation as follows: “When you watch such stories and see such youth, it’s a little funny to recall the mantras of the liberals of the 90s who declared:“ All the commies will die out and they will forget about Stalin. ” But to hell with you. "

Google Translator
Photos at link
"We ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."

User avatar
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle island

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:20 pm

Understanding Stalin V. 2
Stalin Beyond the Myths: Understanding Stalin

by Hugo Turner
August 26, 2015

Dedicated to all those who are hated for fighting for justice

Special Thanks to Dennis Riches for a new edit

Few figures in history have been so thoroughly demonized as Joseph Stalin. He lives in the popular imagination as a bloodthirsty monster. When it comes to Stalin, propaganda takes the place of history in a transparent attempt to demonize socialism and the USSR. We must never again try to change the world, we are told, because it will all inevitably go bad. Tens of millions will die and we will live under conditions of tyranny and poverty.
Quite appropriately, from my perspective, Robert Conquest, the “historian” who made his name defaming the Soviet Union and Stalin, recently died. His death was amusing in its timing for me as it occurred while I was busy studying the history of the Soviet Union from a quite different perspective—one which revealed the undeniable greatness of Stalin.
Robert Conquest, incidentally, provides a perfect example of how and why the history of the Soviet Union has been falsified. Conquest began his career writing anti-Soviet propaganda for British intelligence at the Information Research Department (formerly the Communist Information Bureau) and was so good at it that the CIA brought him to America and financed his work through its fronts. His main sources, by the way, were fascist emigres especially from Ukraine. As anyone familiar with their mentality knows, they are some of the most outrageous liars on the planet. Conquest is responsible for vastly inflating the number of people killed during Stalin’s time from the less than 1 million of reality (according to the now declassified records) to 30 million and eventually to 100 million. It was just a small chapter in the CIA's cultural cold war when hundreds of well-known artists and intellectuals were wittingly and unwittingly employed to spread anti-Soviet propaganda. Although the impact of the CIA on the media is well known in alt-media circles, the CIA impact in academia is a lot less talked about but no less prevalent.
In researching Vietnam earlier this year I discovered that the CIA had funded thousands of books and articles on Vietnam giving the public a completely distorted view of the conflict there. If tiny Vietnam came in for such treatment, I can only imagine to what lengths they went to shape the writing of history of the USSR. Even today the study of the Soviet Union is carried out along the same propagandistic line. Stalin is hated by the capitalist imperialist nations because he built socialism, defeated fascism, helped North Korea and China defeat American imperialism during the Korean War, and oversaw the massive expansion of socialism in both Europe and Asia.

Stalin is hated by the capitalists for obvious reasons. However, he is also hated by treacherous elements on the left, which is why Stalin has had so few defenders. The first attacks came from the exiled Trotsky who was bitterly intent on revenge on both Stalin and the USSR. His version of events was actually trumpeted by the mainstream media at the time who gave this supposed revolutionary turned counter-revolutionary front page coverage and thousands of dollars to slander Stalin and the USSR and predict its imminent collapse. His version of events would become the basis of the popular mythical version of history embodied in Orwell's propaganda classic "Animal Farm" (the CIA financed it, turning it into an animated film with a new ending). Orwell was another paid propagandist of British intelligence, by the way. Orwell's book is appropriately "Orwellian," claiming at the end that the USSR under Stalin had secretly reinstated capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth of course.
The second major attack on Stalin from supposed communists was launched by Khrushchev in his "Secret Speech." Khrushchev was planning to introduce dangerous new reforms and he needed to attack Stalin in order to carry on a new "Revisionist" line that would prove disastrous. These plans aimed to reverse what Stalin, and before him Lenin, had carried out. Under Gorbachev these attacks would be renewed as his "reforms" managed to destroy the Warsaw bloc, the USSR, and socialism.

This would be a great place to introduce my source and inspiration for the following article, Harpal Brar. It was in his book "Perestroika: The Complete Collapse of Revisionism" that he laid out the this thesis, and I highly recommend you read the book yourself for a great examination of the disastrous policies that led to the collapse of the USSR, policies pursued by the revisionists like Khrushchev and Gorbachev. It also lays out brilliantly the successful policies pursued by Stalin. Stalin turned a backwards war-ravaged nation into a superpower. Regardless of whatever abuse his enemies have heaped upon him, this simple truth remains abundantly clear.
I came across one of Harpal Brar's lectures while reading E.H. Carr's "The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1923" and I was instantly hooked and subscribed to the Proletarian TV Youtube channel run by the Communist Party of Great Britain--Marxist Leninist or CPGB-ML. They have great lectures on a variety of historical and theoretical topics from a number of people. They impressed me with their resolutely anti-imperialist stance and support for countries like Syria, Venezuela, Novorossia, and North Korea. Harpal Brar is an electrifying public speaker and also quite amusing. He is also an unapologetic defender of Stalin and the Soviet Union.
Basically, these sources aided me quite a bit in beginning to understand the complex theories of MarxismLeninisim and the history of the Soviet Union. Thus when I began to run out of Youtube videos I decided to order some books from the CPGB-ML.Org Website, including Harpal Brar's "Perestroika" and his epic "Trotskyism or Leninism." It is on these books as well as on Kenneth Neil Cameron's "Stalin Man of Contradiction" that I base this account of the Stalin Era. The history that follows owes everything to his brilliant and courageous analysis, although the inevitable mistakes are my own.

Having surveyed Stalin's enemies, the sources of the anti-Stalin myths, the imperialist countries, Trotskyites, and revisionists,and having introduced one of Stalin's defenders Harpal Brar, let me now proceed to present a more accurate view of Stalin and his accomplishments.
First, Stalin built socialism in the USSR. He industrialized the country. He collectivized the agriculture. In order to do this, he smashed the traitors to the USSR both within and without the Communist Party thus securing the gains of the revolution. These factors helped him to lead the USSR to victory against fascism, winning World War II. This victory helped in the spread of world revolution both in Europe and Asia. As the Cold War began, he stood up to US imperialism, helping to inflict the first defeat the US was to suffer. Any one of these accomplishments would surely, objectively speaking, earn Stalin a place as one of the great men of history. However, as we have seen, it is because of these accomplishments that he is instead attacked and demonized. Thus it is time for revolutionaries and anti-imperialists to follow Harpal Brar's example and defend Stalin instead of joining with his enemies in the attack on him. As Brar explains, it is a quite simple equation: our enemies attack Stalin to attack socialism. Conversely, one must defend Stalin in order to defend socialism.

Second, let us examine the situation in the Soviet Union around the time of Lenin's death. The USSR had been devastated first before the revolution during World War I, and then during the civil war when 14 countries waged war on what would become the USSR. During this war, the USSR had been forced to adopt "War Communism," which meant workers were often paid in food and harsh measures were sometimes used in the countryside to keep the grain flowing to the cities. After the war, Lenin had instituted the new economic policy, or NEP, which was meant to be a temporary retreat to capitalism in order to restore trade between the town and country. However, the NEP was only a temporary retreat and Lenin planned to begin the building of socialism. Lenin's vision of the future was for an expansion of collective agriculture, the electrification of the country, and the industrialization of the nation. Unfortunately, he died just as this new phase was beginning and suffered severe ill health in the final two years of his life. Thus Stalin was the one who would successfully carry though these reforms. That is why, incidentally, Stalin never approved of the term “Stalinism.” He saw himself as merely carrying forward Lenin's plans. This view of Stalin as being directly in line with Lenin is not merely Brar's view but also it is confirmed when reading the bourgeoisie historian E.H. Carr who gives a quite detailed examination of Lenin's economic policies in vol. 2 of his 3-volume "Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1923."

Who was Stalin? Stalin was the son of a serf, and life as a serf was practically a form of slavery. He was from Georgia, one of the many nations conquered by the Russian empire. His mother wanted him to become a priest, but he was expelled from the seminary when they discovered he was reading Marx. Although lacking advanced schooling, he educated himself widely, studying Marx and Lenin but also science, and literature. He lived a humble existence even after coming to power. Contrary to myth, he was a brilliant theorist. Reading his writings and speeches, which Brar quotes at length, one is impressed by his ability to convey complex economic or political issues in simple terms the common people could understand. Stalin was quite witty, it should be added, and loved to illustrate his speeches with Russian fables and folklore. He was a tireless revolutionary and a loyal follower of Lenin. He organized strikes, wrote articles, was sent to Siberia, escaped, and played a crucial role in building up the Bolshevik Party. During the Revolution and the civil war, he played an important role. Thus, contrary to mythology, it was no accident that he rose to a prominent position because he had proved himself again and again.

However, in order to actually build socialism in one country Stalin would have to battle two tendencies in the party aiming to derail this goal. First, there was the left opposition of Zinoviev and Trotsky. Trotsky's disagreements stemmed from his theory of permanent revolution which led him into all sorts of mistakes and ultimately into becoming downright counter-revolutionary. Trotsky may become the topic of a future article. He emerges from Harpal Brar's account as a fascinating villain carried away by egotism and ambition into every sort of crime. He is the embodiment of that treacherous breed of leftist who always manages to side with imperialism. Many have done this most recently in their positions on Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.
Let me state here my most controversial assertion that the so-called Moscow show trials were not show trials but that those tried really were guilty. Actually, as Brar and Cameron both point out, the American ambassador at the time, Joseph Davies, also believed the trials were genuine, as he wrote in his book "Mission to Moscow." The British also believed the trials were genuine. However, they allowed the world to believe the opposite since it was great anti-communist propaganda.
This idea that former revolutionaries would engage in a campaign of assassination and wrecking aimed at destroying their own country may seem fantastic to you at first. However, if you remember all the many tactics that have been used by the CIA to destabilize countries to carry on counter-revolution, then the idea that British and fascist intelligence agencies carried on these sorts of tactics isn't so incredible. Actually, while reading about the counter-revolutionary wrecking campaign, I was reminded of the scene in Orwell's 1984 where Winston and Julia agree to carry out all sorts of terrorist acts in order to bring down the state. Perhaps Orwell the Trotskyite was being indiscreet in writing this. It certainly revealed where his deep hatred of the USSR could take Orwell for instance. The games of espionage have been going on for millennia. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the CIA dirty tricks postwar against the USSR have already been partly revealed. They included sabotage, assassination, propaganda, everything the opposition was accused of in the 1930s.
Harpal Brar presents strong evidence that Trotsky, driven to desperation by his complete loss of power and prestige, formed an alliance with fascist intelligence. This alliance was fully exposed during the Spanish civil war. Trotsky was not the only guilty party. Many of the opposition would join with Trotsky in a campaign of assassination, wrecking, sabotage and propaganda. This should not seem so incredible after witnessing what an opposition allied to the CIA has been capable of in Syria, Libya, and Ukraine, for example. Today's Russian opposition marginalized by Putin's popularity is quite openly funded by western NGO's fronts for the NED and ultimately the CIA—or at least they were until the Kremlin recently made the practice illegal. You may ask how could once committed communists resort to such means? Yet experience teaches us that nothing is more common than for people to betray their ideals as decades pass. The Russian communist movement had always been marked by these betrayals both before and after the revolution. Many of Lenin's writings were dedicated to exposing such betrayals, including exposing Trotsky himself more than once.

However, I am skipping ahead somewhat as it was only later after Stalin had politically beaten both the left and right deviations that they decided to mount their counter-revolutionary terror campaign. Earlier it had merely been a policy argument. The left opposition wanted to embark on a campaign of industrialization and collectivization immediately. In doing so they wanted to risk confrontation with the middle peasants and immediately begin the expropriation of the rich peasants—the kulaks who grew wealthy by exploiting the poor peasants and whose opposition to the Revolution and hoarding were dangerous. However, Stalin reminded them that Lenin had warned that only by maintaining its alliance with the middle peasants would the leadership of the proletariat be secure. Stalin opposed their plan for an immediate attack on the kulaks because at that time they produced a massive proportion of grains compared to the collective farms. Only when industry had been built up enough to produce the tractors needed to supply the collective farms could the middle peasants be induced to join the new collectives willingly.

The right deviation advocated by Bukharin wanted to keep the NEP indefinitely and instead concentrate on building light industry. Light industry makes consumer goods whereas heavy industry produces machines and the means of production themselves. Stalin argued that it was necessary to concentrate on heavy industry if the USSR was ever to advance from its backwards state. In the political struggle, Stalin first sided with the right against the left since he believed Trotsky's policies would lead to a disastrous war for the countryside. However, at the same time he slowly began to build up heavy industry and the growth of the collective farms until they were producing enough grain so that he could risk expropriating the kulaks.
However, even before this campaign began in 1929, in 1928 the Kulaks began to rise in open revolt by burning collective farms, killing teachers, slaughtering livestock and burning crops. Since they had often held the government hostage with their grain hoarding. Thus it should be remembered that during the Stalin era the class struggle would often emerge into open warfare.
However, just as mainstream history ignores all the brutalities the white counter-revolutionary armies committed during the civil war, it also ignores all the violence perpetrated by counter-revolutionaries during the Stalin years. It was a war on both sides. In addition, it should be pointed out that before collectivization was carried out, Russia suffered from catastrophic famines every few years. This was a result of its primitive and unproductive agriculture. However, once collectivization had been successfully carried out, the USSR suffered no more famines. In other words collectivization saved untold millions of lives in the long run. In addition, it should be remembered that it was intended primarily to be a voluntary process. Stalin was even forced to briefly call a halt to the process when he discovered that overzealous officials were attempting to force the middle peasants to join collectives. He issued his famous pamphlet "Dizzy with Success" to combat this error. Instead, Stalin wanted to entice the peasants with the availability of tractors. He believed that mechanized agriculture would help to prepare the peasants for the USSR's industrial future. As Brar explains, the use of tractors would end up providing invaluable experience for the peasants, as driving a tractor is very similar to driving a tank. Thus appropriately it was at Stalingrad where a massive tractor factory would be built. During the war the factory was fiercely fought over and Stalingrad was where the Nazi's would meet a decisive defeat. Appropriately enough, the next decisive battle would be the massive tank battle at Kursk. It was during this collectivization campaign that Trotsky decided to switch over to Bukharin's position which advocated that a halt be called, paving the way for the alliance of left and right opposition that would quickly become purely destructive and counter-revolutionary.
With agriculture successfully collectivized, the greatest industrialization campaign in history was undertaken. This is doubtless one of the main reasons that Stalin is the target of an unending propaganda campaign. The capitalists do not want the world to know about the economic miracle that took place in the Soviet Union between the late 1920's and the start of the war. This is because studying this period would destroy forever their favorite truism that socialism doesn't work. While the West was mired in the Great Depression, the USSR underwent the greatest economic growth in history. Unemployment was completely eliminated early on. This industrialization was to prove vital for the USSR's survival during World War II. In ten years Stalin managed to turn the Soviet Union into a superpower, and this alone saved the USSR from becoming a colony and the Soviet people from the genocide and slavery so openly planned and implemented by the Nazi's during the war. Stalin actually foresaw all this in a remarkably prescient speech he delivered in 1931. He made it in answer to the question of whether Russia should slow the pace of industrialization. It was a great speech, so I cut and pasted the relevant section for its vivid picture of imperialism.

It is sometimes asked whether it is not possible to slow down the tempo somewhat, to put a check on the movement. No, comrades, it is not possible! The tempo must not be reduced! On the contrary, we must increase it as much as is within our powers and possibilities. This is dictated to us by our obligations to the workers and peasants of the U.S.S.R. This is dictated to us by our obligations to the working class of the whole world.

To slacken the tempo would mean falling behind. And those who fall behind get beaten. But we do not want to be beaten. No, we refuse to be beaten! One feature of the history of old Russia was the continual beatings she suffered because of her backwardness. She was beaten by the Mongol khans. She was beaten by the Turkish beys. She was beaten by the Swedish feudal lords. She was beaten by the Polish and Lithuanian gentry. She was beaten by the British and French capitalists. She was beaten by the Japanese barons. All beat her — because of her backwardness, because of her military backwardness, cultural backwardness, political backwardness, industrial backwardness, agricultural backwardness. They beat her because it was profitable and could be done with impunity. You remember the words of the pre-revolutionary poet: "You are poor and abundant, mighty and impotent, Mother Russia." 4 Those gentlemen were quite familiar with the verses of the old poet. They beat her, saying: "You are abundant," so one can enrich oneself at your expense. They beat her, saying: "You are poor and impotent," so you can be beaten and plundered with impunity. Such is the law of the exploiters — to beat the backward and the weak. It is the jungle law of capitalism. You are backward, you are weak — therefore you are wrong; hence you can be beaten and enslaved. You are mighty — therefore you are right; hence we must be wary of you.

That is why we must no longer lag behind.

In the past we had no fatherland, nor could we have had one. But now that we have overthrown capitalism and power is in our hands, in the hands of the people, we have a fatherland, and we will uphold its independence. Do you want our socialist fatherland to be beaten and to lose its independence? If you do not want this, you must put an end to its backwardness in the shortest possible time and develop a genuine Bolshevik tempo in building up its socialist economy. There is no other way. That is why Lenin said on the eve of the October Revolution: "Either perish, or overtake and outstrip the advanced capitalist countries."

We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall go under.

That is what our obligations to the workers and peasants of the U.S.S.R. dictate to us.

Ten Years later the Nazi's were invading, confident that the Soviet Union would be destroyed, but they now no longer faced backwards Russia but the mighty USSR.

One thing that has been completely forgotten with the cartoon version of the Stalin Era, in which everyone was unhappy and everything was grey—was the tremendous enthusiasm unleashed among the people of the USSR by this drive towards industrialization. This alone can help to explain the economic miracles that took place in those days. With Stalin's inspiration they approached the drive towards industrialization with the same heroism and enthusiasm that they would later display during the war. It was a particularly exciting time for women who long before their western counterparts achieved equal rights and the independence that work outside the home brings.
The pattern of this industrialization shows incidentally that those who talk of a Soviet "empire" completely ignore the economics. Imperialism seeks to keep the periphery underdeveloped thus they can be kept in economic dependence and ever-expanding debt by selling their raw materials in exchange for manufactured goods. The USSR, on the other hand, sought to develop what had been, during the Russian empire, backwards semi-colonial regions. Incidentally, I should mention in passing that Stalin himself was in charge of the "national" question during Lenin's lifetime thus the coming together of the many nationalities and religions of the former Russian empire into the Soviet Union owed a great deal to Stalin's tireless work. This is yet another of his great accomplishments. During the effort to industrialize the country, massive new cities would arise in once backwards regions and mighty factories would be built everywhere. Not just factories were built. Schools and hospitals were also built around the country. Soviet healthcare was ahead of its time and unfortunately ahead of ours, especially in my backwards homeland the US. From a land that formerly had a high rate of illiteracy, the Soviets became an educated and cultured people. Contrary to myth, not only was the Soviet Union industrialized but standards of living also rose dramatically. After the incredible destruction of WW II, the USSR was able to repeat this incredible economic miracle, quickly rebuilding after all the destruction of war, and then undergoing another massive expansion. It was thanks to the wise economic policies of Stalin that the USSR would be able to build its own atomic bomb, and later beat the Americans into space.

However, not everyone was happy with the progress being made, Stalin had, in the process of steering the USSR along the correct path, also marginalized once-prominent revolutionaries. Generally, the story is depicted in reverse. Supposedly, Stalin envied these brilliant revolutionaries. In reality, however, they had advocated the wrong policies and Stalin had advocated the correct ones. If Bukharin had had his way the USSR, would inevitably have been destroyed by the Nazis. Only the building of heavy industry allowed the USSR to build the weapons it needed to defend itself. If Trotsky had had his way, disaster would have occurred.
Trotsky never believed socialism was possible in one country and vacillated between advocating disastrous ultra-left policies and advocating complete surrender to capitalism, as Brar exposes in great detail in his "Trotskyism and Leninism". Actually, for those doubting Trotsky's treachery, they only need to read his writings of the time which swung between predictions of doom and advocating violent resistance to the government. Brar quotes him at great length on the matter. He especially advocated the idea the USSR would collapse in a matter of weeks if attacked by Nazi Germany. This explains his willingness to cut a deal with those he believed would be on the winning side, the fascists. At the same time he also cut deals with the "democratic" imperialist countries. All those in the opposition formed themselves into a ruthless counter-revolutionary conspiracy.
Stalin was too popular for them to attempt open political opposition thus they decided on a campaign of sabotage and terror that might destabilize the regime. Ultimately, they hoped to assassinate Stalin himself. They killed Stalin's heir apparent Sergei Kirov and others. They intentionally caused accidents that cost hundreds of lives and caused huge economic damage. Again, you'll have to read either Brar's "Trotskysim or Leninism" Or Cameron’s "Stalin" if you want to read the evidence for yourselves. Even American and British technical advisers witnessed such sabotage first hand and wrote up first-hand accounts which Brar and Cameron quote. The opposition formed an alliance with the bourgeois technical advisers to carry out such sabotage. They acted as spies for the axis. Most dangerously, they formed an alliance with reactionary elements in the military who plotted a coup that was narrowly avoided. Thankfully, these plots were discovered in time. The traitors were dealt with. In our ugly 21st century full of dangerous treasons, with people in places like Syria duped into trying to destroy their country, Stalin's toughness can finally be seen in its true light and given proper praise. Unlike in so many countries like France or Norway, when war came there was no fifth column to sabotage the Soviets. (see the documentary “Sorrow and the Pity” for more on France's fascist collaborators). Nor could counter-revolutionaries hope to destroy the Soviet Union from within. Their conspiracy was uncovered and their plots smashed. This led to the infamous Moscow Trials. Wherever people today are resisting empire, I urge them to follow Stalin's example and be vigilant against the inevitable plots from without and within. Of course reading Brar's "Perestroika," one can't help bemoaning Stalin's absence while Gorbachev's gang were allowed to destroy everything with their disastrous policies. If only someone had put them all on trial for treason before it was too late, the Soviet Union would never have been destroyed. Down with the traitors and counter-revolutionaries!

All of these accomplishments would be tested in the most dramatic fashion during the war. Without collectivization, the Soviet Union would have been prey to famine and unable to industrialize. Industrialization alone allowed the Soviet Union to defeat the fascist hordes Hitler was to send, which had already conquered the rest of Europe. By 1940, Soviet Industry was 8.5 times the level it had been in 1913 (bear in mind that the 1913 level had marked a peak since the WW I and the civil war were to decimate industry). Large scale industry had increased 12 fold. Machine building was 35 times greater. If Stalin hadn't dealt with the traitors, there is no telling the chaos they might have been able to cause or the secrets they would have revealed to the Nazis. If Stalin were in fact the hated tyrant of fascist and capitalist propaganda he was portrayed as, the Soviet People would never have made such tremendous sacrifices during the war.
Finally, he managed to outwit his opponents on the eve of war with the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. In truth, the Nazi's had been intentionally built up by the capitalist West in the hopes that they would turn east and attack the Soviet Union. It was not love of peace that was the real reason for their appeasement of Hitler. The Soviets again and again offered to form an anti-fascist alliance with Britain and France but were refused. They hoped the Soviets would be left to fight the Nazis alone, then they could attack when they had both worn each other out. It should be pointed out that during the Spanish civil war, the USSR alone aided republican Spain against the Fascists. The "democracies" used non-intervention as an excuse to prevent aid from reaching republican Spain which led to its downfall. Stalin's cynical ploy should be seen in this context. He well understood the plans the west had to destroy the Soviet Union.

Thus Stalin turned the tables on them by signing the non-aggression pact with Germany. Within weeks the western powers were forced to declare war on Germany over its invasion of Poland. Thus when the Soviet Union entered the war, the UK was forced to ally with it. Unfortunately, what Stalin couldn't have predicted was that France would collapse so quickly.
Much nonsense has been written about this pact, but if you look at the actual timing of events and study the Spanish civil war, you'll see that this is the correct interpretation of events. As Brar points out, the Western democracies even toyed with the idea of switching sides during the war but decided it was a bad idea in light of Soviet victories. Churchill even drew up plans to ally with Germany and attack the USSR immediately after the war but his planners warned him it would most likely be a disaster.
Incidentally Churchill stole his famous line about the Iron Curtain from Hitler's propagandist Joseph Goebbels, as Brar reveals. By signing the pact, Stalin bought a little time to build up Soviet industry and defenses. If the Germans had held off their invasion for another year, the Soviet Union would have been much better able to defend itself. It was just beginning to produce its next Generation of weaponry like the Famous T-34 when Hitler decided to launch his surprise attack on June 22, 1941. Hitler believed victory would be his in a matter of weeks. After seizing the rich natural resources of the mighty Soviet Union, Germany would dominate the planet. Hitler believed he was founding an empire that would last a thousand years. However, thanks to Stalin's preparations, things would turn out quite differently from what Hitler imagined. As Brar is fond of saying, "Stalin had some wicked surprises waiting for him."

It was no doubt the greatest invasion in history. Hitler attacked with over 5 million men and thousands of tanks and airplanes. Never before or since have such huge conventional forces battled each other. Initially, the Soviet Union was handicapped by surprise and by their outdated equipment which was no match for the Germans. Fortunately, the Soviets were already beginning to produce the new equipment which would prove so decisive in the battles of 1942 and beyond. The Soviets suffered some disastrous early defeats but they resisted valiantly. For example, there is the story of Brest Fortress which continued to resist for weeks although completely surrounded and behind enemy lines. No matter how many Soviets the Germans captured or killed there always seemed to be more and they all offered fierce resistance.

Finally, before the gates of Moscow, the Soviets managed to halt the German advance in an epic battle. Not only did they stop them, they pushed them back hundreds of miles, destroying the myth of German invincibility. I should mention the terrible siege of Leningrad during which the Germans attempted to starve the city into submission. At least a million would die, but the city refused to surrender.
The decisive moment of the war would come the next year in 1942 when Germany would launch another huge summer offensive aimed at seizing central Asia, particularly the oil fields in the caucuses. In order to cover their flank they needed to control Stalingrad. Stalingrad was one of many new cities that had arisen during the economic boom, and, as mentioned above, its tractor factory was a symbol of the modernization of the nation. It was at Stalingrad that the Soviets would inflict a decisive defeat on Germany.
The first phase of the battle was a brutal defense. Although the Germans managed to enter the town and were issued medals of victory, the Soviets refused to surrender and brutal street fighting would continue for months. It was urban combat at its most intense. The Germans were made to pay dearly for every foot of land they seized. However, unbeknownst to them while they were bogged down fighting for the city, Stalin was planning a massive surprise winter offensive. The entire German 6th Army, the pride of Germany, became encircled. The Soviets beat back the massive attempt to rescue them then forced them to surrender.
Germany never recovered from this defeat. At Kursk Hitler the gambler attempted another offensive but this time the soviets were ready and had set up massive defenses that stopped the German advance. Then they launched their own offensive at the worn-out Germans, crushing them. This was history’s largest tank battle. After Kursk, the Soviets liberated all of eastern Europe in an irresistible series of offensives like Operation Bagration. They liberated the fascist puppet states before marching all the way to Berlin. Hitler blew his brains out and the rest is history.
The victory of the USSR in the war was undoubtedly another of Stalin's great accomplishments. Brar quotes Marshal Zhukov himself on Stalin's role. Stalin supervised everything. The Stavka (Soviet High Command) worked under his close supervision and his organizational genius contributed greatly to their victory. During the battle of Moscow he had courageously refused to leave the city, knowing his example would inspire the troops. I suggest you watch for yourself (a quick youtube search) the immortal speech he gave before the battle of Moscow on the anniversary of the October Revolution when he urged the Soviet people not only to defend the USSR but to liberate all of Europe from fascist occupation.

Stalin did not only defeat fascism. He also oversaw a massive expansion of the socialist world both in eastern Europe and in Asia. I should also mention in passing that in rebuilding the USSR after the war, he accomplished yet another economic miracle. Not only was the USSR able to rebuild from all the catastrophic destruction, it actually managed to double the size of its industrial production yet again. In China, in the final months of the war, he dealt a crippling blow on the Japanese imperialists in Manchuria in a major victory almost entirely forgotten in the West. He refused to give in to nuclear blackmail from the US, infuriating them by standing firm and refusing to be intimidated. Meanwhile he secretly ordered the development of a Soviet atom bomb which was ready by 1949.
When the US launched their genocidal war against North Korea, he sent Soviet planes to help defend the tiny nation and they shot down thousands of American planes. Thanks in part to his aid, the heroic peoples of China and North Korea were able to inflict the first defeat American imperialism was to suffer. Thus he was loved the world over by people living under colonial oppression and those able to see through the lies of capitalist society.
One of these people was the great Paul Robeson who refused to bow to McCarthyite intimidation, which he correctly saw as fascist. (See My June 2014 article Nazis and the CIA for more on the role of fascists in shaping the cold war). Robeson courageously praised Stalin after his death.
There was also the great Che Guevara who as Harpal's son Ranjeet Brar explained, quoting Che in 1953 (the year the Cuban revolution began), Che swore "before a picture of our old much lamented Comrade Stalin that I will not rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated"
Unfortunately, since then 60 years of relentless propaganda have made this once-loved figure into a hated figure, even on the left. It is time we did some rethinking about the past. Whether one loves Stalin, as Harpal Brar does, or not I hope that at least you will adopt a more balanced view. Whatever you might think of the tough methods Stalin employed, at least in future keep in mind his undeniable accomplishments. He transformed Russia and the USSR from a backwards nation into a superpower. From a feudal brand of capitalism he built Russia into an advanced socialist nation with free health care and education. His victory in WW II alone should have been enough to earn him the gratitude of all nations. In spite of Hollywood depictions of the war, the fact is that 90% of German casualties were inflicted on the Eastern front. Thus we should celebrate the Stalin Era. We should also expose the lies meant to defame him. Above all, we should study this exciting era of history for the lessons it can teach us in building socialism. I've only just begun my study of Soviet history. Personally, I plan to immerse myself in revolutionary history next year so as to drown out the noise of yet another idiotic presidential campaign in America, the heart of the empire.
A better world is possible, but we will only get there through revolutionary change. Even reform is impossible without the threat of revolution, as the world has discovered since Khrushchev and Gorbachev destroyed the USSR and the West has begun dismantling all of the reforms forced on it during the cold war. So let us study revolutionary theory and history and begin to organize ourselves for a better world. There are few chapters of human history as exciting as the Stalin Era. Long live the glorious memory of the history of the USSR and of its leader J.V. Stalin.


My chief sources for this article were 3 books by Harpal Brar. First "Perestroika: The Complete Collapse of Revisionism." This book not only chronicles the fall of the soviet Union under Gorbachev in its first half but the building of the Soviet Union under Stalin in its second half meant to counter the waves of anti-Stalin propaganda being issued at the time. Second, there is the huge "Trotskyism or Leninism." This chronicles not just Trotsky's battles against first Lenin and then Stalin, but it also has in-depth coverage of the Moscow Trials, among other topics. There are a great sections on the Spanish Civil War and Stalin's role in the Chinese revolution, for instance. Third, there is Harpal Brar's short book "60th Anniversary of the Victory over Fascism,"which is of course equally relevant now when Russia recently celebrated the 70th anniversary of the victory over fascism last May 9th. You can purchase these books from the CPGB-ML along with many others there. I'm already dreaming of what to order next.

My other major source was "Stalin: Man of Contradiction" by Kenneth Neil Cameron, which is also great and confirms much of what Brar says about the Moscow Trials and the wrecking campaigns. It provides a biography of Stalin and traces his many accomplishments.

Check out my previous article on Soviet history from July 2015 "lessons of the Russian Revolution." Also relevant to this article last winter I read "Socialism Betrayed" by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny which first revealed the truth about Soviet economic history, Stalin's successes, and Kruhchev and Gorbachev's errors. Then "Russian Revolution from Lenin to Stalin" By E.H. Carr was valuable. Also Carr's "Bolshevik Revolution from 1917-1923" was valuable in understanding the economic challenges facing the USSR at the time of Lenin's death.

The Internet has a wealth of resources, if you know where to look.

Join the CPGB-ML or merely make use of some of their great resources for further research here:

This article by Mario Sousa debunks Robert Conquest and reveals what now declassified Soviet archives really reveal about the Stalin era: ... l?spref=tw
"We ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."

User avatar
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle island

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:58 pm

Here is a link to the first draft translation of Losurdo's book "Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend" ... xw93A/edit

The translator, Igualitarista Aka David Ferreira passed away Dec 20.A great loss, he 'did something'.
"We ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."

User avatar
Posts: 3791
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Turtle island

Re: Stalin is trending

Post by blindpig » Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:51 pm

Dissidents on the contrary: How Soviet citizens resisted "de-Stalinization"
December 23, 17:38


As citizens of the USSR resisted "de-Stalinization".

"Dissidents the other way around"

It is believed that the personality cult of Joseph Stalin, who was born 140 years ago, was planted from above and, after being exposed at the 20th Party Congress, came to naught. In fact, among the people and among the intelligentsia there have been many attempts to oppose de-Stalinization. Although the state has punished for it no less harshly than for liberal dissent.

The dissident movement in the USSR today is associated almost exclusively with the pro-Western frond against the Soviet regime. It seems that eight people came to Red Square in 1968 during the suppression of the Prague Spring with the poster “For Our and Your Freedom”. Or scattered anti-Soviet leaflets in the Kremlin Palace of Congresses a year later by Valeria Novodvorskaya. In an extreme case, with “honest Marxists” who criticized the Stalinist and later orders, like the historian Roy Medvedev.

Meanwhile, there was a powerful opposition to the CPSU of the thaw and stagnation era from a completely different perspective: they say that it was reborn, crushed, rotted, the bureaucrats came to power and betrayed the Lenin-Stalin case. Moreover, millions reasoned in the kitchens, thousands of the most active came into the view of law enforcement agencies, and some switched to political struggle - carried out mass agitation, even created the appropriate circles and underground organizations.

The latter caused an especially quick response from the special services. "Dissidents on the contrary" received considerable terms, going to prisons or mental hospitals. And no Western voices stood up for them, and no one exchanged such "hooligans" (as the writer Vladimir Bukovsky - for the Chilean communist Luis Corvalan) ....

In the reference book “58.10 Supervisory Proceedings of the USSR Prosecutor's Office 1953-1991”, which contains information about criminal cases for anti-Soviet propaganda, one can find many similar examples.

Wine and blood at the monuments of the leader

February 25, 1956 Nikita Khrushchev read his famous report "On the cult of personality." Despite the secrecy, sensational news quickly flew around the country. For obvious reasons, it provoked a particularly acute reaction in Georgia. The unrest began with mourning on March 5 on the occasion of the three-year anniversary of Stalin's death.

The laying of wreaths and spontaneous rallies, accompanied by local tradition by pouring wine over monuments, took place in Tbilisi, Gori and Sukhumi. Those present sang songs, swore allegiance to the leader, and even appealed to Chinese Marshal Zhu De, who was then visiting Georgia. He calmly sent several members of his delegation to lay flowers.

At a rally in Gori on March 9, the participant of the war, I. Kukhinadze, an officer of the military enlistment office, scolded Anastas Mikoyan (the Armenian, who served as first deputy chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, especially disliked Georgia, considering, along with Khrushchev, one of the main culprits of what was happening), he did not demand to transport Stalin’s body to Gori, and leave in Moscow, since he is the leader of the entire Soviet people, he said that the army would support the people and could give weapons.

And the head of the department of the district executive committee of working people's deputies T. Banetishvili, on the grounds of dissatisfaction with the exposure of the personality cult, sent two anonymous letters to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia, in which she abused the party leaders.

On March 9, in Tbilisi, a crowd of thousands tried to take a telegraph in Lenin's style to notify Moscow and the world of their demands. Several young people who entered the building as delegates were detained, after which the first clashes with the police occurred. It turned out that local law enforcement officers in the majority sympathize with the protesters.

For example, policeman Khundadze reported that citizen Kobidze was speaking at the monument to Stalin, reading a poem of his own composition “He Is Not Dead,” and then tore and threw out a portrait of the same hated Mikoyan. But Interior Ministry officials asked Khundadze to withdraw the statement, and then completely arrested him for defamation. The case was eventually dismissed a few months later by the Supreme Court of the Georgian SSR.

The security officers were urgently assigned to solve the problem. The then head of the Leningrad Regional Directorate of the KGB, General Sergey Belchenko, and Lieutenant Colonel Philip Bobkov, the future head of the 5th Directorate of the Committee, and then the head of the analytical department of the Bridge group, oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky, supervised the suppression of unrest. According to Belchenko, the unrest quickly took on a nationalist character, slogans were heard about the separation of Georgia from the USSR, as well as against Russians and Armenians. It is difficult to judge how objective the general is here, however, it is obvious that the reason for what happened was precisely in the report of Khrushchev.

Riots suppressed with the participation of the army. According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Georgian USSR, 15 people were killed and 54 wounded, about 200 were arrested. In the memoirs of the participants in the events, the number of victims grows to several hundred, even machine guns that shoot at the crowd appear, which is an obvious stretch. But the fact that dissatisfaction with the de-Stalinization in Georgia was universal is beyond doubt.

“And the nobleman Khrushchev rules the country, And every Furtseva too”

In June 1957, the old Stalinist comrades-in-arms Vyacheslav Molotov, Georgy Malenkov and Lazar Kaganovich opposed Khrushchev, whom they tried to remove from leading posts. With the support of Marshal Georgy Zhukov and the party nomenclature, Nikita Sergeevich managed to repel the attack. They were removed from all posts and expelled from the CPSU. Molotov was sent as an ambassador to Mongolia, Malenkov - to command the power station in Ust-Kamenogorsk, and Kaganovich - as a construction trust in Asbest.

However, the "anti-party group" found many supporters who expressed their indignation in different ways.

Some led careless conversations about which alert citizens informed the competent authorities.

A student at the Leningrad Institute of Physical Education Bokuchava, after listening to the radio message about the plenum, said that “Molotov, Malenkov and Kaganovich are very popular among the people. If Molotov makes a cry in Georgia, then all Georgians will follow him. ”

Gimatdinov, who was not working and not sober, on June 19, 1957, at a trolleybus stop in the sunny capital of Kyrgyzstan, Frunze shouted: “Khrushchev offended Malenkov, Molotov, they let people live, I will kill Khrushchev!”

He was echoed by the barmyr Biryukov from Zelenogorsk, which was August 5, 1957, which was August 5, 1957 , also in a state of intoxication he said that “he would have left only Molotov, Malenkov and Kaganovich, and he would have hung the rest”.

Others wrote to the highest party bodies.

A school teacher N. Sitnikov from Moscow Region sent six anonymous letters to the Central Committee of the party in September-October 1957, in which he called her anti-Leninist policy, wrote that the government feeds the people with fairy tales instead of food, and expressed disagreement with the decision on the "anti-party group."

N. Printsev from the Smolensk region wrote to the Central Committee of the CPSU that Khrushchev was "a traitor to the Soviet people who goes to all the demands of the US imperialists."

And the chief mechanic of the Leningrad plant V. Kreslov personally sent a message to the Chairman of the Council of Ministers Nikolai Bulganin on behalf of the “Union Against You”, which includes “old, sincere revolutionaries, Leninist Bolsheviks”: “Khrushchev is intolerant of the working people of Russia ... All of you are current rulers - slandered the leader of the peoples of Stalin. "

The Moscow freelance artist Shatov distributed his poems:

“The rulers took the people off their accounts, their skin was dearest to them. And the nobleman Khrushchev rules the country, and every Furtseva too. ”

Some made leaflets and even made graffiti.

In the Tambov Region on July 4, 1957, the Fateevs produced and scattered 12 leaflets in the village against a decree on an anti-party group that fell victim to Khrushchev’s careerist.

The next day, in Leningrad, the worker Vorobyov pasted a proclamation on the factory display window: “Khrushchev is a man hungry for power .... We demand that Malenkov remain with the government, as well as Molotov. ”

On the same day, July 5, in Orel there were inscriptions in the amount of 17 pieces about the restoration of Molotov, Malenkov and Kaganovich at their former posts, which exposed the local workers Nizamov and Belyaev.

“Nikita wanted to take Stalin’s place for himself, but Lenin didn’t tell the guard to let him in.”

As you know, Stalin’s body was removed from the mausoleum on the night of October 30–31, 1961 — exactly in time for Halloween. So ordered the XXII Congress of the CPSU on the proposal of the first secretary of the Leningrad regional party committee, Ivan Spiridonov, who in turn received such a “mandate” from the workers of the Kirov and Nevsky factories.

Stalin was specially buried under cover of night, fearing popular performances. And although there were no mass protests, there were individual ones.

Retired Colonel V. Khodos from Kursk sent a letter criticizing the Soviet system and the threat of Khrushchev’s murder. Being interrogated, he explained his act “by strong emotional excitement that arose in connection with the decision to transfer the ashes of Comrade Stalin from the mausoleum and renaming some cities”.

And the handyman Sergeyev from the village of Yuzhno-Kurilskoye in the Sakhalin Region threw the following verses into the building of the local school:

Stalin will live forever,
And Khrushchev will drown him in the mud,
But he won’t have to,
He himself will stumble on his slander.

I remember when Lenin took Stalin’s bail,
Khrushchev announced a severe reprimand,
But Nikita didn’t give a damn
, and yet Stalin was removed from the mausoleum.

I wanted to take his place for myself,
But Lenin did not order the guard to let him in.

Which cars followed such freethinking? The severity of punishment was different.

A worker Kulakov from the Irkutsk Region, who wrote in a letter to Nikita Sergeyevich in 1962 that "the bulk of Soviet people consider you an enemy of the Lenin-Stalin party ... During the lifetime of Comrade Stalin, he kissed his ass, and now you pour dirt on him", he received a year in prison .

The chairman of the collective farm from Kiev, a member of the CPSU Boris Loskutov in the same 1962 for the memorandum "Long live the Leninist government without the talker and traitor Khrushchev" thundered into the zone for four years.

Well, E. Morokhina, who scattered leaflets in Syktyvkar: “Khrushchev is an enemy of the people. A fat pig, he’d rather die, ”and got off easily. As a teenage schoolgirl turned out to be a “criminal,” the case was handled by a Komsomol asset on bail.

Stalinism and the problems of transport.

These are all examples of the spontaneous creation of the masses, and if we talk about underground organizations, the first thing to do is call the Fetisov Group, whose members called themselves National Bolsheviks.

Moscow scientists Alexander Fetisov and Mikhail Antonov worked at the Institute of Complex Transport Problems. Starting with the question of the reasons for the ineffectiveness of introducing new technology, they came to the conclusion that the Soviet economy is "not Soviet enough", "not socialist enough", that the role of the working class in governance must be increased. The work “Building Communism and the Problem of Transport” mentioned the possibility of building communism faster than the “revisionist” Khrushchev program envisaged.

In a conversation with the author of these lines, Antonov characterized national Bolshevism as a desire to improve the Soviet power with the decisive role of the Russian people. “I am a Soviet, Russian, Orthodox person,” he claimed. “And neither I nor Fetisov ever opposed the Soviet regime, as the dissidents did.”

Nevertheless, members of the group, to which a number of metropolitan intellectuals joined in the 60s, actively opposed de-Stalinization. Fetisov, even in protest, quit the CPSU. Soon they began to distribute leaflets in the high-rise buildings of the capital, accusing the party of degeneration. The KGB, which had long been watching them, in 1968 arrested four people who were convicted and then seated in special mental hospitals.

Fetisov left the psychiatric hospital four years later, already a completely sick man and died in 1990. And Mikhail Fedorovich Antonov, despite the fact that he is already over 90 years old, continues to engage in journalism and social activities, without changing his beliefs and having considerable authority in patriotic circles.


This article takes only one aspect of the "dissident vice versa," directly related to the name of Stalin. But the phenomenon itself was much wider. For example, a separate trend was the Cultural Revolution in China, which excited the minds of Soviet students. According to the data of historian Alexei Volynets, dozens of underground Maoist groups, including in Leningrad, operated in the USSR in the 60s and 70s. There were also supporters of the ideas of the Albanian leader, the loyal Stalinist Enver Hoxha ....

In general, Soviet society of the 50s-80s was not at all as homogeneous as they are supposed to be. And all the more it is wrong to reduce the complex processes that took place in it to the confrontation of liberal knights-human rights defenders with the bureaucratic leviathan ... It seems that the phenomenon of "dissidentism on the contrary" is still waiting for its thoughtful researcher.

Andrei Dmitriev ... erozhdenii - zinc

PS. In the title photo, a poster with Stalin in Balakhna, posted on the 140th anniversary of the birth of Stalin. The hangers claim that he was the largest poster in Russia with Stalin.

Google Translator
"We ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."

Post Reply