[jaakko]

(This was on an email list)
Was Stalin totally in control of Soviet domestic and foreign policy?

a) Yes. Of course!

b) No. He was often out-voted and at times in the minority.

How do I make this into a poll? I don't see the 'add poll' button anywhere!

Tovarish Spetsnaz, are you able to do it?

I'll keep a count here, which I update as more people vote:
A:5
B:9

[Kov]

I vote A, from my experiances and that of my relatives.

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

Can't help you Jaakko...I don't think thre is an option for that...


Of course its B...there are documents to prove it...

...but than again how do we explain an insignificant train conductor being executed on personal orders of Stalin...

Word of advice to you Kov...don't believe family stories...nobody ever says their relative did something wrong...it was ALWAYS the other guy's fault...

[Cassius Clay]

Hmm I hope I wont offend anybody by not voting A or B.

This theory that Stalin 'had no part to play from 1928 onwards in the Comintern' is not supported by any significant degree of evidence and groups like the Communist League in the UK and Alliance Marxist-Leninist for all they are correct on alot of things have not much basis to support this claim. Rather they blame someone like Dmitrov for everything while what they are infact doing is repeating Trotskyite slanders for the past 70 years on foriegn policy during the 1930's. Just subsitute 'Stalin' and 'Stalinism' for 'Revisionist Commintern' and 'Concealed Revisionist Dmitrov' and it's exactly the same.

Did the Comintern make mistakes? Sure they did, but while we don't accuse Stalin of being all the names under the sun for making mistakes over a long period we should not blame the Comintern. It's just so dogmatic. I admire Stalin and Hoxha very much, but if you belief some folks you would think that these two were the only Marxist-Leninists ever.

Yes I do belief that Stalin was not the all Imposing dictator alot would have you think. But the image this theory that he was some sought of 'hostage' bent to the will of a 'majority' of 'concealed revisionists' is ludicrous.

Sure Stalin was not in charge of the Comintern and foriegn policy, the mistakes made primarily stick with Dmitrov and co. But are we honestly meant to belief that Stalin had no say what so ever? That he wouldn't of criticised and come up with alternatives if he thought the Comintern were fucking things up.

Fact is the United Front policy had it's flaws and mistakes but it was what worked from China to Spain. It's repeating Trotskyite rhectoric to say it was a 'betrayal' or what have you, never once was a CP condemmed to the will of any other group be they social-democratic of Nationalists.

Dmitrov was at the forefront of criticising Tito and yet he's a 'concealed revisionist'? It's just like the belief that the 'Black Nation' is a 'revisionist' theory because Zinoviev supported it. Gey one would think Stalin would of atleast said something publiclly be it officially or unoffically if he disagreed with everything.


After that Ironically enough I think I'm going to support option B since the way in which the question is phrased. I mean one Joseph Stalin voted for Malenkov to be head of NKVD, Politburo voted against him and nominate Beria.

[Cassius Clay]

Oh fuck Okay I've completly misunderstood the orignall topic. But if anyone would like to discuss this belief that everyone was a 'concealed revisionist' then go for it.

[jaakko]

[B]

I don't believe in 'personal dictatorship' in the exact meaning of the concept. No government or 'dictator' can stay in power without the support of a strong social class.

[Leonid Brezhnev]

Even that I am partly Trotskyist I vote [B] ...
As Stalin said ," individual persons cannot decide. Decisions of individuals are always, or nearly always, one-sided decisions...From the experience of three revolutions we know that out of every 100 decisions taken by individual persons without being tested and corrected collectively, approximately 90 are one-sided...If this were not the case, if decisions were taken by individual persons, there would be very serious mistakes in our work...Each has an opportunity of correcting anyone's individual opinion or proposal..."And as far my historical knowledge Stalin had big power to do some things that needed big power but not so big to totally control the Soviet domestic and foregin policy.

[jaakko]

Even that I am partly Trotskyist I vote [B] ...

That's only common sense. Admitting it doesn't prevent one from being a Trotskyite. No one should feel guilty for challenging the currently dominating mythical image build around Stalin's personality and position.

[Leonid Brezhnev]

No,I dont feel guilty, but I think it sounds strange not to be dogmatic in some matters that people that I have with them common beliefs are dogmatic.

[Efrem Da King]

(a)

and its proof that communism NEVER works.

[Boondock Saint]

I say B.

And how in the world does the failing of the USSR or the power or lack thereof of Stalin prove that communism NEVER works?

Personally if communism COULD work I would be the first to jump on the bandwa ... No ... must ... not ... show ... true ... colors ...

[Efrem Da King]

AH HA!!! I knew it!!!

[Ixa]

Some good responses above.

Anyway, I vote option B.

[Delphi]

I think I will quote Franklin D. Roosevelt when he stated that at one time dealing with a dictatorship is easier than with a parliamentary democracy.

"What helps alot is that Stalin is the only manI have to convince. Joe doesn't worry about a congress or a parliament. He's the whole works."

[Efrem Da King]

So I was right .

[The Red Goblin]

A:

Others may have been the titular heads of the appropriate departments (Dmitrov the Comintern, Molotov foreign minister) but the final decision making was Uncle Joe's

[devineman]

A and it is proof that communism doesnt work
as we all know communism creates a vacuum of power that leads to dictatorship because blah blah blah .... we've all heard it all before

OPEN QUESTION TO COMMUNISTS
If you made $1,000,000 in a capitalist regime thorugh hard work and 18 hour working days, if this regime then fell under communism would you like to give it to the state

[Classical Liberal]

I think B. He had a significant amount of personal control, more than necessary I would say, but I seriously doubt his power was absolute. Of course if there was a very, very important decision, I think Stalin would get to decide.

As for my personal response to devineman's question, I would still support a communist regime simply because communism is the way forward (after socialism, of course) and the fact it is wrong to exploit people and create such great and terrible material inequality. I say GREAT and TERRIBLE because I want to clarify a little bit for some people (like devineman) because we all know there is a little (some?) difference in socialism because of its characteristic idea of "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his deeds."

[smashthestate]

B. No leader has ever been in absolute COMPLETE--in the true sense of the word--control of all foreign and domestic policy.

[jaakko]

OPEN QUESTION TO COMMUNISTS
If you made $1,000,000 in a capitalist regime thorugh hard work and 18 hour working days, if this regime then fell under communism would you like to give it to the state

This is completely off-topic, but since it's rather simple question I'll give it a simple answer.

If you make one million through just selling your labour power, and don't own any capital, then socialism won't affect that (not atleast directly). Now for me, as a communist, getting extraordinarily high incomes would mean that the vast majority of my surplus money would go to the revolution (I already give from the little I have). A communist, especially under socialism, cannot earn more than the average worker. That for genuine communist parties have the principle of so-called 'party-maximum' (the section of one's incomes which exceed a set limit are paid to the party, or in socialism alternatively to the society).

For example,
APK of Denmark has very good rules, in my opinion (check especially the sections concerning the economy of the party and its functionaries and membership):
'Statutes of the Workers’ Communist Party of Denmark (APK)'
http://www.apk2000.dk/english/statutes.html