[Eddier1]

Where I hail from "yours" is slang. Down under you might be taught different nuances of English, but it doesn't matter since English HAS SO MANY EXCEPTIONS that jargon is acceptable, too.

If you check my original post to Styg, it says 'why' and not 'one', and don't give me the story that you wanted to rewrite that word, also, since you may have seen a first draft that I wrote and then used the 'edit' function to make corrections as I can find them. Sometimes there can be an oversight, as perfection is an illusion -- and no individual is PERFECT and only a fool fantasizes it is perfect, yeah o' a perfect fool would do that!

[SlavikSvensk]

SS, you are so brainwashed by Western "democratic" experts in propaganda that it is pathetic. Your mind is made-up not by you, but for you by the propagandists. If you would try to start with valid criticism of "your point of view" in published works, try to get a hold of the criticism published against the "Black Book of Communism" which has been throughly 'debunked' in Europe and in the US by the actions of the Yale University Press which originally published the book in the US, and then recalled all the copies from the retailers when it learned that the book was false, fake, phoney and fraudulent in the publishing of statistics and other material against scientific socialism. That's a fact, and facts are the best place to start when being deprogrammed from propaganda lies.

actually, the best criticism of stalinist "justice" are from communists. i don't even need to go the dissident route, or the western route...

from khrushchev's secret speech:

some years later, when socialism in our country was fundamentally constructed, when the exploiting classes were generally liquidated, when Soviet social structure had radically changed, when the social basis for political movements and groups hostile to the Party had violently contracted, when the ideological opponents of the Party were long since defeated politically -- then repression directed against them began. It was precisely during this period (1935-1937-1938) that the practice of mass repression through the Government apparatus was born, first against the enemies of Leninism -- Trotskyites, Zinovievites, Bukharinites, long since politically defeated by the Party -- and subsequently also against many honest Communists, against those Party cadres who had borne the heavy load of the Civil War and the first and most difficult years of industrialization and collectivization, who had fought actively against the Trotskyites and the rightists for the Leninist Party line.

Stalin originated the concept "enemy of the people." This term automatically made it unnecessary that the ideological errors of a man or men engaged in a controversy be proven. It made possible the use of the cruelest repression, violating all norms of revolutionary legality, against anyone who in any way disagreed with Stalin, against those who were only suspected of hostile intent, against those who had bad reputations. The concept "enemy of the people" actually eliminated the possibility of any kind of ideological fight or the making of one's views known on this or that issue, even [issues] of a practical nature. On the whole, the only proof of guilt actually used, against all norms of current legal science, was the "confession" of the accused himself. As subsequent probing has proven, "confessions" were acquired through physical pressures against the accused. This led to glaring violations of revolutionary legality and to the fact that many entirely innocent individuals -- [persons] who in the past had defended the Party line -- became victims.

We must assert that, in regard to those persons who in their time had opposed the Party line, there were often no sufficiently serious reasons for their physical annihilation. The formula "enemy of the people" was specifically introduced for the purpose of physically annihilating such individuals.

It is a fact that many persons who were later annihilated as enemies of the Party and people had worked with Lenin during his life. Some of these persons had made errors during Lenin's life, but, despite this, Lenin benefited by their work; he corrected them and he did everything possible to retain them in the ranks of the Party; he induced them to follow him.

and

Stalin, on the other hand, used extreme methods and mass repressions at a time when the Revolution was already victorious, when the Soviet state was strengthened, when the exploiting classes were already liquidated and socialist relations were rooted solidly in all phases of national economy, when our Party was politically consolidated and had strengthened itself both numerically and ideologically.

It is clear that here Stalin showed in a whole series of cases his intolerance, his brutality and his abuse of power. Instead of proving his political correctness and mobilizing the masses, he often chose the path of repression and physical annihilation, not only against actual enemies, but also against individuals who had not committed any crimes against the Party and the Soviet Government. Here we see no wisdom but only a demonstration of the brutal force which had once so alarmed V. I. Lenin.

Lately, especially after the unmasking of the Beria gang, the Central Committee looked into a series of matters fabricated by this gang. This revealed a very ugly picture of brutal willfulness connected with the incorrect behavior of Stalin. As facts prove, Stalin, using his unlimited power, allowed himself many abuses, acting in the name of the Central Committee, not asking for the opinion of the Committee members nor even of the members of the Central Committee's Politbiuro; often he did not inform them about his personal decisions concerning very important Party and government matters.

[Eddier1]

during this period (1935-1937-1938) that the practice of mass repression through the Government apparatus was born, first against the enemies of Leninism -- Trotskyites, Zinovievites, Bukharinites, long since politically defeated by the Party

"Long since", that's baloney and coming from Krushchev, who was the prime mover of the 'cult of personality' of Stalin, which Stalin did not want. All the statues and other paraphenalia of such a cult was manufactured by Krushchev. And when Stalin expired, then K. showed his fangs and total idiotic hypocrisy in beginning the destruction of Stalin's accomplishments in history. BUT history is justifying Stalin and his works and leadership as the General Secretary, and has placed K. where he belongs in the list of revisionists, whom although still commies were mistaken as to what was necessary for scientific socialism to survive the nearly cerca 80 years that it did.

And K.'s rant about repression being so bad belies the comrade's experience that simply being arrested is a form of repression in any society. And the methods of interrogation, world-wide, have as their harsh objective getting a confession from the accused and is usually conducted unrelentingly by all able interrogators -- albeit, that still many of the accused refuse to confess to something they say they didn't do!

However, with regard to the "stars" of the so-called show trials -- all the anarchists confessed to their crimes, central of which was the anarchist plot to assassinate the General Secretary. Were any of them maimed, or bruised of showing obvious signs of being tortured -- none did? In fact, Bukharin the principle character in the plot tried to discuss 'philosophical issues' with the prosecutor and judges at his trial. It is all in the court minutes of the trial which is available to read online.

Perhaps, K. did not believe that the records from the court would ever be released and so he emboldened himself in attacking his old friend Stalin, whom feted K. regularly -- feeding him in suppers attended by all the principle collegium of the leaders of the Soviet vanguard, and K. was the "dancing bear" often at those fetes, performing the folk dances of his village, kicking out his legs ectera. The comrade, revisionist communist later forgot all this, and played the village fool before the whole world in denouncing his old comrade.

How true it is, as the classic adage states, "that the good that men do is oft interred with their bones!"

[SlavikSvensk]

he saw stalinism for what it was: the ultimate perversion of a set of ideals.

but no, i must remember the many works of stalin. 27 million of them, in fact, as oofficial soviet research estimates...

...and let's not forget the confessions! so! trustworthy! and! totally! not! compelled! by! torture! at! all!

[Eddier1]

he saw stalinism for what it was: the ultimate perversion of a set of ideals.

but no, i must remember the many works of stalin. 27 million of them, in fact, as oofficial soviet research estimates...

No he didn't. Your description is not supported by his speech; it is simply wrong to say it was perversion of scientific socialism, which has a dicta, but not "ideals". Ideals are the metaphysical cants of abstract speculations, mostly utopian stuff and nonsense, and not related to the material world in any significant way.

We are referring to dialectical materialism and concrete action with regard to the social conditions in the world of real politik and economics. Stalin got things done along those lines and enhanced the Soviet Union to the level of a superpower the equal of the other superpower that took almost two centuries to reach that level. The Soviet Union did it in less than a half century due to the works of Stalin's leadership.

Writing to works, what do you mean by the "27 million of them"; explain or identify what works you are referring to -- if literary, his collected works dating from the time he was the editor of 'Iskra' amount to approx. 10 volumes, if the collection of his letters and notes are included. Lenin's collected works amount to approx. 45 volumes, if his letters and notes are included in the works.

May social reason forbid!, if you are referring to the 24 million Russians who perished during Operation Barbarossa at the hands of the Waffen.

Stalin through Molotov had reached a military treaty with the third Reich, and it was broken by Hitler, who's word was worth excrement as the invasion proved.

[baconstyle]

No he didn't. Your description is not supported by his speech; it is simply wrong to say it was perversion of scientific socialism, which has a dicta, but not "ideals".

I suggest you reread the speech. It seems you completely misunderstood it.

I'm not sure I understand the rest of your post. It seems to me that you really want to believe that Stalin was a great guy, that by turning the Soviet Union into a world-class power, it mitigates any repressive measures and purges he might have done.

In short, you seem to have a quite Machiavellian and Utopian view of politics. You are Machiavellian in that you recognize the benefits of pragmatism to increase a nation's military and political power. You are a utopian in that you refuse to look at the dark underside of the rise to power, including the murders, repression, and altogether perversion that Stalin's regime represented. If it advances the world communist revolution, anything goes, eh?

[Eddier1]

If it advances the world communist revolution, anything goes, eh?

Anything that advances the communist revolution in the world is acceptable to the scientific socialist that I am. Look at the freakin' world, do you think that your Juche notions (given your avatar) will advance that revolution in the world? Juchists revere their leaders, from Kim il Song onward; but you disrespect the leadership of Stalin, and call him that "guy". Mao, on the contrary, referred to Stalin as a great Marxist-Leninist, and Krushchev as a revisionist.

You don't know what the hell you are talking about concerning the Krushchev speech. He nowhere mentions "ideals" or such Hegalian errors. He had a personal 'peev' against Stalin, that's all, and since he was the prime mover in having statues and other images built in Stalin's time, his speech for the sheer hypocrisy of if demonstrates on the part of K. that K. lacks all credibility in what he RANTED ABOUT in the speech.

Guys like you need K. to slap you with his shoe across your face, before you wake up to the facts of the old Soviet Union. Just because K. once sat in the United Nations and took off his shoe and created a great disturbance pounding away, doesn't do a damn thing for him as a smart individual.

He and you both lack credibility, since your comments are as STUPID as Krushchev's speech was. That's all!

[SlavikSvensk]

he had 27 million pet peeves with stalin

[baconstyle]

SlavikSvensk... Funny and pertinent...

as for Eddier1:

You don't know what the hell you are talking about concerning the Krushchev speech. He nowhere mentions "ideals" or such Hegalian errors. He had a personal 'peev' against Stalin, that's all, and since he was the prime mover in having statues and other images built in Stalin's time, his speech for the sheer hypocrisy of if demonstrates on the part of K. that K. lacks all credibility in what he RANTED ABOUT in the speech.

Guys like you need K. to slap you with his shoe across your face, before you wake up to the facts of the old Soviet Union. Just because K. once sat in the United Nations and took off his shoe and created a great disturbance pounding away, doesn't do a damn thing for him as a smart individual.

He and you both lack credibility, since your comments are as STUPID as Krushchev's speech was. That's all!

Once again, I have no clue what you are talking about. I think you are saying that we cannot trust Kruschev because he lacks credibility, and he had a personal peev against Stalin. But I agree with SlavikSvensk. He [Kruschev] had 27 million peevs with Stalin

And you think my comments are stupid because I disagree with you.

Well, Eddier1, here's some important advice for you. Judge an argument based on its merit, not its source.

All you are doing is constructing ad hominem strawman arguments that do not help us answer the questions at hand: critiques of Stalinist justice. Did Stalinist justice serve the greater good? Did it help advance the communist revolution in the world? Was it necessary? When you answer these questions, we can start having a rational conversation.

[Maksym]

but no, i must remember the many works of stalin. 27 million of them, in fact, as oofficial soviet research estimates...

Can you show the documents proving “27 million of them”?

..and let's not forget the confessions! so! trustworthy! and! totally! not! compelled! by! torture! at! all!

Why would political opponents need confessions forced out of them? The political opponents, after all, had written manifestos calling for the assassination of leaders and sabotage of industrialization and collectivization.

actually, the best criticism of stalinist "justice" are from communists. i don't even need to go the dissident route, or the western route...

Khrushchev restored Capitalism in the USSR and conducted a purge much greater than under Stalin’s leadership of the Communist Party.

Baconstyle wrote:

Did Stalinist justice serve the greater good?

Yes.

Did it help advance the communist revolution in the world?

Yes.

Was it necessary?

Yes.

[SlavikSvensk]

numbers are summarized here:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin

note, the debate is between those who think stalinism was incredibly murderous (low-ballers) and insanely murderous (high-ballers).

i also fail to see how khrushchev brought capitalism back to the soviet union...stalin built magnitogorsk with capitalists, for one thing, which khrushchev never did, while greatly increasing the power of the state over the proletariat, which is anti-marxist.

[baconstyle]

Maksym wrote:

Quote:
Did Stalinist justice serve the greater good?


Yes.

Quote:
Did it help advance the communist revolution in the world?


Yes.

Quote:
Was it necessary?


Yes.

Saying yes does not lend your argument any credibility. Why are you refusing to address the issue? It is not a yes-no question, you must show how Stalinist justice did all of those.

As of now, it is hard to take such arguments seriously. The only person who actually provided evidence was SlavikSvensk.

[Maksym]

SlavikSvensk, did I ask for a summary of the numbers(if you can call your link a summary)? I asked for documents from “official soviet research estimates” that prove “27 million of them”.

i also fail to see how khrushchev brought capitalism back to the soviet union

You can start with the work by Martin Nicolaus, RESTORATION of CAPITALISM in the USSR

Baconstyle wrote

Saying yes does not lend your argument any credibility.

So? Was there an argument to debate?

Why are you refusing to address the issue? It is not a yes-no question, you must show how Stalinist justice did all of those.

I cannot address an issue when it is not my responsibility to prove the legitimacy, but rather the side trying to revise history to forward an arguement.

As of now, it is hard to take such arguments seriously. The only person who actually provided evidence was SlavikSvensk.

Actually, this is not the case.