Athens Greece: Cops murder a 16 year old

[co-op]

I think I might be your ilk!

 

[frogwoman]

I had assumed you were a SP member, Frogwoman ? (working in TUSC). In which case surely you are as up to speed (unlike Captain Hurrah and his ilk) as anyone on the nature and tragedy of stalinism and stalinist -but-working class-based political parties ? Trotskyism has its own political shortcomings.. but it has always had a VERY firm grasp of the nature of "stalinism" - if only because the stalinists have murdered so many of em !

yes. i admit i'm not the greatest informed person on this subject, but i probably know more than you think. and yes the stalinists did murder many trots. however you have to understand that a lot of people have quite positive historical memories of this period (unless they were an ethnic or national minority in the USSR or a political opponent of the stalinist state) especially when you compare it to what the end of stalinism left in its wake - ethnic cleansing, war, the rise of fascism, and the wholesale looting and pillaging of state assets etc. i just don't think it's the best way to convince people. that's all.

 

[Lo Siento.]

It's possible to believe that Stalinism was tragic but also to be sceptical about the facile anti-Stalinism bandied about by the motley and self-righteous collection of rightists, trots, anarchists and liberals that get all excited by being more anti-soviet than thou.

Which is the facile brand of anti-Stalinism? Aside from their theoretical tolerance of mass murder, there's plenty of domestic muck to throw at the Western European CPs, much of which has direct relevance to the role they're playing in modern struggles.

 

[co-op]

Good word, ilk.

 

[Captain Hurrah]

yes. i admit i'm not the greatest informed person on this subject

Neither is he. Conflating the GLF with the GPCR for one.

 

[co-op]

Which is the facile brand of anti-Stalinism?

Ayatollah's completely ahistorical type; "if Trotsky had been leader everything would have all been much better because he was, like, a really nice guy".

Aside from their theoretical tolerance of mass murder, there's plenty of domestic muck to throw at the Western European CPs, much of which has direct relevance to the role they're playing in modern struggles.

I'm not sure who's still defending mass murder among the various CPs left in Europe?

Are they compromised by their various histories? Of course. As is Trotsky and all the various microsects that keep a candle burning for him. I'm not sure how obsessing about Stalin helps any modern struggles, especially when it involves cuddling up to a weird collection of reactionaries, nationalists, anti-semites, neo-liberal imperialists etc (as it invariably does when conversation turns to the USSR).

 

[Lo Siento.]

Ayatollah's completely ahistorical type; "if Trotsky had been leader everything would have all been much better because he was, like, a really nice guy".

I'm not sure I've ever met a Trotskyist who would argue that. Presumably this would be facile anti-Trotskyism?

I'm not sure who's still defending mass murder among the various CPs left in Europe?

I used the word "tolerance" rather than "defence" for a reason. I won't dwell on this because I don't think it's very important in the general scheme of things, but you do not have to look very hard in Rifondazione, PCE, PCF, CPB or KKE to find people who would be hesitant to refer to 20th century socialist states as tragic (and much more!). Since most people are agreed that those states were very undesirable places to live, most revolutionaries are (rightfully) anxious to demonstrate that they don't agree with such ideas.

Are they compromised by their various histories? Of course. As is Trotsky and all the various microsects that keep a candle burning for him. I'm not sure how obsessing about Stalin helps any modern struggles, especially when it involves cuddling up to a weird collection of reactionaries, nationalists, anti-semites, neo-liberal imperialists etc (as it invariably does when conversation turns to the USSR).

I don't see anyone cuddling up to reactionaries, nationalists, anti-semites or neo-liberal imperialists. How are they doing that? These parties are not merely "compromised by their various histories" they have had actual roles in actual struggles, where their behaviour has been largely determined and structured by the type of organisations they are, and they way they were constructed.

 

[Lo Siento.]

dp

 

[ayatollah]

If you feel like an "ilk" then declare yourself, Co-op.

Now there IS sometimes a jokey suggestion within Trotskyism to suggest that if Trotsky had spent less time reading French literature in Central Committee meetings in the 20's and more time watching Stalin , everything would have been OK . However the ENTIRE analytical output of Trotskyism has been to REJECT any notion that Stalinism and anti Stalinism comes down to "nice people" and "nasty people" -- because it is an historically rigorous marxist CLASS analysis, co-op - NOT drivelling liberalism . The analysis states that the genuine revolutionery socialist revolution of 1917 was left isolated in a mainly peasant society after the failure of the German revolutionery wave of 1919 to about 1924. The Communist Party therefore had to adopt "War Communism" as a measure to keep control (and hope the European revolutionery wave picked up again) , and fight off the White counter revolution. Eventually the police state erected under war communism "ate" the workers and peasant state - as the NEW BUREAUCRATIC CLASS which had grown up within the Communist Party/state machine we now know as "Stalinism" took over the reins of power to run the USSR in its own interests, with Stalin as its historical agent - with the Purges shooting or imprisoning most of the revolutionery socialists of the 1917 revolution.

It is NO use being "Nice" or "tolerant" of either stalinists, stalin apologists, or "stalinism" - it is an ideological beartrap for working class militants, and a complete disaster when trying to attract working class people in general to genuine socialism. The duty of revolutionery socialists is to continuously expose it when it poses as the "solution" to the capitalist crisis, and put in its place the political philosophy and action of genuine revolutionery socialism to the working class and its allies.

Eventually in Greece the army tanks WILL roll from the barracks to "restore order" for the bankers. Only a working class united in a united front has any chance of withstanding this. The sectarianism and vanguardism of the KKE is a HUGE barrier to long term resistance - and spreading the struggle across Europe.

 

[frogwoman]

I'm not sure I've ever met a Trotskyist who would argue that. Presumably this would be facile anti-Trotskyism?



I used the word "tolerance" rather than "defence" for a reason. I won't dwell on this because I don't think it's very important in the general scheme of things, but you do not have to look very hard in Rifondazione, PCE, PCF, CPB or KKE to find people who would be hesitant to refer to 20th century socialist states as tragic (and much more!). Since most people are agreed that those states were very undesirable places to live, most revolutionaries are (rightfully) anxious to demonstrate that they don't agree with such ideas.


I don't see anyone cuddling up to reactionaries, nationalists, anti-semites or neo-liberal imperialists. How are they doing that? These parties are not merely "compromised by their various histories" they have had actual roles in actual struggles, where their behaviour has been largely determined and structured by the type of organisations they are, and they way they were constructed.

i largely agree with this, being a trot and all (and to be fair trotsky always classified the soviet union etc as deformed/degenerated workers' states rather than dictatorial hellholes, for the majority of people, most of the time, the system of government that was put in place by the soviet union was certainly an improvement, or at least, no worse than the previous system under the tsar and definitely what was to follow it).

i think when discussing stalinism however, "what was to follow it" was the key. the end of stalinism and introduction of capitalist "democracy" in the former soviet union has largely been an utter, complete, disaster for the w/c and the peasantry. i think if you go to many of these countries you will find a hell of a lot of people who are happy to say that they admire stalin, that they would like to see the soviet union back, or are what we would think of as stalinists, especially older people. The end of stalinism saw many people lose their savings, their homes, etc and in many places helped to begin an epidemic of alcohol and drug abuse that has destroyed lives and communities. for many people the soviet union's collapse has led to them becoming refugees, it has led to the rise of nationalism and fascism, it has led to things that they previously took for granted as being free or subsidised, such as healthcare etc, becoming completely out of their reach.

that is why i don't think you can just think that someone who supports a stalinist party or what they thought stalinism represented, in countries where it was still strong even if they didn't come to power there, is a cunt. why did/do people become stalinists ayatollah?

and are "most people" agreed that these states were very undesirable places to live? i'm really not sure they are. certainly that's true in the west. but around the world? i'm really not sure.

 

[Lo Siento.]

i largely agree with this, being a trot and all (and to be fair trotsky always classified the soviet union etc as deformed/degenerated workers' states rather than dictatorial hellholes, for the majority of people, most of the time, the system of government that was put in place by the soviet union was certainly an improvement, or at least, no worse than the previous system under the tsar and definitely what was to follow it).

i think when discussing stalinism however, "what was to follow it" was the key. the end of stalinism and introduction of capitalist "democracy" in the former soviet union has largely been an utter, complete, disaster for the w/c and the peasantry. i think if you go to many of these countries you will find a hell of a lot of people who are happy to say that they admire stalin, that they would like to see the soviet union back, or are what we would think of as stalinists, especially older people. The end of stalinism saw many people lose their savings, their homes, etc and in many places helped to begin an epidemic of alcohol and drug abuse that has destroyed lives and communities. for many people the soviet union's collapse has led to them becoming refugees, it has led to the rise of nationalism and fascism, it has led to things that they previously took for granted as being free or subsidised, such as healthcare etc, becoming completely out of their reach.

that is why i don't think you can just think that someone who supports a stalinist party or what they thought stalinism represented, in countries where it was still strong even if they didn't come to power there, is a cunt. why did/do people become stalinists ayatollah?

and are "most people" agreed that these states were very undesirable places to live? i'm really not sure they are. certainly that's true in the west. but around the world? i'm really not sure.

Well, a western state is where we (and the KKE) are based, so that's the problem that's most relevant to us here.

I take your point about the nostalgia for Stalinism in the former Soviet Bloc and why a lot of that is understandable given what's happened subsequently. Yet there are some working-class Spanish and Portuguese people who are nostalgic about their fascist dictatorships for similar reasons (more job and social security, lower levels of crimes, lower levels of unemployment etc.). People facing backwards towards a "golden age" before neo-liberalism is a massive obstacle that any aiming at an anti-capitalist, post-crisis society is going to have to face.

For the record, I'm not one for dismissing all modern day Stalinists as cunts, or indeed all Labour Party members or whatever else (I draw the line at Tories and Nazis, obviously), but their organisations should be acknowledged for what they are.

 

[frogwoman]

For the record, I'm not one for dismissing all modern day Stalinists as cunts, or indeed all Labour Party members or whatever else (I draw the line at Tories and Nazis, obviously), but their organisations should be acknowledged for what they are.

agreed.

 

[Captain Hurrah]

i think when discussing stalinism however, "what was to follow it" was the key. the end of stalinism and introduction of capitalist "democracy" in the former soviet union has largely been an utter, complete, disaster for the w/c and the peasantry. i think if you go to many of these countries you will find a hell of a lot of people who are happy to say that they admire stalin, that they would like to see the soviet union back, or are what we would think of as stalinists, especially older people. The end of stalinism saw many people lose their savings, their homes, etc and in many places helped to begin an epidemic of alcohol and drug abuse that has destroyed lives and communities. for many people the soviet union's collapse has led to them becoming refugees, it has led to the rise of nationalism and fascism, it has led to things that they previously took for granted as being free or subsidised, such as healthcare etc, becoming completely out of their reach.

that is why i don't think you can just think that someone who supports a stalinist party or what they thought stalinism represented, in countries where it was still strong even if they didn't come to power there, is a cunt. why did/do people become stalinists ayatollah?

and are "most people" agreed that these states were very undesirable places to live? i'm really not sure they are. certainly that's true in the west. but around the world? i'm really not sure.

Also, I would bet that a fair few people in the FSU, particularly older people with who this 'nostalgia' is the strongest, will find the term Stalinism to be alien to them, or find ayatollah's utopian criteria of what socialism is to be irrelevant. Their reasons for supporting the old system doesn't necessarily even make them 'Stalinists.'

 

[frogwoman]

thats also true.

 

[frogwoman]

don't also forget that in the case of the kke etc, people don't always join a party because they completely agree with every aspect of their ideology. i know i didn't agree with everything in the SP's programme when I joined it (although i agree with the huge majority of it) and there are still a few things I don't agree with, mostly over tactics. they join them because they are the most visible, the ones who are doing positive work in their area, the ones campaigning on issues they care about, the ones who are with them at picket lines or even just the one a few of their mates have joined. they might be the one group that they feel doesn't patronise them etc. not all of these are "good" reasons but they are still reasons.

 

[audiotech]

Anti-fascists pelt a TV news broadcaster with yogurts and eggs, during a live TV interview. A week before the presenter had hosted an interview with a representative of the fascist "Golden Dawn". The yogurts and eggs are recovering well and were last seen being tossed in a Greek salad.

 

[elbows]

The yoghurt & egg anti-fascist clip is very popular on the BBC website right now, shame about their yoghurt-brained voiceover.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17649105

 

[ayatollah]

Also, I would bet that a fair few people in the FSU, particularly older people with who this 'nostalgia' is the strongest, will find the term Stalinism to be alien to them, or find ayatollah's utopian criteria of what socialism is to be irrelevant. Their reasons for supporting the old system doesn't necessarily even make them 'Stalinists.'

IF it is "utopian" to hold to a vision of "socialism" which as its KEY characteristic centrally includes the genuine control of that society by the Working Class - which is free to vote through genuine elections for a VARIETY of political parties , what is "REALISM" ? ALL the states so far that have claimed to be "communist" have been rigidly controlled one party police states. Their "elections" have been shams. They have imprisoned very large numbers of their citizens for any opposition to the one party state. ALL these "communist" states have been organised to the benefit of a small bureaucratic elite, based largely on the Communist party. So what are they ? For most non "communist" radical socialists these societies have been understood as variously "deformed workers states, "state capitalist", " bureaucratic collectivisms" "degenerated workers states"..... but NOT as in any way the democratic workers states that socialism has always aimed to create. The mere existence of state owned property relations is NOT in itself a core criteria of a socialist state - if a bureaucratic elite/class/bureaucracy has seized CONTROL of the use and major benefits of this nationalised property structure.

So the apologist for the tragedy, and indeed , blood soaked horror, of much of the history of these suppose "communist " states (which is often called "stalinism" after its first great dictator and usurper of the socialist revolution of 1917), says "well tough titty, in fact that's what "socialism" actually looks like.. " Well if that is true, neither I, nor most of the world's working class would want ANYTHING to do with such a system - apart from the sheer tyranny, they were ALL so economically incompetent that they've ALL gone.. down the toilet of history .. even China is now some sort of "capitalist state with stalinist deformations". Oh yeh.. still North Korea to keep the flag flying ... nearly forgot !

Why do some people faced with total disruption to their lives, mass poverty, insecurity, arising from the mafia state established on the collapse of the Soviet Union into complete capitalist restoration often look back on even Soviet tyranny with nostalgia ? Not too difficult to figure is it.. for a LOT of people the capitalist restoration has made em POORER. Does that justify the tyranny and economic incompetence of the "communist regimes though ? If so, Why ?

Why do people join "Stalinist" parties ? Certainly a lot of them are NOT bastards at all -- often very militant workers. In the KKE case, it is a mass party with a long history and deep social base , and has retained the loyalty of much of its base through day to day struggle against capitalism. It has obviously fed its supporters with the same distorted image of the USSR and "stalinist" communism which Captain Hurrah seems to believe in. It has periodically dealt VERY physically with its radical socialist rivals, to keep its hegemony on the "Left" of Greek politics. KKE mass rank and file supporters are unlikely to be keen on setting up yet another oppressive police state, benefitting the Party elite - but then that is hardly the message Communist Parties put out to win support is it .... any more than fascist parties spell out honestly what THEY will do when they gain power ! Of course many middle class fans of (stalinist)Communist parties and the USSR are people precisely attracted to the "ruthless unchallengeable power" reality of the totalitarian state - because they picture THEMSELVES as part of that power elite. The irony is that in the typical stalinist regime .. apart from the top leadership the party mass base are usually even more terrorised than the ordinary citizen to conform and OBEY. Think on that Captain Hurrah.

 

[audiotech]

The yoghurt & egg anti-fascist clip is very popular on the BBC website right now, shame about their yoghurt-brained voiceover.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17649105

It's a welcome surprise to see that clip on the BBC website and the comments from the BBC bot that he was 'worried about his lap-top' and it was 'disappointing for him that no one came to his rescue' is also a welcome surprise.

 

[Pickman's model]

why doesn't the title of this thread get changed to something more appropriate and meaningful?

 

[frogwoman]

no, i think the original title should be kept because that's what started this whole thing. (or was the trigger for it anyway). The early posts also make more sense with that title.

 

[Pickman's model]

no, i think the original title should be kept because that's what started this whole thing. (or was the trigger for it anyway). The early posts also make more sense with that title.

whenever i see it i wonder for a moment if the greek cops have been out killing kids again

anyone joining the thread now and expecting a cop thread would be mightily disappointed.

 

[Riklet]

no, i think the original title should be kept because that's what started this whole thing. (or was the trigger for it anyway). The early posts also make more sense with that title.

I disagree with that bit, i mean c'mon. Or do you mean it started this thread? In terms of the general situation in Greece and all the complexities that have been argued about for pages and pages, it's no where near is it. Awful though of course..

Definitely having a new more "general" title about Greece would make sense, possibly with the previous title in parenthesis or brackets.

Thanks for the translation of the suicide letter Dimitris. Rather a good letter. Fucking hell, poor bloke

 

[sunnysidedown]

Read as widely as you like , but apart from contemporary enthusiasts for the Stalin era , ANY account from any reputable historian is going to rack up the body count from the Stalinist regime's forced collectivisation and purges and gulag deaths into tens of millions - likewise with Mao's China. By the way the last surviving Stalinist model regime in the world, North Korea ,so cocked up its economy that about 1.5 million died in the famines of the 1990's. Also not True ?

You guys Have to grasp that "Stalinism" is a CLASS-based system - substituting the rule of the working class for the rule of a bureaucratic class - based though on State ownership of property - hence its ability to fool lots of people that the USSR, and Mao's China were "Socialist". (North Korea is practically a stalinist MONARCHY FFS ! - but still based on state ownership of property)You can be as unwilling to face up to the reality of "Stalinism" or "state capitalism" as you want - stay in denial about these system's crimes and COUNTER REVOLUTIONERY nature - but that's your problem and intellectual cowardice.

Revolutionery socialists see "Stalinism" for what it was and is - the corruption of the aims of socialism for the benefit of a new bureaucratic class. Live in your historical denial bubble, guys. As a revolutionery socialist I don't NEED to deny the crimes of Stalinism - because that isn't socialism, and certainly not what I have struggled for.

Hence the unashamedly Stalinist KKE, uses the language of socialism, but its "vanguardist" .. "only the KKE has the right to rule on behalf of the working class" ideology , means it cannot work positively with other Left groups, and has a vision of socialism which is a bureaucratic tyranny , NOT a democratic workers state.

Good luck with your wider reading ... you certainly need it !

I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick somewhat, what I am curious about is what led to Stalinism, what were the conditions/mistakes that led people (as CH stated above) *to have to choose between fascism & stalinism*.

I'm certainly not looking for some apology of Stalinism, but I get the distinct impression that Trots such as yourself would do well to take a closer look at your own particular vanguardism that provided the structure that led to Stalinism in the first place.

 

[Captain Hurrah]

IF it is "utopian" to hold to a vision of "socialism" which as its KEY characteristic centrally includes the genuine control of that society by the Working Class - which is free to vote through genuine elections for a VARIETY of political parties , what is "REALISM" ? ALL the states so far that have claimed to be "communist" have been rigidly controlled one party police states. Their "elections" have been shams. They have imprisoned very large numbers of their citizens for any opposition to the one party state. ALL these "communist" states have been organised to the benefit of a small bureaucratic elite, based largely on the Communist party. So what are they ? For most non "communist" radical socialists these societies have been understood as variously "deformed workers states, "state capitalist", " bureaucratic collectivisms" "degenerated workers states"..... but NOT as in any way the democratic workers states that socialism has always aimed to create. The mere existence of state owned property relations is NOT in itself a core criteria of a socialist state - if a bureaucratic elite/class/bureaucracy has seized CONTROL of the use and major benefits of this nationalised property structure.

So the apologist for the tragedy, and indeed , blood soaked horror, of much of the history of these suppose "communist " states (which is often called "stalinism" after its first great dictator and usurper of the socialist revolution of 1917), says "well tough titty, in fact that's what "socialism" actually looks like.. " Well if that is true, neither I, nor most of the world's working class would want ANYTHING to do with such a system - apart from the sheer tyranny, they were ALL so economically incompetent that they've ALL gone.. down the toilet of history .. even China is now some sort of "capitalist state with stalinist deformations". Oh yeh.. still North Korea to keep the flag flying ... nearly forgot !

Why do some people faced with total disruption to their lives, mass poverty, insecurity, arising from the mafia state established on the collapse of the Soviet Union into complete capitalist restoration often look back on even Soviet tyranny with nostalgia ? Not too difficult to figure is it.. for a LOT of people the capitalist restoration has made em POORER. Does that justify the tyranny and economic incompetence of the "communist regimes though ? If so, Why ?

Why do people join "Stalinist" parties ? Certainly a lot of them are NOT bastards at all -- often very militant workers. In the KKE case, it is a mass party with a long history and deep social base , and has retained the loyalty of much of its base through day to day struggle against capitalism. It has obviously fed its supporters with the same distorted image of the USSR and "stalinist" communism which Captain Hurrah seems to believe in. It has periodically dealt VERY physically with its radical socialist rivals, to keep its hegemony on the "Left" of Greek politics. KKE mass rank and file supporters are unlikely to be keen on setting up yet another oppressive police state, benefitting the Party elite - but then that is hardly the message Communist Parties put out to win support is it .... any more than fascist parties spell out honestly what THEY will do when they gain power ! Of course many middle class fans of (stalinist)Communist parties and the USSR are people precisely attracted to the "ruthless unchallengeable power" reality of the totalitarian state - because they picture THEMSELVES as part of that power elite. The irony is that in the typical stalinist regime .. apart from the top leadership the party mass base are usually even more terrorised than the ordinary citizen to conform and OBEY. Think on that Captain Hurrah.

STALINIST!!!!! LOL.

Jesus fucking Christ. Stop reading from a script, I'm beginning to think you're a troll.

I've already engaged with you on some particular nuances of Stalinism on this thread, posts which you never bothered replying to because you couldn't. You just have a little supply of stock answers which you then use in the hope it will generally touch upon in some way what is being talked about. We get into specifics, or go into more detail, which can help with the broader picture, and you're lost.

I called you utopian over more accurately defunct Communist-ruled states through which an interpretation of socialism was rightly or wrongly implemented, because I think it is more fruitful to try and understand and explain why those organisations and states became what they were, than to take the position that declares there have been no genuine or sincere attempts at establishing socialism, unless it is the pure, unsullied version inside your head, where everything is worked out and ready to be put in place and it's all fine and dandy. But yours just seems to be a different (Trot) side of the same Leninist-derived political coin. Indeed now discredited and moribund the world over. The revolutionaries in the last century, Stalinist or otherwise, didn't have the benefit of this wonderful hindsight or have people on hand to tell them where they were going wrong. They had police repression, civil wars, military intervention, foreign air forces raining down death. I don't know where to begin with the USSR itself. But I'll have a go. Firstly, you talk as if the Soviet Union was hermetically sealed from class struggle, its people with no agency, and secondly my point about former Soviet citizens of perhaps a certain age just not seeing their experience of living under Stalinism or socialism the same as you. They weren't/aren't wearing a straitjacket like you.

I've never been called an 'apologist for the tragedy, and indeed , blood soaked horror, of much of the history of these supposed "communist " states' before. I'm flattered.

 

[co-op]

I'm not sure I've ever met a Trotskyist who would argue that. Presumably this would be facile anti-Trotskyism?

That would be a fair criticism except that Ayatollah has been not far from being this daft and it was him I was responding to. Generally I'm trying not to be facile, I think there's been some very interesting posts on this thread.

I used the word "tolerance" rather than "defence" for a reason. I won't dwell on this because I don't think it's very important in the general scheme of things, but you do not have to look very hard in Rifondazione, PCE, PCF, CPB or KKE to find people who would be hesitant to refer to 20th century socialist states as tragic (and much more!). Since most people are agreed that those states were very undesirable places to live, most revolutionaries are (rightfully) anxious to demonstrate that they don't agree with such ideas.

I've certainly met (back in the 80s) PCI members who absolutely defended the USSR although they used to change the subject pretty quickly when I raised Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968 so I know what you're talking about. But my wider point is that it wasn't just the USSR and its satellites that were "tragic", it was pretty much the whole history of humanity in the 20th c. More rape, murder, torture, starvation and general brutality than in the rest of history put together [<rhetorical claim, btw, but semi-defendable I reckon]. It's in that context that the actions of Stalin and all the others must be placed. I personally can't see any way at all that a revolution such as 1917 would have led to anything except either right-wing fascistic autocracy by the counter-revolution or something similar to whatever it is that we call Stalinism. But we get into historical what-ifs pretty fast there. My point is that the Trotsky-by-numbers stuff that Ayatollah is coming out with seems oblivious to the constraints that the Bolsheviks were operating under. Starvation was normal. Murder was normal. Violence was everywhere.

You say that "most people are agreed that those states were very undesirable places to live" - I would genuinely reject that. If an "ordinary" person had to choose between life in the USSR and life in Imperial Russia, my guess is that most would have been far far better off in the USSR - although how you disaggregate things like the Nazi invasion from that is anyone's guess.

I don't see anyone cuddling up to reactionaries, nationalists, anti-semites or neo-liberal imperialists. How are they doing that? These parties are not merely "compromised by their various histories" they have had actual roles in actual struggles, where their behaviour has been largely determined and structured by the type of organisations they are, and they way they were constructed.

The cuddling up I'm talking about is the constant litany of the sins of the USSR that is ritually repeated again and again whenever the history of the 20th C is discussed. Anti-Soviet history is the Official History of our time and it is particularly stoked by the proper right wing, especially groups I've already mentioned on this thread such as Ukrainian nationalists who are deeply implicated in the slaughter of the jews in the occupied USSR but who have now recast themselves as victims of soviet oppression, with the happy connivance of western liberal historians. The Holodmor industry that has been cranked up in the last 15 years is a perfect example. There's ample evidence that many of the 'excess deaths' in the Ukraine are the result of other atrocities, by Nazis, or by the Polish "resistance" (who spent a good deal more time ethnically cleansing Ukrainians than fighting Germans, in the particularly nasty Ukrainian/Polish war that took place under German occupation) - or even - and this will surely damn me as a Stalinist" to those who want to - that many of the Ukrainian "peasants" were genuinely trying to strangle the revolution and were engaging in a de facto guerilla war to that end. There is also, of course, a genuinely plausible Holodmor thesis that may be true, it's just that believing it or questioning it are not simple questions of historical fact but are highly political choices still, right now. And let's remember that just about all the actual written stats are subject to the accusation of bias or are just wrong, because the conditions under which they were collected made accuracy impossible.

Personally I am always wary of USSR-bashing and I want to know who's doing it and why before I'll line up along side it. I worry about the company I might end up keeping.

Finally, I've literally just put down a copy of the Literary Review and they have reviewed a book about the siege of Leningrad from 1941 to 1944. Millions died, mostly of starvation the suffering must have been almost unendurable. Cause? The Nazi invasion, right? Wrong; apparently it was Stalin's stupidity and carelessness with the lives of Russians that was "nearly" as much to blame. I mean my jaw drops when I read this kind of shit, but that's the Official Version right there.

 

[Lo Siento.]

But my wider point is that it wasn't just the USSR and its satellites that were "tragic", it was pretty much the whole history of humanity in the 20th c. More rape, murder, torture, starvation and general brutality than in the rest of history put together [<rhetorical claim, btw, but semi-defendable I reckon]. It's in that context that the actions of Stalin and all the others must be placed. I personally can't see any way at all that a revolution such as 1917 would have led to anything except either right-wing fascistic autocracy by the counter-revolution or something similar to whatever it is that we call Stalinism. But we get into historical what-ifs pretty fast there. My point is that the Trotsky-by-numbers stuff that Ayatollah is coming out with seems oblivious to the constraints that the Bolsheviks were operating under. Starvation was normal. Murder was normal. Violence was everywhere.

Yes, but while making equivalences between the violence of Nazism, imperialism and Stalinism is a perfectly sound critique of liberal anti-Stalinists, I don't see how it applies to people who would be equally critical of all of that violence. For me the idea that Stalinism was only as brutal as its competitors is not an adequate defence of those regimes.

You say that "most people are agreed that those states were very undesirable places to live" - I would genuinely reject that. If an "ordinary" person had to choose between life in the USSR and life in Imperial Russia, my guess is that most would have been far far better off in the USSR - although how you disaggregate things like the Nazi invasion from that is anyone's guess.

It's an impossible (and pointless) judgement to make. Filtering out the economic aspect and the impact of industrialisation, it's unquestionable that the Soviet security apparatus was incalculably more efficient and more brutal than that of the Tsar.

The cuddling up I'm talking about is the constant litany of the sins of the USSR that is ritually repeated again and again whenever the history of the 20th C is discussed. Anti-Soviet history is the Official History of our time and it is particularly stoked by the proper right wing, especially groups I've already mentioned on this thread such as Ukrainian nationalists who are deeply implicated in the slaughter of the jews in the occupied USSR but who have now recast themselves as victims of soviet oppression, with the happy connivance of western liberal historians. The Holodmor industry that has been cranked up in the last 15 years is a perfect example. There's ample evidence that many of the 'excess deaths' in the Ukraine are the result of other atrocities, by Nazis, or by the Polish "resistance" (who spent a good deal more time ethnically cleansing Ukrainians than fighting Germans, in the particularly nasty Ukrainian/Polish war that took place under German occupation) - or even - and this will surely damn me as a Stalinist" to those who want to - that many of the Ukrainian "peasants" were genuinely trying to strangle the revolution and were engaging in a de facto guerilla war to that end. There is also, of course, a genuinely plausible Holodmor thesis that may be true, it's just that believing it or questioning it are not simple questions of historical fact but are highly political choices still, right now. And let's remember that just about all the actual written stats are subject to the accusation of bias or are just wrong, because the conditions under which they were collected made accuracy impossible.


Personally I am always wary of USSR-bashing and I want to know who's doing it and why before I'll line up along side it. I worry about the company I might end up keeping.

Finally, I've literally just put down a copy of the Literary Review and they have reviewed a book about the siege of Leningrad from 1941 to 1944. Millions died, mostly of starvation the suffering must have been almost unendurable. Cause? The Nazi invasion, right? Wrong; apparently it was Stalin's stupidity and carelessness with the lives of Russians that was "nearly" as much to blame. I mean my jaw drops when I read this kind of shit, but that's the Official Version right there.

See, I happen to agree with you about Robert Conquest school of statistics and the little black book of communism stuff. That said, there's pretty incontrovertible stuff, that is, signed, official, execution orders, things that could not be disputed whatsoever, which by themselves total 1m plus. That's even if you consider the Ukrainian genocide to be a figment of the nationalists imagination and you think the Gulags were holiday camps.

I'll USSR bash because along with Nazism and Imperialism it was one of the factor that led to the 20th Century being so brutal. I don't see why I should be taking sides in that debate.

 

[co-op]

Yes, but while making equivalences between the violence of Nazism, imperialism and Stalinism is a perfectly sound critique of liberal anti-Stalinists, I don't see how it applies to people who would be equally critical of all of that violence. For me the idea that Stalinism was only as brutal as its competitors is not an adequate defence of those regimes.

I'm a bit confused by what you say here. The standard liberal position is to "condemn violence" and to always try and find all dictatorships to be morally equivalent - how is that different from "people who would be equally critical of all of that violence"? (in which group I think you include yourself?). I'm sure we'd all like to be in a position to be equally critical of all violence, but we are a very long way from that now, let alone in the first half of the blood-soaked 20thC.

I'm defending the USSR not because I think its internal politics were "less brutal" than those of its neighbours or competitors - its brutality clearly rivalled them. But because (a) I think much of that brutality was the inevitable consequence of the determination of its neighbours (and some of its inhabitants) to destroy a revolutionary regime, not intrinsic to that regime, and (b) because the victory - or perhaps more realistically given the trauma of the civil war and the Nazi invasion, the survival - of the USSR bought a huge series of steps forward for the left globally, from national liberation struggles all across the third world, to the creation of the welfare-ist fudge in western Europe and the USA that transformed millions of peoples' lives for the better.

In the end I'm not sure that mine is a particularly morally defensible position since it trades other peoples' suffering for my (and others) benefits. But at least it accepts some of the historical realities of what was going on.

It's an impossible (and pointless) judgement to make. Filtering out the economic aspect and the impact of industrialisation, it's unquestionable that the Soviet security apparatus was incalculably more efficient and more brutal than that of the Tsar.

For sure the USSR was better at what it did than the Imperial regime, and in just about every way, militarily, industrially, economically, in terms of the brutal effectiveness of its security apparatus. But the overwhelming majority of the soviet people had much better lives as a result, I don't see any evidence that undermines that claim. Bad news for intellectuals, priests, right-wing army officers, many of the bourgoisie and randoms who got caught up in it, I agree. You and I are probably both the sort of people who'd have got shot.

Also bad luck for anyone who starved as a result of policy fuck-ups and class struggles taking place with little enclaves of entrenched privilege. But how does anyone make those things magically go away nicely? And what were the alternatives? Both in terms of tactics and in terms of what would have happened had the Bolshevik government fallen?

See, I happen to agree with you about Robert Conquest school of statistics and the little black book of communism stuff. That said, there's pretty incontrovertible stuff, that is, signed, official, execution orders, things that could not be disputed whatsoever, which by themselves total 1m plus. That's even if you consider the Ukrainian genocide to be a figment of the nationalists imagination and you think the Gulags were holiday camps.

I'll USSR bash because along with Nazism and Imperialism it was one of the factor that led to the 20th Century being so brutal. I don't see why I should be taking sides in that debate.

I hope it's clear that I don't think the Holodmor was/is a figment of nationalists imagination (although I think it's absolutely clear it can't be called a "genocide", that really is nationalist twaddle), just that it's highly politically contestable - let's not forget that the word itself was not coined until the late 1970s, some 40 years after the event.

I'll bash the USSR when I know who I'm chatting with, once I'm happy that I'm not being asked to do the Official Version.

As far as "taking sides" goes though, I'll happily back Soviet Communism over Nazism, for me that's an easy choice.

 

[free spirit]

meanwhile in Greece???

 

[jannerboyuk]

Bombs i hear.