cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/1759250

https://www.mazdoorbigul.net/pdf/Bigul-2005-12.pdf

  • protist@mander.xyz
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    "This single anecdote proves Stalin never did anything wrong!"

    @cyberghost@lemmygrad.ml

    • commiewithoutorgans [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      My comrade there is making no claim that an anecdote proves something other than the claim that Stalin sadistically enjoyed starving people is false. The hope is that these specific events will trigger a thought in your head like "wow, this is totally out of character for this figure which I thought I understood," and then possibly read further in books based on the Soviet archives instead of books utilizing only info from the cold war or nazi propaganda

  • XEAL@lemm.ee
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem is assuming that communism or socialism have to be bundled with a dictatorship.

    No dictatorship is good.

    • Cyber Ghost@lemmygrad.ml
      hexagon
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      According to the CIA declassified documents he was not a dictator

      Even In Stalin's time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain. However, it does not appear that any of the present leaders will rise to the stature of Lenin and Stalin,so that it will be safer to assume that developments in Moscow will be along the lines of what is called collective leadership, unless Western policies force the Soviets to stream-line their power organization. The present situation is the most favorable from the point of view of upsetting the Communist dictatorship since the death of Stalin.

      • protist@mander.xyz
        ·
        1 year ago

        One has to wonder how you've formed your worldview when you'll take one point from one CIA cable and think it proves your point. Stalin was still a dictator, whether or not the scope of his power was exaggerated by other governments, and there are thousands upon thousands of source documents to draw from on this

        Read further down in this document and it literally discusses the dire food situation in the USSR and the "poor material condition" of its people, contradicting your original point

        • commiewithoutorgans [he/him, comrade/them]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh wow, a poor country was still poor 4 years after fighting the most tragic and destructive war in history?? I'm hearing this for the first time..

          Stalin was as much of a dictator as any other leader with powers over the military (all in the western world, as far as I know) but otherwise was always working with the politburo and party. That's what the CIA is admitting. I think determination of "dictator" or not is vibes based. What was he able to do that makes Stalin a dictator but let's say Obama not?

          Stalin was a leader for the proletariat, maybe a leader of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but he was absurdly popular and beloved because he really represented the interests of the poor in that position.

          • XEAL@lemm.ee
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, the people sent to Nazino Island loved him so much too, right?

            • commiewithoutorgans [he/him, comrade/them]
              ·
              1 year ago

              Absurdly popular does not insinuate perfect, nor do I believe he was perfect nor all actions done in the government under his leadership. I do highly doubt these claims, seeing as they come from the guy who wrote the black book of communism (source for most of the wiki article) and Anne Applebaum included lol. If I had to guess, those people hated Stalin and the Soviet Union because an unplanned tragedy occurred which probably could've been forseen. During a drought and famine, the idea of sending people you can't feed (or won't give priority to because they are not working actively and improving the situation for all) to an island which is capable of being developed for agriculture to quickly do that isn't the worst idea.

              biggest point out of this: don't trust people who write nazi propaganda (black book of communism and Anne Applebaum) and then relook at the story

            • commiewithoutorgans [he/him, comrade/them]
              ·
              1 year ago

              But also you changed the subject, I know that capitalists hated Stalin but I love him for that. Has nothing to do with the facts I stated, because Obama literally did worse than Nazino island in Libya lol, but he's not a dictator because the way libs use the word is meaningless

      • XEAL@lemm.ee
        ·
        1 year ago

        You know, a dictatorship can take place with a small group of people with absolute power too, it doesn't have to be a single person.

        "Collective leadership" my ass, that's an euphemism for the people who caused things like the Nazino Island tragedy.

    • zkrzsz [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      "But he was an evil dictator!"

      Setting aside the fact this is obviously wrong as there were 5 members of the central committee, all with equal powers... 4 times Stalin attempted to resign. The party consistently voted against his resignation and would not allow it. Even Trotsky rejected his first attempt in May 1924 to resign from his positions at the 13th party congress.

      1927 speech referencing it:

      It is said that in that “will” Comrade Lenin suggested to the congress that in view of Stalin’s “rudeness” it should consider the question of putting another comrade in Stalin’s place as General Secretary. That is quite true.

      Yes, comrades, I am rude to those who grossly and perfidiously wreck and split the Party. I have never concealed this and do not conceal it now. Perhaps some mildness is needed in the treatment of splitters, but I am a bad hand at that.

      At the very first meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee after the Thirteenth Congress I asked the plenum of the Central Committee to release me from my duties as General Secretary. The congress itself discussed this question. It was discussed by each delegation separately, and all the delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, obliged Stalin to remain at his post.

      What could I do? Desert my post? That is not in my nature; I have never deserted any post, and I have no right to do so, for that would be desertion. As I have already said before, I am not a free agent, and when the Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey.

      A year later I again put in a request to the plenum to release me, but I was again obliged to remain at my post. What else could I do?

      Here is his second attempt August 19, 1924 (Grover Furr, Khrushchev Lied, p. 244):

      To the Plenum of the CC [Central Committee] RCP [Russian Communist Party]

      One and a half years of working in the Politburo with comrades Zinoviev and Kamanev after the retirement and then the death of Lenin have made perfectly clear to me the impossibility of honest, sincere political work with these comrades within the framework of one small collective. In view of which, I request to be considered as having resigned from the Pol[itcal] Buro of the CC.

      I request a medical leave for about two months.

      At the expiration of this period I request to be sent to Turukhansk region or to the Iakutsk oblast', or to somewhere abroad in any kind of work that will attract little attention.

      I would ask the Plenum to decide all these questions in my absence and without explanations from my side, because I consider it harmful for our work to give explanations aside from those remarks that I have already made in the first paragraph of this letter.

      I would ask comrade Kuibyshev to distribute copies of this letter to the members of the CC.

      With com[munist] greet[ings], J. Stalin.

      Third attempt December 27, 1926 (Grover Furr, Khrushchev Lied, p. 244):

      To the Plenum of the CC [Central Committee] (to comrade Rykov). I ask that I be relieved of the post of GenSec [General Secretary] of the CC. I declare that I can work no longer in this position, I do not have the strength to work any more in this position. J. Stalin.

      In his fourth attempt, upon rejection of the resignation by the party he attempts instead to abolish the role of General Secretary of the party altogether:

      Stalin: Comrades! For three years [Suggesting there could be more resignation attempts unbeknownst to me - ZB] I have been asking the CC [Central Committee] to free me from the obligations of General Secretary of the CC. Each time the Plenum has refused me. I admit that until recently conditions did not exist such that the Party had need of me in this post as a person more or less severe, one who acted as a certain kind of antidote to the dangers posed by the Opposition. I admit that this necessity existed, despite comrade Lenin's well-known letter [Lenin's Testament - ZB], to keep me at the post of General Secretary. But these conditions exist no longer. They have vanished, since the Opposition is now smashed. It seems that the Opposition has never before suffered such a defeat since they have not only been smashed, but have been expelled from the Party. It follows that now no bases exist any longer that could be considered correct when the Plenum refused to honor my request and free me of the duties of General Secretary. Meanwhile you have comrade Lenin's directive which we are obliged to consider and which, in my opinion, it is necessary to put into effect. I admit that the Party was compelled to disregard this directive until recently, compelled by well-known conditions of inter-Party development. But I repeat that these conditions have now vanished and it is time, in my view, to take comrade Lenin's directive to the leadership. Therefore I request the Plenum to free me of the post of General Secretary of the Central Committee. I assure you, comrades, that the Party can only gain from doing this.

      Dogadov: Vote without discussion.

      Vorshilov: I propose we reject the announcement we just heard.

      Rykov: We will vote without discsussion...We vote now on Stalin's proposal that he be freed from the General Secretaryship. Who is for this proposal? Who is against? Who abstains? One.

      The proposal of comrade Stalin is rejected with one abstention.

      Stalin: Then I introduce another proposal. Perhaps the CC [Central Committee] will consider it expedient to abolish the position of General Secretary. In our Party's history there have been times when no such post existed.

      Voroshilov: We had Lenin with us then.

      Stalin: We had no post of General Secretary before the 10th Congress.

      Voice: Until the 11th Congress.

      Stalin: Yes, it seems that until the 11th Congress we did not have this position. That was before Lenin stopped working. If Lenin concluded that it was necessary to put forward the question of founding the position of General Secretary, then I assume he was prompted by the special circumstances that appeared with us before the 10th Congress, when a more or less strong, well-organized Opposition within the Party was founded. But now we proceed to the abolition of this position. Many people associate a conception of some kind of special rights of the General Secretary with this position. I must say from my experience, and comrades will confirm this, that there ought not to be any special rights distinguishing the General Secretary from the rights of other members of the Secretariat.

      Voice: And the duties?

      Stalin: And there are no more duties than other members of the Secretariat have. I see it this way; There's the Politburo, the highest organ of the CC; there's the Secretariat, the executive organ consisting of five persons, and all these five members of the Secretariat are equal. That's the way the work has been carried out in practice, and the General Secretary has not had any special rights or obligations. The result, therefore, is that the position of General Secretary, in the sense of special rights, has never existed with us in practice, there has been only a collegium called the Secretariat of the CC. I do not know why we need to keep this dead position any longer. I don't even mention the fact that this position, called General Secretary, has occasioned in some places a series of distortions. At the same time that at the top no special rights or duties are associated with the position of General Secretary, in some places there have been some distortions, and in all the oblasts there is now a struggle over that position among comrades who call themselves secretaries, for example, in the national CCs. Quite a few General Secretaries have developed, and with them in the localities special rights have been associated. Why is this necessary?

      Shmidt: We can dismiss them in the localities.

      Stalin: I think the Party would benefit if we did away with the post of General Secretary, and that would give me the chance to be free from this post. This would be all the easier to do since according to the Party's constitution there is no post of General Secretary.

      Rykov: I propose not to give comrade Stalin the possibility of being free from this position. As concerns the General Secretaries in the oblast and local organs, that should be changed, but without changing the situation in the CC. The position of General Secretary was created by the proposal of Vladimir Il'ich. In all the time since, during Vladimir Il'ich's life and since, this position has justified itself politically and completely in both the organizational and political sense. In the creation of this organ and in naming comrade Stalin to the post of General Secretary the whole Opposition also took part, all those whom we have now expelled from the Party. That is how completely without doubt it was for everyone in the Party (whether the position of General Secretary was needed and who should be the General Secretary). By which has been exhausted, in my opinion, both the question of the "testament" (for that point has been decided) and exhausted by the Opposition at the same time just as it has been decided by us as well. The whole Party knows this. What has changed now after the 15th Congress and why is it necessary to set aside the position of General Secretary.

      Stalin: The Opposition has been smashed.

      (A long discussion followed, after which:)

      Voices: Correct! Vote!

      Rykov: There is a proposal to vote.

      Voices: Yes, yes!

      Rykov: We are voting. Who is for comrade Stalin's proposal to abolish the post of General Secretary? Who is opposed? Who abstains? Noone.

      https://hexbear.net/comment/3931963