Talk:Stalinism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Hannah Arendt

The opening paragraph that I changed gave credit to an academic for the idea of "totalitarianism" in a way that was ahistorical. Hannah Arendt was 11 in 1917. Her work belongs as an inspiration to the Cold War on that encyclopedia page, not on a Stalinism page, where Trotsky is much more historically relevant. Hannah Arendt was only following up what Trotsky already said on "totalitarianism." Her book came out in 1951, perfect timing for the Cold War, and of no relevance to Stalinism except after the fact. Unless someone can show that it was Hannah Arendt whispering in Trotsky's ear when he published that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were "totalitarian" and "symmetrical" in 1936, Trotsky should receive the credit/blame for the "totalitarianism" attack on Stalin. 205.179.217.195 17:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin set up a centralized bureaucratic system to run the Soviet Union and its satellite republics

In big part it was already set by Lenin

While this produced some amazing gains in terms of industrialization

Some hard data ?

---

The costs were horrendous, however. The system was dependent on a régime of unprecedented brutality towards its own citizens. Hundreds of thousands who objected were killed. Whole classes such as the Kulaks, middle-class land-owning farmers, were wiped out. Millions more died because of logistical failures involving food distribution and failed crops. A never-before seen level of control over the speech and thoughts of the population was implemented. The rapid and often slapdash

The above was removed without comment by 172. Granted it is POV but should be NPOVd and put back into the article. --mav 19:37 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)

---

I removed this: It is largely synonymous with totalitarianism, or a tyrannical regime. You don't have to be a Stalinist like me to admit that this is not objective.

But it is widely regarded as true. I put the sentence back without making a factual stated. It is often regarded as being totalitarian. --mav

---

While the system was ultimately devastating to the Soviet Union, it was almost certainly responsible for defeating Nazism. Without the staggering economic production that Stalinism brought to the Soviet Union, the nation would have been easily overrun by the German forces. After World War II Stalinism was exported to the Soviet Union's new Eastern European satellite states.

The above is removed as a typical historial blunder: "if it were this... would have been that". Second, it is a logical blunder, implying two things: (1) it is implied that only tyranny leads to economical growth. (2) economic growth was necessary to overrun Germans. Many historians believe that Hitler, just like Napoleon, greatly underestimated the task he undertook. (Not a place her to go into detail). "Stalinism" was not exported: the term is applicable only to the Soviet Union. "Soviet socialism" and "totalitarianism" were exported. Omitting the postwar "cleansings", the European satellite regimes were not nearly as brutal as in the USSR, whereas what happened in China and North Korea deserve their own terms. Mikkalai 17:28, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Discontinuity Theory

"Apart from that clear wish to dismiss Stalin from his post of general secretary Lenin envisaged an oligarchic rule of the party under the leadership of Trotsky after his death[citation needed]. He was definitely opposed to the prospect of a dictatorship of one person. In fact it was much more likely that Bukharin or especially Trotsky would become the new leaders of the party. Stalin just came to power because of failures of his rivals, well-planned intrigues and because of luck. Thus Stalinism is by far not the logical conclusion of Leninism for the discontinuity theorists."

this is my first talk page contribution so i hope the format is correct, but this above contribution is pathetic, its obviously written from a left communist perspective that glorifies trotsky as being the "true" inheriter of the soviet state. Firstly Trotsky was not that respected by lenin, being an unpopular, intellectual who joined from the mensheviks was not what lenin saw as being the new leader of the party so i will simply cut out the opinion in this paragraph feel free to change back if you can put some citation to saying that trotsky was in anyway going to be the next party leader. Just to add its good to see wikipedia's neutrality is kept up in the talk page, although i defiently know stalin was autocratic without taking into account why the soviet union had to be autocratic and also putting all its problems onto one man rather then looking at the economic issues is the least left thing i have ever seen so good on people for challanging middle class left propogranda user:F4i

Trotsky about Einstein

this edit about views of Trotsky on Einstein is irrelevant in this article, which is about Stalinism, not Trotskyism. - Altenmann >talk 16:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Altenmann This cited source discusses a number of things. A major, scientific theory which was suppressed specifically during the Stalinist era and a source of contention in the Soviet Union. It represents a defining element of ideological represssion exclusive to Stalin, Stalinism and his period. That sentence aligns with the entire sub-section. It serves as an example of the broader points on ideological repression raised in the sub-section.WikiUser4020 (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

"Leon Trotsky had defended Einstein" - this statemnet is irrelevant WP:UNDUE: Trotsky has no inflyuence in Soviets at these times whatsoever. His views belong to his article. - Altenmann >talk 16:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Altenmann The latter point is wholly subjective. Trotsky was still a prominent figure of opposition and dissent throughout the 1920s (Soviet Opposition faction) until his death in 1940. The sourced comment is from 1925/6 during the ascent of Stalin and Stalinism. This section is far from WPDUE but as previously mentioned this should be decided via consensus vote. I have moved the content in chronological order.WikiUser4020 (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

There cannot possibly be correct. (1) In 1925 Stalin had no dictatorship power yet (2) attack on Einstein was in late 1940s. - Altenmann >talk 17:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Altenmann The statement is sourced from Deutscher’s 2015 biography of Trotsky. To provide context, he was discussing the emerging marginalization of scientific and literary circles due to the dominant Stalin faction at this period. The full statement as quoted below.

“Trotsky’s plea fell on deaf ears. The psycho-analytical theory was presently banished from the universities. Less specifically but even more categorically he defended Einstein’s theory of relativity, but to the ecclesiastical “materialism” of the Stalin era that theory, too, became anathema; and only after Stalin’s death was it to be “rehabilitated”. (p730, Deutscher 2015) WikiUser4020 (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I can read the book myself. Trotsky was exiled in early 1929. It is well known that relativity theory was undder two major waves of attack in 1933 and in 1949-1952. There were sporadic wrangles in 1920s, where Einstein was dogmatically accused of Machism by overzealous dialectical materialists. But as I said, this period in no way associated with Stalinism. In other words, influence of Trotsky was minimal here, hence WP:UNDUE. Much large role in defense of Einstein played prominent physicists, Tamm, Ioffe, Frenkel, etc. - Altenmann >talk 19:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Altenmann The source statement clearly references Stalin’s era and that Einstein’s theory was rehabilitated following Stalin’s death. The link is clearly explicit and relevant to the sub section on ideological repression. WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I am questioning the relevance of Trotsky's opinion, as well as the statement that Trotsky's defense was related to oppression of Einstein, which, as I wrote, was after Trotsky. - Altenmann >talk 20:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Altenmann The discussion has become circular. The sourced statement is not Trotsky's opinion but Deutscher's description of Trotsky's opposition to the marginalization of experimental, literary and scientific ideas during the 1920s with the ascent of the Stalin-dominated triumvirate.

This sentence fits within the wider context of the sub-section as the preceding sentence in the main article states "Prior to Stalin's rule, literary, religious and national representatives had some level of autonomy in the 1920s but these groups were later rigorously repressed during the Stalinist era."- The following reference to Trotsky's opposition to ideological repression under Stalin's influence adds further context and highlights the contrast between the relatively tolerant approach of early Bolshevik rule and the far more repressive, attitude which characterised the Stalinist era.

Rather, than continue this back and forth debate. Let other users share their views to reach a consensus view. WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Concluding, it remains to prove that "Stalinist repression" of theory of relativity was in 1920s. Which is IMO false, because in these years there was plenty of marxist dogmatics who criticized relativity, but this has nothing to do with "stalinism" and "repression" because it was not banned in 1920s. - Altenmann >talk 23:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Altenmann Alternatively, as a compromise, you could cite examples from the 1940s in which Einstein’s theory was formally denounced as mentioned in your previous posts. WikiUser4020 (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

If you can read Russian, there is one summarizing article "How the USSR fought and almost defeated the theory of relativity". from 20s to 50s. I am not sure about author's expertise: he is not a professional historian, but some facts and names are here. However when I tried to find more for you, further search revealed a surprizing number of RUssian crackpots writing on the subject plausibly sounding but copying arguments and "facts" from each other Unfortunately I don't really have much interest for digging into this now, although it was me who started the articles Repression of science in the Soviet Union and Ideological repression in the Soviet Union. - Altenmann >talk 04:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

However one fact I did find confirmed from primary source: the journal Under the banner of Marxism, no.7, 1942 published a statement of the USSR academy of science (found it: Anniversary session of the USSR Academy of Sciences : dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the great October socialist revolution which among other thing said "the actual scientific and philosophical content of the theory of relativity, even independently of the theoretical conclusions often made based on it, represent a step forward in the discovery of the dialectical laws of nature.". I.e.., at least in 1942 all was OK with Stalin and Einstein. (surely the statement was vetted on the highest level). - Altenmann >talk 05:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Altenmann I think the sources below may be more suitable and relevant for inclusion.

The book is "Einstein and Soviet Ideology" - written historian Alexander Vucinich states

"During this stage, Soviet authorities encouraged Marxist theorists to conduct an open war on the "idealistic" aspects of Einsteinian thought.At the end of the Stalin era, Marxist voices were in favour of a total rejection of the general theory of relativity..."

"Stalinist attacks on Einstein were actually attacks on the scientific community...."

Another source written by political scientists states that "Stalin opposed Einstein's theory of relativity as contradicting the official Soviet model". WikiUser4020 (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The first book is good but the second ref sucks. I challenge anyone find any word of Stalin against Einstein. - Altenmann >talk 06:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Altenmann We can compromise with those changes. I've re-edited the article now and removed the reference to Trotsky. WikiUser4020 (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Last version looks good to me and well sourced. "word of Stalin against Einstein"? This page is about the Stalinist system and policies, not about necessarily something that Stalin openly said, although citing him on this page is OK. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I know that, colleague, but the author of the second source obviously do not. The quote: "Stalin opposed Einstein's theory" shows that the author do not know what she is talking about. There were ultraorthodox Marxists which opposed Einstein because they thought his theory contradicts their dogmatic view on dialectic materialism waay before Stalin came to power and they continued their wrangle for power with varying success. - Altenmann >talk 17:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic. Sorry, I started this. - Altenmann >talk 06:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

But I will stop pursuing this issue because I have an impression that many want to put blame for everything personally on Stalin, and I have no interest in fighting "useful idiots" supporting "improved" models of Communism, such as Trotskyism. FYI I am sure Trotsky would have been even worse dictator than Stalin. Are you aware that he invented "labor battalions"? As you know, Trotsky was very apt organizer of the Red Army. Under Trotsky all country would be one huge militarized labor camp. (Under Stalin it was only in remote areas). Anyway, goodbye here for now. - Altenmann >talk 17:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC) Perhaps you are right about Trotsky. One author said that Stalinism was a counter-revolution that crashed the revolution by Lenin. Stalin was followed by Krushchev (next revolution), Brezhnev (counter-revolution), Gorbachev (revolution) and Putin (counter-revolution), i.e. they were waves of violence with only one constant: there was never a rule of law. This is just like Bald–hairy in Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC) @Altenmann The argument is not centered on much factual basis or devoid of historical context. One cannot overlook the totality of his political decisions and positions to draw a snap, premature conclusion. Trotsky’s wartime decisions were of course shaped by the intense Civil War, foreign intervention and secessionist movements. A balanced assessment would highlight the fact that he released captured political opponents including former White Army Generals, oppositional party members and had a generally low casualty rate among deserters. Stalin was notorious for his high propensity for violence even during the Civil War via torching villages and disregard for the Tsarist specialists. Trotsky did serve as the Chairman of the Soviet and was conciliatory towards both Menshevik and Bolshevik factions. He also supported intra-party democracy and a multi-party democracy with the other oppositional socialist parties (albeit inconsistently). Factually speaking, Stalin was never intended to be the leader of the Soviet Union as Lenin’s Testament (an authentic document vindicated by most historians) and his recommendation of Trotsky as Vice-Chairman attest. Trotsky’s position as Opposition leader had a defined programme against the troika which further highlight empirically the contrast in their views. His views and positions did shift depending on the context. There are a plentitude first hand sources derived from party platforms, public speeches, along with secondary interpretations from historians as well as political scientists which clearly demonstrate that Trotsky (in relation to the factual record) would not have initiated the Great Purge, forced collectivization which contributed to the Holodomor and rigid suppression of creative or scientific developments. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC) Nonsense. It appears you didn't comprehend what I was talking about. Here is Trotsky for you: "The principle of compulsory labor is absolutely beyond dispute for a Communist. “He who does not work, shall not eat.” Since everyone has to eat, everyone has to work. Labor service is inscribed in our constitution and in the Code of Labor. But until now it remained a mere principle. Its application had only a partial and incidental character. But now, when we are face to face with the problem of economic reconstruction, the question of labor service confronts us in its full concreteness. The only proper and practical solution of the economic difficulties is to view the population of the entire country as a reservoir of labor power—almost an inexhaustible source—and to introduce strict order into the registration, mobilization, and utilization of that labor power. The introduction of compulsory labor is inconceivable without the use, in one form or another, of the methods of militarization of labor." For some reason none of nasty Trotsky's ideas are covered in Wikipedia. Anyway, WP:NOTAFORUM, let's stop here. - Altenmann >talk 22:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC) I would agree. This is a question for @WikiUser4020: who edited a lot page Leon Trotsky. Whilst some of his wartime measures have proved controversial and have been criticised along with his ideological defence of the Red Terror, modern scholarship generally ranks his leadership of the Red Army highly among historical figures and he is credited for his major involvement.... Come on. This is whitewashing. He ordered to forcefully recruit people and shot them like dogs during the Civil War. The page does mention his Permanent revolution. But he also strongly supported the idea of militarized/compulsory labor for the entire countries [1], see Labor army and War communism. Basically, Khmer Rouge tried to implement some ideas of Trotsky [2]; this is an argument supporting what Altenmann said above. My very best wishes (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC) But main issue is this: Trotsky’s position as Opposition leader had a defined programme against the troika (WikiUser4020). Well, there was no any actual and significant ideological opposition in that Party; all of them were followers of Lenin. This is just the way Stalin painted/discredited his potential political rivals in the party, i.e. "Left opposition" (Trotsky), "New opposition" (Zinoviev), "right opposition" (Bukharin). The "opposition" in the party and elsewhere was Stalin's propaganda to justify his terror. Actually, Stalin implemented some ideas by Trotsky and some by Bukharin, after criticizing them. This is well explained in books by Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC) @Altenmann@My very best wishes These are clearly arguments of bad faith. The excerpt cited is from his controversial book “Terrorism and Communism” which is clearly referenced in his Wikipedia biography. In fact, several sub-sections reference multiple historians that make the argument of Stalin-Trotsky continuity. In the article on Trotskyism, there is again an entire subsection which outlines that same argument with a specific reference to policies on war communism and militarization of labor. Far from white washing, all the perspectives are thoroughly documented and presented. These seem like ad hominem attacks rather than credible arguments. Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov was a conservative, anti-communist historian as well as co-founder of Radio Liberty hence he would clearly favor the thesis of shared totalitarianism between Trotsky and Stalin. A far more credible source would be Knei-Paz who at least presents a comprehensive overview of Trotsky’s views and the significant differences from the policies implemented by Stalin. Alternatively, a plurality of views presented by various biographers of Trotsky would be a far more balanced perspective rather than citing one source with a strong ideological position. On the issue of factional differences. This is simple ignorance there were clear ideological differences in regards to the 1920s factional debates. This included positions on economic policy (industrialization, expanded workers democracy vs NEP), foreign policy (permanent revolution vs socialism in one country), industrial democracy and intra-party democracy. Stalin’s co-option and implementation of the Left Opposition’s policies was strongly criticized by Trotsky due to the total absence of worker participation, democratization in the process and bureaucratic command methods. Several sources demonstrate and I have already cited those sources on those pages that Trotsky did not advocate for forced collectivisation but a voluntary tax-based approach. Khmer Rouge was a Marxist-Leninist state like all the existing states which adhered to the Stalinist Soviet model. Trotsky was very much a heretical figure after his exile within the wider Marxist-Leninist movement and his ideas either denounced or banned as in the case of the Soviet Union. The cited source above from a geographer who makes a factual mistake in not recognizing this. All professional historians and observers of Trotsky and Trotskyism note the denunciation of his ideas in Marxist-Leninist states from Vietnam to Albania. These discussion have devolved into ideological diatribes rather than factual-based discussions grounded on empirical sources. WikiUser4020 (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC) It would be funny if was not being deadly sad: there was even "право-левый уклон" (right-left deviation). - Altenmann >talk

I tried to discuss this with WikiUser4020 on their talk page [3], but they reverted. Yes, let's stop this discussion: there is apparently a consensus not to include Trotsky here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm just including the final response on the talk page as an appendage. As the user, Altenmann, mentioned that the discussion should be concise and relevant.[4]WikiUser4020 (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)