NationStates

Crysuko wrote:I, for example am a Syndicalist (Thus, Nestor Makhno is bae) and I will happily unite with Socialists, DemSocs and other flavours of anarchist, but the Stalinists are a no go.

[oops! Left out the quote]

That is about how I feel as a Luxemburgist (though I have reservations about demsocs).

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Democratic Communist Federation wrote:
Stalinism was quasi-fascist but certainly not red.

Not at all. There's no evidence that Stalin ever betrayed Marxist principles, and many biographers have found that he remained very ideological until his death.

Except the worker ownership of the means of production. But forget this small, unimportant morsel of a detail.

The Parkus Empire wrote:Joseph Fouche, then

Given his long and illustrious career serving anyone who offered him a paycheck I don't think we can really call him anything other than a bloodthirsty opportunist.

Crysuko wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Not at all. There's no evidence that Stalin ever betrayed Marxist principles, and many biographers have found that he remained very ideological until his death.

Except the worker ownership of the means of production. But forget this small, unimportant morsel of a detail.

Stalin never claimed the workers owned the means of production, he acknowledged that state-socialism was a necessary evil development to protect the home of the revolution from bourgeois imperialism.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Not at all. There's no evidence that Stalin ever betrayed Marxist principles, and many biographers have found that he remained very ideological until his death.

Where did Marx or Engels ever talk about socialism in one country (even as a stage of communism)? Both Lenin and Trotsky moved to the right (though Trotsky meandered a bit back toward the left after he got to Mexico) but never as far as Stalin.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Crysuko wrote:Except the worker ownership of the means of production. But forget this small, unimportant morsel of a detail.

Stalin never claimed the workers owned the means of production, he acknowledged that state-socialism was a necessary evil development to protect the home of the revolution from bourgeois imperialism.

Except it wasn't. If we're going by strict definition, the USSR wasn't socialist as the MoP were all state owned. Now I can understand this happening in a transition period but the fact of the matter is that it wasn't, and neither Stalin nor his successors had any intention of going full socialist as opposed to clinging to power under guise of Muh anti-imperialism

Democratic Communist Federation wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Not at all. There's no evidence that Stalin ever betrayed Marxist principles, and many biographers have found that he remained very ideological until his death.

Where did Marx or Engels ever talk about socialism in one country (even as a stage of communism)? Both Lenin and Trotsky moved to the right (though Trotsky meandered a bit back toward the left after he got to Mexico) but never as far as Stalin.

>everything Marx and Engels didn't talk about is clearly a betrayal of communism
What was the alternative?

Crysuko wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Stalin never claimed the workers owned the means of production, he acknowledged that state-socialism was a necessary evil development to protect the home of the revolution from bourgeois imperialism.

Except it wasn't. If we're going by strict definition, the USSR wasn't socialist as the MoP were all state owned. Now I can understand this happening in a transition period but the fact of the matter is that it wasn't, and neither Stalin nor his successors had any intention of going full socialist as opposed to clinging to power under guise of Muh anti-imperialism

Stalin's own private writings collected after his death contradict this.

Quite a bit of Stalin I didn't agree with.
But, he's views on anarchism imo was spot on

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Democratic Communist Federation wrote:
Where did Marx or Engels ever talk about socialism in one country (even as a stage of communism)? Both Lenin and Trotsky moved to the right (though Trotsky meandered a bit back toward the left after he got to Mexico) but never as far as Stalin.

>everything Marx and Engels didn't talk about is clearly a betrayal of communism
What was the alternative?

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Crysuko wrote:Except it wasn't. If we're going by strict definition, the USSR wasn't socialist as the MoP were all state owned. Now I can understand this happening in a transition period but the fact of the matter is that it wasn't, and neither Stalin nor his successors had any intention of going full socialist as opposed to clinging to power under guise of Muh anti-imperialism

Stalin's own private writings collected after his death contradict this.

Nice weasel words. Why don't you direct us to the exact passage, then?

United Muscovite Nations wrote:>everything Marx and Engels didn't talk about is clearly a betrayal of communism
What was the alternative?

No, but directly contradicting Marxist internationalism is a betrayal of communism.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Democratic Communist Federation wrote:
Stalinism was quasi-fascist but certainly not red.

Not at all. There's no evidence that Stalin ever betrayed Marxist principles, and many biographers have found that he remained very ideological until his death.

Socialism is not about what you say or think but what you do.

His end goal was socialism. Good for him. But what he upheld was not.

Democratic Communist Federation wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:>everything Marx and Engels didn't talk about is clearly a betrayal of communism
What was the alternative?

No, but directly contradicting Marxist internationalism is a betrayal of communism.

SIOC was not a betrayal of internationalism, and the Soviet Union remained active in international communism.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Democratic Communist Federation wrote:
No, but directly contradicting Marxist internationalism is a betrayal of communism.

SIOC was not a betrayal of internationalism, and the Soviet Union remained active in international communism.

by practicing the very imperialism they decried

Crysuko wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:SIOC was not a betrayal of internationalism, and the Soviet Union remained active in international communism.

by practicing the very imperialism they decried

>spreading the revolution is imperialism
That's some nice counterrevolutionary moralism you've got there.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Crysuko wrote:by practicing the very imperialism they decried

>spreading the revolution is imperialism
That's some nice counterrevolutionary moralism you've got there.

Are you serious or joking right now? I honestly can't tell.

Crysuko wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Not at all. There's no evidence that Stalin ever betrayed Marxist principles, and many biographers have found that he remained very ideological until his death.

Except the worker ownership of the means of production. But forget this small, unimportant morsel of a detail.

State ownership is worker ownership in Marxism

Cekoviu wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:>spreading the revolution is imperialism
That's some nice counterrevolutionary moralism you've got there.

Are you serious or joking right now? I honestly can't tell.

Serious. If the revolution doesn't spread it will die. Supporting bourgeois nationalists over Marxist revolutionaries is counterrevolutionary.

The Widening Gyre wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Joseph Fouche, then

Given his long and illustrious career serving anyone who offered him a paycheck I don't think we can really call him anything other than a bloodthirsty opportunist.

Which is hardly incompatible with being a leftist, judging by Stirner fans

El Hamidah wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Not at all. There's no evidence that Stalin ever betrayed Marxist principles, and many biographers have found that he remained very ideological until his death.

Socialism is not about what you say or think but what you do.

His end goal was socialism. Good for him. But what he upheld was not.

It was as close as the USSR in that stage of development could get

The Parkus Empire wrote:

The Widening Gyre wrote:
Given his long and illustrious career serving anyone who offered him a paycheck I don't think we can really call him anything other than a bloodthirsty opportunist.

Which is hardly incompatible with being a leftist, judging by Stirner fans

Who cares what Egoists think.

Crysuko wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:SIOC was not a betrayal of internationalism, and the Soviet Union remained active in international communism.

by practicing the very imperialism they decried

Marxist internationalism is imperialism?

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Crysuko wrote:by practicing the very imperialism they decried

Marxist internationalism is imperialism?

Now you get it.

El Hamidah wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Which is hardly incompatible with being a leftist, judging by Stirner fans

Who cares what Egoists think.

All nominalists obviously should.

Genivaria wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Marxist internationalism is imperialism?

Now you get it.

What about liberal internationalism?