File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/marxism-general.9711, message 23


Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:50:23 +0100 (MET)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: Re: M-G: A Khrushchovite/Trotskyite plot!


Rob L. wrote, on 03.11:


>ROLF !  STALIN DID NOT REPRESENT SOCIALISM!  STALIN WAS AN IDIOT WHO
>REPRESENTED THE REACTIONARY FORCES TO OCTOBER - THE PETTY BOURGEIOUS!
>STALIN HAD NO IDEA WHAT HE WAS DOING OR WHERE HE WAS GOING - ONLY THAT HE
>WANTED POWER.  IN SETTING UP A BONAPARTIST REGIME HE LEANED ON ALL CLASSES
>AT DIFFERENT TIMES TO DESTROY ANY OPPOSITION AROUND HIM!  IT WASN'T UNTIL
>THE FIRST PURGE TRIAL - WHEN STALIN KILLED OFF THE OLD BOLSHEVIKS TO DESTROY
>ANY REMEMBRANCE OF OCTOBER IN ORDER TO STRANGLE THE SPANISH REVOLUTION AND
>KEEP THE SOVIET WORKERS DOWN - DID HE CONSCIOUSLY KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING!
>IT WAS ONLY TROTSKY AND THE LO THAT ANY SORT OF PLAN AND IDEA ABOUT HOW TO
>PROGRESS THE SEIGED SU IN A REAL DEMOCRATIC AND COMMUNIST WAY!  STALIN WAS A
>GREAT RUSSIAN CHAUVINIST - A RACIST SEXIST MURDERING PIG!!!!  LOOK AT IT
>MAN!  I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK OF TROTSKY - HE WAS NEVER AS BAD AS THE
>GREAT ASSHOLE THAT WAS STALIN!  HE WAS A BOURGEIOUS CONCILLIATOR WHO KISSED
>THE IMPERIALIST ASSES AND THEREFORE STRANGLED THE SPANISH AND THE POST WAR
>REVOLUTIONS!  HOW IS IT THAT THIS IDIOT THAT WAS STALIN BE THE GREAT
>REPRESENTOR OF SOCIALISM?
>
>
>ROB

There are indeed good reasons to criticize several actions undertaken
by Stalin. But in the main, he really did represent socialism.

He did well to combat Trotskyism. The problem was, the workers
were caught between the two fires of Trotskyism and the deviations
of Stalin and his followers. *All* criticism, even correct such,
came to be branded as "Trotskyism". It must be pointed out that
the reactinary nature of that last-mentioned current precisely
helped develop, give the pretext for, the deviations under Stalin.

And a very "strange" thing:

The Trotskyites, such as yourself Rob, say that they criticize
Stalin for two things, don't they: 1) Wrongful suppression,
2) Bourgeois nationalism.

But those two things, which there were - though as a *secondary*
aspect - under Stalin, became the *main* thing, became the *line*
under Khrushchov etc.

But you Trots precisely have always APPLAUDED Khrushchev etc
and insisted that the regime under *those* people still was
"socialist"!

How come? A GLARING contradiction! Which does make up one
of the MAIN POINTS of that ideology, Trotskyism. Itse utter
lack of criticism of modern revisionism. Its SUPPORT of it
instead. Its flagrant SUPPORT OF the sociel-imperialism of
the Soviet Union from the the 60s and onwards.

This is now about the two thousandandfiftyeleventh time that
I'm repeating this.

Rolf M.



     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005