Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 09:45:00 -0500 (EST)
From: SHAWGI TELL <v600a8e6-AT-ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu>
Subject: Response to Thomas P. Murray



Using the words "STALIN (Uncle Joey)" in his subject line,
On Sun, 11 Feb 1996 ThomasM343-AT-aol.com wrote:

>                       Shawgi Tell,possibly you could explain a few points to
> me.Did the Soviet
>  Union fall because they failed to adhere to Stalinist ideology?

Thomas P. Murray, in my opinion, you are not asking the appropriate 
questions.  

Like many others, you are still starting out from a fascist and 
imperialist-like outlook.  You question Stalin, enemy of fascism, before 
you question Hitlerite lies.  You don't, it seems to me, take into 
consideration any historical periodization of the Soviet Union.  A 
pro-discussion person does not say unhelpful things like "Uncle Joey."  
This is very telling.  Do you really want to gain knowledge or do you 
want to develop the escalating smear campaign against anti-fascists?

I have no idea what you mean by "Stalinist ideology."  As I've explained 
elsewhere, it is important to understand the roles of Khruschev, 
Breshnev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin.  All these mafia-connected neo-cons were 
agents of capitalist-revisionist restoration.  They were agents that 
imperialists worldwide, especially U.S. imperialists, spent much time 
nurturing.

These agents developed a trend known as social-imperialism.  That is, 
they were socialists in words and speech, and imperialists in deeds and 
actions.  Khruschev facilitated this trend by launching a character 
assasination campaign.

Does the "fall of the Soviet Union" mean that Stalin, Lenin and the 
Soviet people were engaged in a futile anti-imperialist struggle, that 
their efforts at socialist construction were pointless?

>  Do you consider Stalins
>  interpretation of Marxism Leninism to be separate and superior to all other
>  interpretations?

The only way to answer this is as follows: It is wrong to separate, as 
the revisionists do, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.  The bourgeoisie 
have engendered a trend wherein it is fashionable to say things like Marx 
and Engels differed on many many points, that Lenin's views differed 
greatly from Marx's, that Stalin may be viewed as vulgarising Marxism, 
mis-applying Engel's jejune views, etc.. this sort of thing.  The better 
question to ask is: Who benefits from this?  The working class or the 
ultra-reactionary imperialist bourgeoisie?

>                        I ask these questions because I've never met anyone
> willing to defend
>  Stalin to the extent you do.

And I answer some of these pseudo-pro-discussion inquiries because many 
continue to internalize and advance bourgeois-fostered anti-Stalin, 
pro-fascist views.  I always meet people willing to defend imperialism 
and its parasitic activities.

>                        I work as an engineer aboard factory trawlers in the
> Bering sea.I had 
>  the opportunity to go aborad Soviet trawlers.(this was before the collapse
> of course.)
>  The Russian engineers introuced us to the officers and pointed out what they
> called 
>  the zampolit.I asked what a zampolit was ,and the loose translation I got
> was -KGB
>  fuck.He was willing to talk to us.I asked him about Stalin,all I got was the
> party line
>  ie-cult of personality-how Stalinism set socialism back.I also asked him
> about Trotsky,
>  all he would say was that Trotsky was a non entity(person) I am not sure
> which,my 
>  Russian isn't that good.So I guess Stalins lucky he didn't fall to the level
> of a non
>   entity.
>                       If a KGB political officer is unwilling to defend
> Stalin to any extent
>  where does the truth lie.Did the Soviets fall because of their failure to
> adhere to
>  Stalins interpretation of Marxism Leninism?
> 
>                                                                     Thomas
> P.Murray

This is about as unhelpful as the points raised by a few other 
anti-discussion subscribers to this list.  Again, it is crucial to 
develop a correct undrstanding of the historical peiodization of the 
Soviet Union.  Things prior to 1953 were not identical to matters after 
1953.  You need to think about developments that occurred around the 
world at this time (e.g., independence struggles, colonialism, western labor 
aristocracy, etc.)  Also, supplying empiricist examples ("I was on a 
Soviet trawler...") meant to refute historical-theoretical and 
historical-practical developments is unproductive.


				SOME HISTORY
				-------------

Under the leadership of Stalin, the Soviet Union was the ONLY country 
which withdrew its armed forces from ALL the areas which it had liberated 
during the Second World War.  It did so on its own after the war.  The 
U.S. established its hegemony in the countries it occupied, and 
established PERMANENT military bases there.  The U.S. began immediately 
to rearm West Germany, and used this area as an open field to organize 
saboteurs and counter-revolutionaties, and financed them to sabotage the 
newly established people's democracies in the east and in the Balkan 
region of Europe.  They organized a fascist counter-revolution and 
aggression against the people of Greece in 1948.  They collaborated with 
the MAFIA in Italy in order to stop the development of the struggle 
there.  They turned this whole area, that was to become NATO, into a 
PERMANENT military camp under the dictate of the U.S.

Today they accuse Stalin of having an aggressive policy, but it was the 
REVISIONIST policy started by Nikita Khrushchev, the darling of 
Anglo-American imperialism, to attack and occupy other countries.  It was 
under Khrushchev in 1955 that the Warsaw Pact was established, not under 
J.V. Stalin.  It was Khrushchev who used military force against those who 
disagreed with him at home and exercised military blackmail abroad.  But 
there is not a single instance where such things were carried out under 
the Leninist-Stalinist policy.  It is AFTER the death of Stalin that the 
Soviet Policy becomes an aggressive imperialist policy, as seen in the 
Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, the invasion of Afghanistan 
and its occupation in 1979, etc.


Shawgi Tell
University at Buffalo
Graduate School of Education
V600A8E6-AT-UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU



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

     ------------------