Talk:Stalinism
From Academic Kids
| Contents |
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)
Stalinism now
The following piece is cut away.
- After destalinisation in the Soviet Union and other countries in the Soviet bloc in the 1950s and 1960s and with the People's Republic of China's move away from Maoism after 1976, the only states which remained truly Stalinist were Albania and North Korea (though some would add Ceausescu's Romania to the list). Of those regimes, only North Korea, under the rule of the Korean Workers Party, remains Stalinist into the twenty first century. However, several of the former Soviet republics, particularly Belarus and Tajikistan have reverted to some Stalinist forms such as the cult of personality and extensive use of secret police.
In this paragraph, the term Stalinism is nothing but name calling, similar to the usage of the word "fascist" for all "bad guys". "cult of personality and extensive use of secret police" are not at all "stalinism in a nutshell"; AFAIK, these were in good use like 3,000 years ago in China. Mikkalai 17:47, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
- Uh, no. Where exactly is the "name calling"? Albania, North Korea (and possibly Romania) were Stalinist. And the phrase "stalinism in a nutshell" was never used in the paragraph you removed! The paragraph only stated that the cult of personality and the use of secret police are "some stalinist forms" which is perfectly true. Mihnea Tudoreanu
- They are not "stalinist" forms. They are as old as civilization. For the rest of countries, I'd rather not use labels. Their situations are unique, especially Albania with its isolationst, self-sustenance approach. A more cautious term would be in place: kind of "similar to stalinism", "brands or stalinism", or so. Mikkalai 16:31, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism
While this phrase is around now, it certainly wasn't used in Stalin's Soviet Union, nor by many Stalinists - Stalin simply did not do theory, so made no theoretical contributions which could amount to an Stalinist theory.--XmarkX 05:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Can someone please go into more detail as to what "Stalinism" is?
Please better explain a legitamite meaning of the term, rather then the more obvious pejorative one. For example, the mention of "socialism in one country" and even the article on the subject doesn't explain the reasoning of stalin really at all.
stalinism
I have never met anyone who has called themselves a Stalinist or a follower of Stalinism. And I have probably met more people that would do so than most people. It's hard to say there is an -ism with -ists running around when you can't find any. On the other hand, I have met many people who say they are anti-revisionists. There are millions of anti-revisionists all over the world. There are no, or virtually no people who call themselves Stalinists, and there is no such thing as Stalinism. This article covers the same topic as anti-revisionism, so it is better covered there. The concept of Stalinism is as ridiculous as talking about "Newtonism". Such discussion should take place on either the Isaac Newton or the physics page, not some bizarre Newtonism page. Ruy Lopez 08:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I concurr! this whole page should be emphasized as POV. "Stalinism" originates as a lable used by Trotskyites, and was later used by Revisionists to justify their changes of socialism and implement capitalism in the Soviet Union. --Mista-X 16:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. The above comment seems to have been written by a Stalinist (why else would he write "Trotskyites" instead of "Trotskyists" ?), which counters the first comment. The fact is that most Stalinists today do not like to talk about Stalin, because it is a lousy way to recruit new members. It is simply a matter of PR. Because of that, it might seem to some that there are no Stalinists. However, that is not true. There still are Stalinists, and they still follow e.g. the 2 stadia theory or the theory of socialism in one country. -- Jon Sneyers; 23 Apr 2005
Further reading
I restored the link to Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed" which was deleted by 80.217.161.77 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=80.217.161.77) without comment. I added a Stalin Reference Archive link to his writings, since this seems relevant too. DJ Silverfish 21:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Nehruvian Stalinism
I have lived in a Stalinist country (Czechoslovakia) and would like to mention some reasons why the economic system associated with Nehru should not be called Stalinism.
This is the "Nehru-Stalin" model:
"The Nehru-Stalin model was characterized by a tight state control of major sectors of the economy, artificially created famines, shortage of essential goods including water and electricity, a high rate of unemployment, rampant corruption and punitive measures for those who indulged in economic activity outside the purview of the state. However, a small number of people, usually those connected to the rulers (also see crony-capitalism), were given licenses to operate industries and small businesses like gas stations. In India, this system came to be called the 'License-Permit-Quota Raj' or the 'License-Permit Raj' or just the 'License Raj.'
And when you change the paragraph to describe the situation in stalinist Czechoslovakia and Soviet union:
"The Stalin model was characterized by a tight state control of all sectors of the economy, artificially created famines, shortage of essential goods including water and electricity, no unemployment (to be unemployed was illegal) , rampant corruption and punitive measures for those who indulged in economic activity outside the purview of the state. No peeple, not even those connected to the rulers (also see crony-capitalism), were given licenses to operate industries and small businesses like gas stations. In the stalinist countries there were no private gas stations, no private farmers, no private shops or private hair-dressers"
- Georgius, thank you for your thoughtful comments. There is a reason why the Indian experience is called Nehruvian-Stalinism and not Stalinism. This is due to some minor differences. Having said that, I must correct myself in the light of your comments. The Indian government controlled ALL sectors of the indian economy. Gas stations were not like small businesses, they were OWNED by the government and some people were appointed to merely operate them. My own thinking has been influenced by the American experience. The term "small business" did not exist in popular lexicon until recently. The amount of petrol or diesel they got was determined by what the government decided. The licenses were not permanent. Farmers grew food, but had to surrender the produce to the government. Growing "cash crops" like coffee was illegal though it was grown under strictly regulated conditions in a few places. Of course, the produce was the property of the Coffee Board! Why, the government even owned every sandalwood tree in the country and if a sandalwood tree grew in your garden and you hadn't reported it to the government, they would arrest you and treat you in a cruel manner. Shops were permitted, but they couldn't stock anything because there was nothing to stock! How would there be when manufacturing was done by the government? All you got was the basic stuff. The original idea of controlling the "commanding heights" was Lenin's idea which Nehru put into place. In fact, the Indian system was put into place with the help of "experts" from USSR that Stalin sent to India. So the credit for shattering Indian lives goes to Stalin too! As you pointed out, there were minor differences and that is why there is a difference in the name of the system.
I have just found out that the content of the Nehruvian-Stalinism section had found an abode in a separate article Nehruvian Stalinism. May it rest in peace there. I still think it should be called "Nehruvian Socialism", in view of the differences with Soviet and European Stalinism which are certainly not minor. Consequently, I make one more attempt to delete Nehruvian Stalinism from this article.
--Georgius 12:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
