Political Crossfire Forums

[thebreadloaf2003]

When Stalin came into power in USSR, he attempted to persue Lenin's dream and continue with Leninism. However They approach he took was muhc more radical than Lenin, and his tactics became known as Stalinism or Leninist-Stalinist.

His basic approach to bringing about the world revolution of the proletariat was to have his people follow him, fight for him, and work for him, not for materialistic or personal economic purposes, but for the good of the community.

the way he attempted to control his people (or at least the people who did not want to follow his rulings to par) was through fear. fear of death, fear of a family members "accidental" death, or fear of exilation.

in my opinion this style of governing was for the most part very effective. Stalin had strong relations built between the USSR and china, korea, japan, numerous arab nations, and even the US at for a while. Now when I say this style of governing was for the most part effective, i mean that in a purely Controlling standpoint, and in no way a humane standpoint

The only flaws were the lack of ability to sustain economical stability, distrust, and the poverty that came with communism and the socialistic attempt at world revolution.

I would like to hear everybodies thoughts about this and whether you think Stalinism was effiective for control over the people

[Jehan]

Stalinism was so wonderful it created the largest slaughter in recorded history. The History Channel is gonna have a documentary about Josef Stalin tonight at 10 EST. I reccommend you look into it.

[XxMorningStarxX]

Yet another delusional American/communist pinko.

get real

Stalin slaughtered 20 million people, which makes him the biggest butcher in history- yes, before hitler.

yeah, he had control alright- he was like God to soviets, is that what you'd like to be?

[sherborne]

thebreadloaf2003 wrote: When Stalin came into power in USSR, he attempted to persue Lenin's dream and continue with Leninism. However They approach he took was muhc more radical than Lenin, and his tactics became known as Stalinism or Leninist-Stalinist.

His basic approach to bringing about the world revolution of the proletariat was to have his people follow him, fight for him, and work for him, not for materialistic or personal economic purposes, but for the good of the community.

the way he attempted to control his people (or at least the people who did not want to follow his rulings to par) was through fear. fear of death, fear of a family members "accidental" death, or fear of exilation.

in my opinion this style of governing was for the most part very effective. Stalin had strong relations built between the USSR and china, korea, japan, numerous arab nations, and even the US at for a while. Now when I say this style of governing was for the most part effective, i mean that in a purely Controlling standpoint, and in no way a humane standpoint

The only flaws were the lack of ability to sustain economical stability, distrust, and the poverty that came with communism and the socialistic attempt at world revolution.

I would like to hear everybodies thoughts about this and whether you think Stalinism was effiective for control over the people

There is a theory by a historian called Isaach Deutscher who says that Stalin's purges were justified in order to transform the country into a homogenous and functioning industrialised country. He doesnt say that they were in any way humane, but he does argue that without them Stalin would not have been able to eventually repulse Nazi Germany at Stalingrad and eventually turn them back and conquer half of Germany to boot.

[thebreadloaf2003]

XxMorningStarxX wrote: Yet another delusional American/communist pinko.

get real

Stalin slaughtered 20 million people, which makes him the biggest butcher in history- yes, before hitler.

yeah, he had control alright- he was like God to soviets, is that what you'd like to be?

hey, before you go stickin labels on people, why dont you f**king read the entire entry, i stated for this topic to be looked at through a controlist viewpoint not a humanitarist view point.

[quote=jehan] Stalinism was so wonderful it created the largest slaughter in recorded history. The History Channel is gonna have a documentary about Josef Stalin tonight at 10 EST. I reccommend you look into it. [/quote]
and thanks for the update on the history channel thing

[venator]

sherborne wrote: thebreadloaf2003 wrote: When Stalin came into power in USSR, he attempted to persue Lenin's dream and continue with Leninism. However They approach he took was muhc more radical than Lenin, and his tactics became known as Stalinism or Leninist-Stalinist.

His basic approach to bringing about the world revolution of the proletariat was to have his people follow him, fight for him, and work for him, not for materialistic or personal economic purposes, but for the good of the community.

the way he attempted to control his people (or at least the people who did not want to follow his rulings to par) was through fear. fear of death, fear of a family members "accidental" death, or fear of exilation.

in my opinion this style of governing was for the most part very effective. Stalin had strong relations built between the USSR and china, korea, japan, numerous arab nations, and even the US at for a while. Now when I say this style of governing was for the most part effective, i mean that in a purely Controlling standpoint, and in no way a humane standpoint

The only flaws were the lack of ability to sustain economical stability, distrust, and the poverty that came with communism and the socialistic attempt at world revolution.

I would like to hear everybodies thoughts about this and whether you think Stalinism was effiective for control over the people

There is a theory by a historian called Isaach Deutscher who says that Stalin's purges were justified in order to transform the country into a homogenous and functioning industrialised country. He doesnt say that they were in any way humane, but he does argue that without them Stalin would not have been able to eventually repulse Nazi Germany at Stalingrad and eventually turn them back and conquer half of Germany to boot.

Using such logic, I assume the historian would justify the purges and atrocities commited by the Nazi regime in order to gain control over the country, and eventually loose the 2nd WW as a result of overestimate of Germanies power...


In any case, as for Stalinism - it was nothing more than a more brutal variant of Leninism (which wasnt that much milder anyways). :-|

[sherborne]

venator wrote: sherborne wrote: thebreadloaf2003 wrote: When Stalin came into power in USSR, he attempted to persue Lenin's dream and continue with Leninism. However They approach he took was muhc more radical than Lenin, and his tactics became known as Stalinism or Leninist-Stalinist.

His basic approach to bringing about the world revolution of the proletariat was to have his people follow him, fight for him, and work for him, not for materialistic or personal economic purposes, but for the good of the community.

the way he attempted to control his people (or at least the people who did not want to follow his rulings to par) was through fear. fear of death, fear of a family members "accidental" death, or fear of exilation.

in my opinion this style of governing was for the most part very effective. Stalin had strong relations built between the USSR and china, korea, japan, numerous arab nations, and even the US at for a while. Now when I say this style of governing was for the most part effective, i mean that in a purely Controlling standpoint, and in no way a humane standpoint

The only flaws were the lack of ability to sustain economical stability, distrust, and the poverty that came with communism and the socialistic attempt at world revolution.

I would like to hear everybodies thoughts about this and whether you think Stalinism was effiective for control over the people

There is a theory by a historian called Isaach Deutscher who says that Stalin's purges were justified in order to transform the country into a homogenous and functioning industrialised country. He doesnt say that they were in any way humane, but he does argue that without them Stalin would not have been able to eventually repulse Nazi Germany at Stalingrad and eventually turn them back and conquer half of Germany to boot.

Using such logic, I assume the historian would justify the purges and atrocities commited by the Nazi regime in order to gain control over the country, and eventually loose the 2nd WW as a result of overestimate of Germanies power...


In any case, as for Stalinism - it was nothing more than a more brutal variant of Leninism (which wasnt that much milder anyways). :-|

I dont think he would. He is propbably a raving commie so he wouldnt justify that. Its all about moarls and virtues: If you believe that killing is wrong then Stalin was a murderer, if you believe it can be justified to serve a higher purpose, then its possible to argue that he was justified. As for me, i fall on the former side and not the latter.

[venator]

Agreed, he probably is a commie... ;)

[sherborne]

venator wrote: Agreed, he probably is a commie... ;)

Yea and he probably has about as much credibility as A J P Taylor or Daniel Goldhagen in the academic world. Interesting arguent, bit of a maverick, and a bit crap.

[venator]

sherborne wrote: venator wrote: Agreed, he probably is a commie... ;)

Yea and he probably has about as much credibility as A J P Taylor or Daniel Goldhagen in the academic world. Interesting arguent, bit of a maverick, and a bit crap.

E.H. Carr is another of the same creed...

[XxMorningStarxX]

thebreadloaf2003 wrote: XxMorningStarxX wrote: Yet another delusional American/communist pinko.

get real

Stalin slaughtered 20 million people, which makes him the biggest butcher in history- yes, before hitler.

yeah, he had control alright- he was like God to soviets, is that what you'd like to be?

hey, before you go stickin labels on people, why dont you f**king read the entire entry, i stated for this topic to be looked at through a controlist viewpoint not a humanitarist view point.

[quote=jehan] Stalinism was so wonderful it created the largest slaughter in recorded history. The History Channel is gonna have a documentary about Josef Stalin tonight at 10 EST. I reccommend you look into it.
and thanks for the update on the history channel thing[/quote]

I know your making a "controlist" point, and i did read the whole damn thread. THe point is that arguing for controlist point has been done over and over again by idiots, and it itself is a stupid argument. Of course if you sunk low enough to butcher millions of people in a seat of power, you can have a lot of control.

[Robweiller]

thebreadloaf2003 wrote:
I would like to hear everybodies thoughts about this and whether you think Stalinism was effiective for control over the people

It it was so effective, then why it lasted for so short period of time?

[XxMorningStarxX]

Robweiller wrote: thebreadloaf2003 wrote:
I would like to hear everybodies thoughts about this and whether you think Stalinism was effiective for control over the people

It it was so effective, then why it lasted for so short period of time?

haha.. it's because Stalin had to DIE. yes he was a human being, like all of us, and not a God. One thing about controllist states is that because one person holds so much power, the death of such a leader would make such a "controlist era" completely end because there would be such a huge power vaccuum.

[thebreadloaf2003]

XxMorningStarxX wrote: Robweiller wrote: thebreadloaf2003 wrote:
I would like to hear everybodies thoughts about this and whether you think Stalinism was effiective for control over the people

It it was so effective, then why it lasted for so short period of time?

haha.. it's because Stalin had to DIE. yes he was a human being, like all of us, and not a God. One thing about controllist states is that because one person holds so much power, the death of such a leader would make such a "controlist era" completely end because there would be such a huge power vaccuum.

he is right about stalin dieing, and stalinism didn't continue to be used because all the leaders of russia from lennin on all had a slightly different way of manipulating lennins teachings to fit what they wanted or thought would be a better, more powerful Russia.

and to return to the argument of stalinism being an efficient source of control, if you look at every other leader from begining of 1900's on, Stalin was the one who had the most control and influence over his people because he slaughtered all those people.

[eynon]

venator wrote: sherborne wrote: venator wrote: Agreed, he probably is a commie... ;)

Yea and he probably has about as much credibility as A J P Taylor or Daniel Goldhagen in the academic world. Interesting arguent, bit of a maverick, and a bit crap.

E.H. Carr is another of the same creed...

so was my grand-father, he believed that Stalin was FORCED to comit those purges because of the threat the Capitalistic West imposed on the Soviet Union.(Pinko!)

Irony of ironies is that his 2 grand-sons are rabid Libertarians :wink: [/b]

[venator]

Eynon81 wrote: venator wrote: sherborne wrote: venator wrote: Agreed, he probably is a commie... ;)

Yea and he probably has about as much credibility as A J P Taylor or Daniel Goldhagen in the academic world. Interesting arguent, bit of a maverick, and a bit crap.

E.H. Carr is another of the same creed...

so was my grand-father, he believed that Stalin was FORCED to comit those purges because of the threat the Capitalistic West imposed on the Soviet Union.(Pinko!)

Irony of ironies is that his 2 grand-sons are rabid Libertarians :wink: [/b]

That is funny, my grandfather also has socialist/leftist views despite the fact that everybody else in the family has totally different views (some liberals, and some right-wingers) :wink:

[thebreadloaf2003]

venator wrote: Eynon81 wrote: venator wrote: sherborne wrote: venator wrote: Agreed, he probably is a commie... ;)

Yea and he probably has about as much credibility as A J P Taylor or Daniel Goldhagen in the academic world. Interesting arguent, bit of a maverick, and a bit crap.

E.H. Carr is another of the same creed...

so was my grand-father, he believed that Stalin was FORCED to comit those purges because of the threat the Capitalistic West imposed on the Soviet Union.(Pinko!)

Irony of ironies is that his 2 grand-sons are rabid Libertarians :wink: [/b]

That is funny, my grandfather also has socialist/leftist views despite the fact that everybody else in the family has totally different views (some liberals, and some right-wingers) :wink:

thats really interesting that you had families with those political views. and it make me curious, did anyone have any family that encountered problems with McCarthyism? i'd like to know