I wouldn't be surprised if the image of the 13th-century Grand Prince Alexander Nevsky is much influenced in Russia and other republics of the former Soviet Union by the 1938 film by Sergei Eisenstein with its score by Sergei Prokofiev, widely shown after the German attack on the USSR.

Maybe worth checking out this 9 minute youtube clip---an example of high Soviet culture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjLi5wWnFhM&feature=related />

And then as a tribute to Stalin, of course, what better than this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtU3vUOa2sw

Stalin looks like Borat in that photo

"Stalin - an ethnic Georgian - was riding high for many months and <b>was in the number one slot at one point until the show's producer appealed to viewers to vote for someone else</b>, says the BBC's Richard Galpin in Moscow."

That in itself lends serious credence to those who would say that Stalin's score is lower than it should be. And granted I'm not Russian so my comments are of course ignorant, but Stolypin hardly sounds like a major historical figure on the level of Stalin or the national hero Nevsky. Suspicious

Gonzalez, I think you're correct. As someone has been a little observant of cultural phenomena in Russia as of late, I'd like to point out two things here. Western Media has reported - even BBC - that Stalin coming in third amounted to a rehabilitation of Stalin by the Russian state, since it was a poll by Russian State TV. But in fact, as that report and reports coming in show, Russian State TV were incredibly embarrassed by Stalin leading the polls.

It doesn't seem Russia has any interest in actually resurrecting Stalin as a national icon. In fact, the promotion of Stolypin makes much more sense from a state point of view. There have been numerous attempts to rehabilitate in the courts of Russia the Tsarist military officers and government officials. Set to release soon in Russia is the "Admiral," which is a big budget Russian Epic about Admiral Kolchak, one of the White Russian leaders.

I think Stalin looms in the national consciousness of Russian people as a figure that is the return of the repressed. Even Russian Orthodox Christians have saintly pictures of Joseph Stalin! This in fact not uncommon throughout Eastern Europe where many countries have huge swats, sections, and even majorities of the masses who stick up for their hardnosed 'communist' leaders. Recently a poll in Romania had over 60% of Romanians feeling life was better under Nicolai Ceausescu.

So I am not surprised in the least that Russians have a nostalgia for Stalin - there is really an over-determining causality to why this is, and it isn't necessarily the natural yearning of the masses to want Socialism. It is really more the natural impatience of the masses in their corrupt leadership and looking for people to clean house.

<i>1938 film by Sergei Eisenstein with its score by Sergei Prokofiev, widely shown after the German attack on the USSR. </i>

Interesting film.

I remember watching the "Charge of the Rohirrim" sequence from Peter Jackson's "Return of the King" (which was a horribly reactionary movie) and thinking about how much they ripped off from Alexander Nevsky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDVvUnhEs_g />
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTISdgDjo-w />
Of course Jackson cut out the part where the Russians massacre the Catholic priests.

And you also see just how much differently movies of that era were paced than movies of this era. Eisenstein holds the tension of the Teutonic knights' charge for several minutes. Peter Jackson's movie jumps all over the place.

Jackson also puts the good guys in the position of the Teutonic knights and the evil orcs in the position of Nevsky's Russians.

I recall reading in the earlier edition of 'The New Russians' (I think maybe by Hedrick Smith, not sure) that there was nostalgia for Stalin in the 60's- early 70's. He was seen as stopping bureaucrats from lording it over people basically.

The nature of choices one and three should give you a clue. People are upholding Stalin's patriotism. As for defending them against overlords and bureaucrats, this is a semi-feudal idea. People held the same idea about the Tsar, ie, if they could only get their message to him, he's deal a blow to their oppressors. I'm sure there are likely some 21st century Bolsheviks in Russian somewhere these days, but I wouldn't see this as a sign of it.

has anybody else questioned what constitutes 'popularity' in this poll? was it based on reverence for a public figure, or merely the extent to which one is recognized by the russian people?

if it is the latter, then i don't think much can be made of this poll; if it is the former, however, then that could have some serious weight in revolutionaries' approach to reexamining our past and its portrayal in the west.

I firmly believe that Stalin got that vote because many many Russians remember him with kindness and gratitude. Not just for patriotism.

Because here in the west Stalin and Mao, too, are devaluated because imperialism's propaganda wants it so. So I'm glad this fact comes out and we cannot figure out why, also in Mobo Gao's book so many people respond to Mao with nostalgia. I'm glad this book appeared before the generation of Mao's era died.

In all those Stalin years, he did not only defend Russia from foreign aggression. He worked with the people and brought wellbeing to them. He set a course toward communism. That was later dismantled by Khruschov and Gorbachev.

Mobo Gao said that after the falling of the Berlin Wall, life expectancy in Russia actually shortened.

Stalin had his mistakes, as Mao stated. For one, he didn't understand the process of the Chinese revolution. But he gave his help nevertheless.

Carl says, in post 7: "defending them against overlords and bureaucrats, this is a semi-feudal idea..." How can that be semi-feudal, if the action is liberating?

Ah to copare russia now to a century ago, the era of tolstoy, rasputin, dostoyevsky, the constructavists the anarchists, ect.

Jesus christ those marxists vanguards have hell to pay for. Hitler himself said he was indebted to the great propaganda machine that was bolshevism. The Chekka made the gestapo possible.

I think we are entering another revolutionary period in the next decade, I hope I don't go through the delusionment emma went through.

Slava, slava, slava Stalin! (As Paul Robeson said)

THis is essential reading for all workers and progressive people:

http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/lies.html

I don't stand for or against the source i present hereby that is abook called The Unknown Stalin.written by Roy &amp; Zhores Medvedev. I only want to pull out a chapter of it by Zhores that's called Stalin and Lysenko. Lysenko's understanding not only hurt agriculture in Russia, but later in China since, "Lysenko's theories denied the existence of genes and attempted to prove that acquired characteristics could be inherited, a concept known as 'neo-Lamarckism'." (page 191 of ibid) This matter is not exposed only in regard to Russia. It had its disasterous effect on the "Great Leap Forward", according to Wikipedia's version,


On the communes, a number of radical and controversial agricultural innovations were promoted at the behest of Mao. Many of these were based on the ideas of now discredited Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko and his followers. The policies included; close cropping, whereby seeds were sown far more densely than normal on the incorrect assumption that seeds of the same class would not compete with each other. Deep plowing (up to 2m deep) was encouraged on the mistaken belief that this would yield plants with extra large root systems. Even more disastrously it was argued that a proportion of fields should be left unploughed.

What i mean by the above is not only the agricultural concept of making communes. As Ka Mike E has called it "inevitablism", a.k.a determinism, is a wrong understanding of Marxian teachings. Plekhanov's "Individual's role in History" is a classical piece to throw away that argument. But about how to, and how quickly make communes that work out everlasting, these are matters that are only to be acquired by empirical processing, i.e. experimenting varieties. Having one ideal commune doesn't make it applicable everywhere. when reading Pol Pot's getting impressed by seeing a single village's condition and leading it to defaming communism, it makes us responsible to look at history of our big brother critically, not sheepishly.

I don't stand for or against the source i present hereby that is abook called The Unknown Stalin.written by Roy &amp; Zhores Medvedev. I only want to pull out a chapter of it by Zhores that's called Stalin and Lysenko. Lysenko's understanding not only hurt agriculture in Russia, but later in China since, "Lysenko's theories denied the existence of genes and attempted to prove that acquired characteristics could be inherited, a concept known as 'neo-Lamarckism'." (page 191 of ibid) This matter is not exposed only in regard to Russia. It had its disasterous effect on the "Great Leap Forward", according to Wikipedia's version,


On the communes, a number of radical and controversial agricultural innovations were promoted at the behest of Mao. Many of these were based on the ideas of now discredited Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko and his followers. The policies included; close cropping, whereby seeds were sown far more densely than normal on the incorrect assumption that seeds of the same class would not compete with each other. Deep plowing (up to 2m deep) was encouraged on the mistaken belief that this would yield plants with extra large root systems. Even more disastrously it was argued that a proportion of fields should be left unploughed.

What

<a href="/http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/joseph-stalin-voted-third-most-popular-russian/" rel="nofollow">test</a>

What makes the result interesting is not necessarily who is on the list, but who didn't make it.

Normally such polls are biased towards current figures, not historic relics.

Why was Boris Yeltsin not listed, given he dragged the Soviet Union towards democracy?

What about Putin or Medvedev?

I still don't quite get the fascination so many Maoists have with Stalin. I feel that Mao aligned and upheld Stalin for more pragmatic reasons than anything, and overall I think his analysis of Stalin is far too supportive. There are some positive elements of Stalin, but overall I don't consider Mao to have followed in his footsteps; Mao was on a whole other level actually empowering people to move socialism forward. Stalin was all about dry, economic state ownership with little to no input from the Soviet people. Not a model that I feel we want to associate ourselves with. Obviously it's a lot more complex than that though and I am nowhere near theoretically advanced enough to get into details.

Selucha writes:

<blockquote>”There are some positive elements of Stalin, but overall I don’t consider Mao to have followed in his footsteps;...”</blockquote>

I have to ask, maybe not so much of Selucha (who seems to be honestly struggling over questions regarding Stalin), but of those who uphold Stalin (at least those who say "70/30"), what specifically are those “positive elements”?

While it has been years since I read the book, <i>Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938</i> by Stephen F. Cohen (professor and Russian scholar) it has had a lasting impression on me. Cohen very much upheld the Bolshevik Revolution, but at the same time was critical of Stalin, e.g. the Kulaks, the purges, the famine, and for all appearances his is an objective analysis based on historical fact and investigation.

More recently, Cohen published an article in <i>The Nation</i> August 2008: " 'Zek' Freedom Brings Back Memories of Stalin's Russia," which I’m sure would be highly controversial on Kasama. It is, however, telling in regards to Khruschev, and the post-Stalin era.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080915/cohen

On the other hand, <i>Koba the Dread</i>, by Martin Amis, reads like a bad novel (or highly emotional diatribe), even though it is purportedly based on fact. (Martin is Kingsley Amis’ son. Kingsley after being in the British CP in his youth, became a rabid anti-communist.)

Maybe Lenin scores lower with the *Russian* people than Stalin does, because Lenin was an internationalist, and Stalin more of a Great Russian nationalist who merely used socialism as a tool to build up his country's productive forces. Russia is a profoundly nationalistic country at the moment.

Rebel Waltz, I think that is definitely true.

Mike, I think you make some very good points regarding the lack of a complete summation of the Stalin years. One of my main criticisms, which you did bring up, was the elimination of the revolutionary people of the USSR. Just as Lenin said that without a revolutionary theory there was no revolutionary movement, I also believe that without a revolutionary people there is no revolutionary socialism. Simply because there is a proclaimed proletarian state does not excuse a complete absence of popular involvement in the workings of that state.

There were a couple points you made that I wanted to critique.

<blockquote cite="Mike">4) leading of the communist international during the time that communism became, truly, for the first time, a world movement.

5) leading the struggle to defeat Hitler’s Germany. Leading the military defense of the Soviet Union against the world’s most powerful army, and ultimately taking Berlin and breaking apart the Third Reich.

6) Leaving behind (at his death) a socialist camp that included a third of humanity and stretched from the Elbe River (in eastern Europe) all the way to the South China Sea.

7) Supporting in real (if contradictory ways) the victory of the socialist revolution in China.</blockquote>

4) Stalin's leadership of the communist international was, well, bad. He promoted strict adherence to the Soviet line and turned the world's communist parties into puppets of the USSR, limiting their ability to actually create a revolution based on the conditions of their own countries.

5) It's pretty widely acknowledged that the USSR's military success didn't start until Stalin backed off his attempt at leading the military struggle and relegated more responsibility to Zhukov, Chuikov and others.

6) Unfortunately, much of that socialist camp was not developed through popular revolutionary movements but through forced imposition from Moscow. I understand the circumstances and the pressure to compete with the United States (which was doing the same thing), but the USSR's actions postwar were straight social imperialism.

7) I could be wrong, but didn't Stalin oppose the Chinese revolution up until its victory because of its lack of adherence to the official line of the Comintern?

Rebel Waltz:

One must remember that Stalin was Georgian, not Russian, and that aside... It seems in my research that Stalin wasn't a Russian nationalist so much as way too many of the people AROUND him were... and he wrongly promoted Russian nationalism during the Great Patriotic War (note the name, not to mention the whole stuff about the "Motherland" and all that) in a PRAGMATIC way. While I think that it was supposed to be a temporary move, the attitude stuck after 1945 and was firmly entrenched within the Red Army from then onwards... which basically allowed the revisionists to have control of the armed forces by the time of his death.

...and unfortunately, Mother Russia is still profoundly nationalist, and the entire Russian left is painfully chauvinistic- anti-Chechen, anti-Semitic, anti-national minorities, and isn't particularly enthusiastic about supporting their comrades in the other former Soviet countries. The CPRF and the CPSU(Shenin) and AUCPB-Reformed are all a bunch of bigots and militarists. (sighs) <i>Kak groosna...</i>

<q cite="5) It’s pretty widely acknowledged that the USSR’s military success didn’t start until Stalin backed off his attempt at leading the military struggle and relegated more responsibility to Zhukov, Chuikov and others.">

To expand on what Mike said, Stalin's position as "Generalissimo" of the Red Army was actually extremely important in keeping things together, and even some of the Soviets' greatest strategic moves were thought up by him (the methods of artillery offensive action, the winning of air supremacy, methods of encircling the enemy, the splitting of surrounded groups and their demolition by parts, and the use of the masses via workers' militias and Soviet partisans).

There is more here from the book <i>Another View of Stalin</i>, which has its share of dogmatism and seems to be influenced by the line of the PLP and Hoxha, but there are some eye-opening passages in this chapter:
http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/node139.html#SECTION001250400000000000000

AndreiMazenov, I agree that nationalism in Stalin's Russia was pragmatic. I fault Stalin for many things, but the isolation of the Russian Revolution is not one of them. In any case, using nationalism for progressive purpose (whether anti-imperialism, building "socialism in one nation", or whatever) is always playing with fire.

But for the purposes of a discussion on Stalin's current popularity in Russia, I think was matters is not what Stalin was, but what he is now perceived as. And parties like the CPRF, which was so successful in recent elections that it is now Russia's biggest opposition party, are indeed, as you say, composed of bigots. I think most people voting Stalin as a great Russian are probably national chauvinists still thinking of the Russian victory in WWII, and not of anything related to international socialism. Many of the people who like Stalin actually dislike Lenin for having ended the Russian Empire.

I am no fan of <i>Another View Of Stalin</i>, more a work of theology than historical materialism, but I fear AndreiMazenov has given short shrift to its source. The Workers Party of Belgium (PTB), whatever faults its line may have, is an actual force in the unions, immigrant communities and social movements of Belgium and has given very important support to revolutionaries around the world, including those engaged in combat with the forces of reaction and imperialism. Ludo Martens, the PTB leader who authored <i>AVOS</i>, is part of a broad pro-Soviet current which ran through the new Marxist Leninist movement globally in the late '70s and '80s. I rather doubt that Albania, and particularly PL(!) had much effect on his political trajectory.

Mike said in Comment 20:

<blockquote>1) the creation of the world’s first planned economy in human history.

2) the first attempt at collectivized agriculture in human history (launched in sharp struggle with Bukharin, mentioned above, who wanted to maintain a capitalist agriculture rooted in small farms).</blockquote>

There is a plethora of material on the subject of forced collectivization of the Russian/Soviet peasantry. Much information on Wikipedia (categories: kulaks (rich peasants), forced collectivization, famines (1921, the <i>Holodomor</i> in the Ukraine, 1932-33), ad infinitum, plus, Mao’s “Critique of Stalin's Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" “ and “Critique of Soviet Economics,” just to name some sources.

I am not going to quote endlessly from the sources mentioned above—suspect there aren’t enough megabytes on Kasama to list them all. I suggest people read these different documents themselves. However…

I have to take issue with what Mike said about collectivized agriculture, and to put the onus for its failure onto Bukharin only simplifies the very complex contradictions; Bukharin becomes a convenient scapegoat. (As far as Bukharin vs. Deng -- hey, Deng was spared by Mao, and lived long enough to solidify taking China down the capitalist road. Bukharin, was executed during the “Great” Purges.)

I want to focus on the “great” famines, and forced collectivization. To quote from Mao in his critique of Stalin and Soviet Economics:

<blockquote> Mistrust of the peasants is the basic viewpoint of the third letter. Essentially, Stalin did not discover a way to make the transition from collective to public ownership. Commodity production and exchange are forms we have kept, while in connection with the law of value we must speak of planning and at the same time politics-in-command. They speak only of the production relations, not of the superstructure nor politics, nor the role of the people. Communism cannot be reached unless there is a communist movement.[*]

1. These comrades . . . it is evident . . . confuse laws of science, which reflect objective processes in nature or society, processes which take place independently of the will of man, with the laws which are issued by governments, which are made by the will of man, and which have only juridical validity. But they must not be confused.
1. This principle is basically correct, but two things are wrong: first, the conscious activity of the party and the masses is not sufficiently brought out; second, it is not comprehensive enough in that it fails to explain that what makes government decrees correct is not only that they emerge from the will of the working class but also the fact that they faithfully reflect the imperatives of objective economic laws.</blockquote>

Politics in command!

But what are we talking about here? And in terms of the famines (plus deportations to camps, executions, starvation, etc.), and loss of life—figures are disputed – some say 2 million, others as high as 16 million. <b>Millions</b> of people died!

IMO, Stalin’s errors during this period take on a whole lot more significance, than other errors. These are not academic questions. To say that the contradiction between City and Countryside, Industry and Agriculture, was not handled well, is an understatement! And we’re not talking about the Great Irish Potato famine, which was mainly caused by British colonialism and imperialism.; nor the recent famines in Ethiopia or Darfur.

The famine and forced collectivization in the 30s was under Stalin’s watch, under the helm of his leadership and policies, and these questions are still being debated.

With regards to the “Holodomor” (in the Ukraine), and from Wikipedia:

<blockquote> The root cause of the Holodomor is a subject of scholarly debate.[9] Some scholars have argued that the Soviet policies that caused the famine may have been designed as an attack on the rise of Ukrainian nationalism, and therefore fall under the legal definition of genocide. Therefore the Holodomor is also known as the "terror-famine in Ukraine" and "famine-genocide in Ukraine". Others, however, conclude that the Holodomor was a consequence of the economic problems associated with radical economic changes implemented during the period of Soviet industrialization</blockquote>

I do NOT think that Stalin’s forced collectivization and the subsequent famine was for genocidal purposes or to simply squelch Ukranian nationalism. But I do think there is much truth to the cause of the Holodomor in terms of Stalin’s (forced) economic policy, plus the Soviet’s following propaganda which denied the famine. Instead, the blame was put onto the Kulaks (who comprised only 10-16% of the peasant population at the time) and subsequently the majority of the peasantry (middle and lower) was labeled as either Kulaks themselves, or sympathizers (the “dekulakization” program). In much of the propaganda, the peasantry was painted as the proletariat’s enemy, wrecking havoc with any former worker-peasant alliance. (Have we not heard this song before?) This was a <i>grave</i> error (literally and figuratively).

As part of the debate, one Dr. Robert Conquest at first claimed that the famine was deliberate, an act of genocide against Ukranian nationalism, however, he <i>retracted</i> his former thinking, and:

“In 2003, Dr Conquest wrote to (us) explaining that he does not hold the view that "Stalin purposely incited the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put ‘Soviet interest’ other than feeding the starving first—thus consciously abetting it"

And I concur with Dr. Conquest (who should think about changing his name). I don’t however think, after reading much on this subject, that it was simply a matter of putting “Soviet interest” first, but the overzealous line on technology, modernizing industry, being competitive industrially, etc. first and foremost, in Stalin’s formulations, that led to a catastrophe. A human catastrophe that I for one have trouble justifying.

One of the problems I have always found with learning and debating about the Stalin-era USSR (and I do not have settled views on any aspect of it despite having read a fair bit, have thousands of questions and would like to learn more) is that there is so much hysteria and dishonesty generated around it. Just simply getting basic facts straight is extremely difficult. So many come to any discussion of any facet of the era with a firm emotional commitment to guarding a narrative (as opposed to analysis) that either vilifies or defends everything in a blanket and simplistic way.

Too much over-generalization, cherry picking of evidence, lack of substantiation or acknowledgement of weak or contested evidence and verdicts.

Being dismissive about further examination or trying to shut down debate with a sense of moral urgency doesn't really contribute to anything (including effective critique). Rhetoric too often substitutes analysis (such as the constant prefixing of every imaginable Soviet policy with "forced" in a way that is designed to make the policy sound menacing rather than to develop an analysis of it, Communist or otherwise).

Dear Sepia Tone,

While I do very much appreciate your response, and I agree that there have been some gross generalizations (and frankly anti-communist hysteria more so than hysteria in support of Stalin’s line and programs), I think it is incumbent on revolutionary-minded people to try and dig deeper, try and do our homework as best we can, to unravel historical errors, as well as uphold the positive in our revolutionary history and tradition.

I do agree that there is a tendency in method of argumentation to “cherry pick” evidence, etc. but I do believe, with collective discussion and investigation, we can arrive at a better understanding, and get to some truths—while trying to avoid some mechanical applications. And in so doing, and while we will make our own (inevitable) errors in the process, we can learn a lot with regards to the future.

I think that is why Mao made criticisms of the Soviet’s economic policies, and Stalin in particular, and he tried to apply his critique to the situation in China, even though that situation had other characteristics. But IMO it is important to take on (not necessarily in an antagonistic way) some of our sacred cows, and to at least open up the discussion, and not be agnostic about it either. And I more so rely on the writings and summations of much more thorough Russian scholars, such as the aforementioned Stephen Cohen, who usually writes from the point of view of supporting and applauding the Russian Revolution, but with some valid criticisms.

As far as moralism goes…or as you said, “moral urgency”—personally I think there is some moralistic-sounding arguments involved, and I will cop to falling prey to that line of argument. But I don’t personally think of myself as a moralist. What I do think about <i>a lot</i> are ethics. What differentiates our ethics from those sorely lacking ethics of the imperialists? What kind of society do we envision for the future? And in the process of the revolutionary struggle toward the future, what are our motivations? Who are we serving? How do we distinguish between contradictions among the people as opposed to the people’s contradictions and struggle against their <i>real</i> enemies?

I apologize if I sound moralistic, but while we righteously abhor (and expose) the murders of say Oscar Grant or Dr. Tiller, or more so, the enslavement and death of thousands upon thousands of Africans, and national oppression, why do the disputed figures but numerical figures nevertheless, of millions of people dying during say the (forced, yes I see it as forced) collectivization and famine in the USSR in the 30s become so disputable in its own right? While it is true that among those peasants, there were definitely counter-revolutionaries, I am not convinced that all those millions who died were counter-revolutionaries, even if they were branded as such. I am also not convinced, say in the case of Peru, that many of the middle and lower peasants, who were killed by Sendero Luminoso were necessarily counter-revolutionaries either. IMO, things are not so black and white.


I do not think Stalin handled the disparity between city and countryside well. I think Mao did a better job but not without enormous problems and setbacks. Hopefully with a more open analysis, we are not coming from some anti-communist position, or saying “see revolution doesn’t work,” and hoping for its failure. But we do have something to learn from our predecessors, be it on the positive or negative side, even though their “time, place and condition” was different from ours, i.e. the U.S.

The Bolshevik revolution was the first proletarian revolution and sent shockwaves around the world…or as John Reed said, “Ten Days that Shook the World.” But as we know, revolution is not some neatly wrapped process that only takes ten days…oh if only. The Soviet Union was in the midst of world war, a subsequent civil war, etc. There is no way that Stalin could have predicted the outcome of some of the “programs” he instituted, but in that process, I maintain there were grave errors made, and I don’t think there is anything wrong with trying to analyze that. And by what you've said, I don't think you do either.

<blockquote cite>One of the problems I have always found with learning and debating about the Stalin-era USSR (and I do not have settled views on any aspect of it despite having read a fair bit, have thousands of questions and would like to learn more) is that there is so much hysteria and dishonesty generated around it. Just simply getting basic facts straight is extremely difficult. So many come to any discussion of any facet of the era with a firm emotional commitment to guarding a narrative (as opposed to analysis) that either vilifies or defends everything in a blanket and simplistic way.

Too much over-generalization, cherry picking of evidence, lack of substantiation or acknowledgement of weak or contested evidence and verdicts.

Being dismissive about further examination or trying to shut down debate with a sense of moral urgency doesn’t really contribute to anything (including effective critique). Rhetoric too often substitutes analysis (such as the constant prefixing of every imaginable Soviet policy with “forced” in a way that is designed to make the policy sound menacing rather than to develop an analysis of it, Communist or otherwise).</cite>

Here's my question:

With us Communists needing to defend our heritage and our achievements in a time like this, I have to ask what's more important at this point in time: defending the USSR from the distortions that 99% of people are taught/believe, or to be digging into the USSR's excesses and errors? Let's weigh in on what's more important and which is more principal...


This is totally not helpful to the dialog, but I think it still needs to be seen:
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/feature-articles/next-week-on.php

Wait until 0:20 seconds in. Stalin's debut is awesome.

Oops, my block cite went awry. Was meaning to cite Sepia's post.

Thanks for the replies. A lot to think about and address and I will post more later, but for now I just wanted to speak to this since it seemed a nice spring board to clarify where I was coming from...

"With us Communists needing to defend our heritage and our achievements in a time like this, I have to ask what’s more important at this point in time: defending the USSR from the distortions that 99% of people are taught/believe, or to be digging into the USSR’s excesses and errors? Let’s weigh in on what’s more important and which is more principal…"

I can't imagine how these are separable in any way. Honest, meaningful critique is impossible without accurate information and conversely you don't do anything or anyone seeking an alternative socialist society (past or present) any favours by sticking your head in the proverbial sand and refusing to address or acknowledge realities which in an age of increasingly diffuse information exchange (which Nando just made a nice post on) simply aren't going to remain hidden. I would only add that I think the question is less about defending the USSR (or Stalin or whatever) per say and more about defending the possibility and vitality of the revolutionary communist project (of which the USSR forms a chapter). That defense is invariably about developing it in a living way in the present, and analysis of the USSR experience is a part of that.

The Stalin-era USSR doesn't exist anymore. It is 2009. There are no practical present day questions about aligning to it or the comintern, about internationalist solidarity, there is no pressing moral urgency surrounding the consequences of this or that policy and its consequences etc. It already happened. In this sense examination of it is actually in fact "academic". By this I don't mean it is not of value or that it is something that should only concern academics. Nor do I mean that how the USSR of the past is portrayed in the present as an ideological weapon by East European neo-fascists and reactionary nationalists, the dominant liberal imperialist establishment in the West etc is not also part of present day politics. But I do mean that revolutionaries would likely stand to benefit by supporting any initiatives (whether by communists or not) that make the Stalin-era the subject of honest rational inquiry. Something that it has not been in the past half century in the Anglo-American world at least (and Robert Conquest has as I understand it been something of the poster boy for the problems of dishonest junk "scholarship", churning out cheap propaganda that is less about understanding the past and more about manipulating the present in favour of the US establishment).