Not long ago I posted the following message in regard to Stalin. The
*9th* point was omitted somehow and for that reason I am reposting the
message with the 9th point included.
Klo
Ella stated:
> > > Instead of bandying phrases around, we need to know exactly what policies
> > > are being (a) attacked and (b) attributed to Stalin - as opposed to
> > Lenin,
> > > before there is any hope of a meaningful discussion.
In response I stated,
> > We are in complete agreement. I don't know who you are or what
> > organization you represent, Ella, but I think you should be nominated to
> > assist as a moderator of this list. If your ideology is as consistent
> > and as well-thought out with regard to other key topics as it is with
> > this, you have already crossed the ideological Rubicon.
> >
> > For the cause and the best to you,
> >
> > Klo
Bilenkin says in reply,
> Just a few thoughts. I have no desire (nor time) to start another >useless
>discussion, but somehow can't pass this post without a comment. .Perhaps, it was the
>smugness of Klo's seal of approval.
(Snip)
To the list:
I came back from an extended journey into a book I am writing on
another topic only to find myself being slandered in an anti-Stalin
tirade apparently coming from some Russian malcontent named Bilenkin who
knows little about that which he speaks and is obviously another victim
of anti-Marxist (anti-Stalin) propaganda.
Interestingly enough I am in the process of writing a voluminous tome
on this very topic and judging from Bilenkin’s monologue I have no doubt
he desperately needs some of the pearls of perspicacity contained
therein. Unfortunately he has been conned by what is undoubtedly one of
the greatest lies of the modern era. He definitely needs to know that
Joe Stalin did not set out to "get rid of his opponents." Let me repeat
that for those who are ideologically and/or auditorily impaired. JOE
STALIN DID NOT SET OUT TO GET RID OF HIS OPPONENTS. In fact, exactly
the opposite occurred. His opponents set out to get rid of him, not
only him but his supporters as well. And if people would engage in a
modicum of intelligent thought, without being so willing to swallow the
bourgeois-Trot line propagated for so many decades, they could easily
see as much for the following reasons.
First, Stalin assumed the leadership of the Soviet Union in Jan. 1924
and the trials of his opponents did not begin until August of 1936. Now
if he was out to get rid of his opponents does anyone seriously think he
would wait nearly 13 years before taking action. Let’s be realistic.
If he had been out to eliminate his opponents he could have done it in
13 days or at least 13 weeks. It certainly would not have taken 13
years to get started.
Second, it never ceases to amaze me that people are unable to see the
obvious fact that if Stalin were out to eliminate his opponents he and
his supporters would certainly not keep appointing them to key
positions. No less a renegade than Bukharin himself, for example, was
appointed the Editor of Izvestia as late as 1934 and Bukharin was
constantly griping about nearly everything Stalin did. He was against
collectivization. He didn't like the industrialization policy. He
opposed the emphasis on heavy industry etc. Rykov, Kamenev, Zinoviev
were also constant back-biters. Tomsky was actually the Trade Union
President. The list goes on and on to the point of being ridiculous.
These people were continually denouncing just about everything Stalin
and his supporters did. Yet, they had high positions.
Third, and very importantly, if Stalin was out to destroy his opponents
why on earth would the party keep expelling people like Zinoviev and
Kamenev and then readmitting them after they recanted. This too
attained absurd levels. Stalin’s patience knew no bounds. The amount
of attacks, slanders, and criticisms he endured with forebearance was
nothing short of incredible. It is not for nothing that when one of the
anti-Soviet agents of the 1930’s was exposed, Mezhlauk attacked him in a
speech to the Plenum of the Central Committee on February 25th 1937 by
stating,
“You have been tormenting the party over many, many years, and it is
only thanks to the angelic patience of Comrade Stalin that we have not
torn you politically to pieces for your vile, terroristic work. We
would have done this long ago, two months ago, were it not for Comrade
Stalin, were it not that policy dictated by the interests of the
working-class predominates in Stalin over his just sense of
indignation....” That comment was by no means hyperbolic. Stalin, did,
indeed, exercise “angelic patience” towards his critics.
Fourth, why on earth would Stalin be focused on destroying his
opponents when they were little more than a disorganized, minor band of
vociferous rabble who had pathetically little mass support. The degree
to which they were isolated was readily shown in the 1927 Party Congress
when the vote of Party members was 740,000 to 4,000 against a variation
of Trotsky’s program. In short, they had no mass base worthy of serious
consideration.
Stalin’s program prevailed not because of behind-the-scenes
manueuvering and manipulation of Party membership as his opponents
repeatedly allege but because the overwhelming majority of the Party
membership could see it was the most sensible and practical policy to
follow. His opponents invariably employ their favorite excuse for his
popularity because of their inability to dredge up anything else
Fifth, the expulsion and exiling of people like Trotsky only occurred
when they actually resorted to physical action. Only when they
organized the 1927 demonstrations against the Party, after having given
up on obtaining any real support, were they acted upon physically.
Until then, for more than 3 years no less, all their verbiage had been
allowed and endured. But when they took to the streets, that did it.
The Party’s patience was exhausted. Lenin would never have allowed the
situation to have gotten to that stage to begin with because he
specifically denounced interparty factions in no uncertain terms. That
was anathema.
Sixth, the world’s bourgeoisie have spent a tremendous of time, effort,
and wealth convincing mankind that Stalin eliminated true communists in
the 1930’s which is equally absurd. To begin with, those put on trial
were as guilty as sin and they did not even deny that fact. The
evidence was overwhelming as anyone who has read the entire transcripts
can see. Many western observers at the trials, including the US
Ambassador Davies, reporters Walter Duranty, Anna Strong, the
parliamentarian Pritt, etc., told people later that there was no doubt
in their minds that those executed were guilty. Those on trial were not
communists. They were working to bring about the collapse of
socialism. The program of Bukharin, alone, was virtually identical to
that of Gorbachov, leaving aside the actual acts he committed.
Seventh, and extremely important is the fact that there seems to be an
underlying assumption that everyone who was killed in the 1930’s died on
Stalin’s orders which is utterly vacuous. To begin with, Stalin could
not possibly have kept up with what was going on all over a nation that
spanned 11 time zones. Many acts, arrests, trials, employment
dismissals, and other deeds occurred of which he had no knowledge. Many
he definitely would have opposed had he known about them.
Moreover, people don’t seem to realize that bourgeois agents of every
stripe had infiltrated the Soviet government at every level and were
intent on destroying the Soviet state. They reached into the highest
levels including the NKVD, the most prominent example being Yagoda.
When these agents once obtained these high positions they systematically
set about destroying true communists and replacing them with their own
supporters. That, more than any other reason, is why so many bona fide
communists were killed and imprisoned. Eventually Yagoda was caught and
admitted not only his guilt but his collaboration with other high
officials who were caught as well. The degree of the infiltration,
sabotage, and subversion was immense. After all, the Soviet government
was opposed by Trots, the Rights under Bukharin and Rykov, the
Zinovievists under Zinoviev and Kamenev, the kulaks, the former Whites
of Civil War infamy, the world’s capitalists, the Nazis, the mensheviks,
the social-revolutionaries, many former Czarists, some intellectuals and
the anarchists. Is it any wonder that all true Marxists like Stalin
considered themselves to be under attack and felt a need to be highly
concerned with security. Had they not been, they would not have lasted
a day.
When Stalin and his supporters discovered the degree of penetration,
the identity of the perpetrators, and the crimes of each, they were
promptly brought to justice. Again Yagoda, the head of the NKVD from
1934 to 1936 is a prime example. No one was more concerned with the
destruction of bona fide Marxists than Stalin, Molotov, Kaganovich and
their allies. But finding out who was guilty of what; who was on your
side and who was not, who was lying and who was not, who was acting and
who was not, was a challenge of the first magnitude. Khrushchov,
himself, was a supporter of Trotsky around 1924 and admitted it. When
Kaganovich wished to appoint him to a higher post he told Stalin of
Khrushchov’s former views. All Stalin wanted to know was whether or not
he had seen the error of his ways, and when Kaganovich said he thought
so, that was good enough for Joe. He got the position. Stalin
constantly demonstrated his willingness to forgive and forget. This
attitude permeated his philosophy from the very beginning.
Another factor accounting for the killing of bona fide communists was
that many people saw an opportunity to enhance their own status by lying
about others. People would testify that someone, such as their boss or
supervisor, was doing or planning some form of nefarious activity and
thereby bring about a job opening which they could then fill.
Back-stabbing became widely practiced and frankly the NKVD had neither
the time, money, or personnel to check out all the facts in regard to
many cases They had to go with what they had and mistakes were made in
the process. But what commander in any war, be it on the battlefield or
in class warfare, could intelligently operate under any other
principle. What is the alternative? Leave everyone in place, even when
others are testifying against them.
The problem with Yezhov, who took over from Yagoda and headed the NKVD
from 1936 to the end of 1938 during the period of greatest activity, is
that he went to the other extreme. On his own authority and in order to
impress the Party and gain its favor when he assumed control, he and his
colleagues repressed far too many without sufficient justification or
evidence. Stalin and the Party told him to “ferret out all the
subversives.” They did not authorize him and his subordinates to go on
an irresponsible “round-up” of thousands without justification or
proof. When Stalin and the other Party leader discovered the degree to
which Yezhov had abused and misused his authority and had caused the
deaths of innocent people he was tried and justifiably executed.
Eight, people also conveniently ignore the obvious fact that the
killing of people was initiated by the opponents of Stalin and his
supporters, not the other way around. Until Dec. 1, 1934 no party
leaders had been killed or assassinated since the murders of Volardarsky
and Uritsky in June and August of 1918 by Socialist-Revolutionaries. No
one had used violence of this kind on either side. But when one of
Stalin’s closest allies, Kirov, was assassinated by the Zinovievist
agent Nikolayev that was the final blow. The supporters of Stalin,
Molotov, and Kaganovich quickly began to realize that their opponents
really meant business. Why did their opponents resort to this final
nefarious tactic? Why, because they were rapidly losing what little
mass support they had remaining. By the end of 1931 and mid-1932, the
industrialization process was showing great success and the elimination
of the capitalist class in the countryside, the kulaks, was proceeding
quite well. In effect, conditions were so good by 1934 that, not
without good reason, they referred to the Feb. 17th Party Congress as
the Congress of Victors. It was becoming quite obvious to the opponents
of Stalin and his allies that by the early 1930’s mass support for the
government and its officials was so widespread, so powerful, and so
entrenched that getting them out by any other means than direct
assassination was little more than a dream. Everything else had failed
and the only viable option by that time was physical violence and no one
orchestrated this with more dedication than Trotsky, the person who
deserved to be put on trial more than anyone else as Bukharin clearly
stated.
Ninth, if Stalin set out “to get rid of his opponents,” then why in the
world was the first trial of Zinoviev and Kamenev conducted in a manner
wholly inconsistent with this thesis. Kirov was assassinated in Dec.
1934 and shortly thereafter the killer, Nikolayev, and his accomplices
were caught and punished. But before that occurred they provided
evidence to prove Zinoviev and Kamenev were their “guiding lights” and
ideological catalysts. Subsequently these two individuals were also put
on trial and sentenced for moral and ideological complicity for their
involvement. But they were not tried for murder or conspiracy to
murder. Now if Stalin and his supporters had been out to “get rid of
their opponents” this would have been an excellent opportunity to issue
death warrants. But they didn’t. In fact, the sentences were rather
lenient and consisted of only a few months in jail. Only later, after
subsequent investigation, did the authorities discover that Zinoviev and
Kamenev were not just morally and ideologically to blame but actually
participated in and planned the dastardly deed. Not until nearly 20
months later in Aug. 1936, nearly two years, were they actually put on
trial for organizing the murder itself.
In any event, as I mentioned earlier, I am in the process of writing a
book about this entire era and certainly can not put all the data in a
mere email message. About all that can be addressed at this time are a
few salient points from scores available.
One of the few books of which I am aware that does a commendable job of
exposing this sequence of injustices is entitled “Another View of
Stalin” by Ludo Martens. Although Ludo is to be praised for compiling
his information, I think his work could be improved in two major
respects. First, he quotes many good sources but in some instances does
not adequately meld his sources with the general drift of the
narrative. Secondly, Stalin has far more points to his credit and
arguments in his favor than are mentioned. In other words, Stalin’s
case is considerably stronger than is illuminated.
For that reason I am in the process of writing a text to substantiate
the acclaim to which Stalin is long overdue. Whether it will be
published or I will have to be content with merely posting it on the Net
remains to be seen.
For the cause,
Klo
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
