Talk:Stalinism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russia Portal
Stalinism is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] weasel words and pov

where it says that stalin wrote more clearly than marx. any liar can write clearly. the communist manifesto though is very readable, more so than stalin or any phoney russian red. also weasel words throughout. needs a rewrite if you ask me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.170.242 (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wonderful revision to the intro

I have visited this page in the past and was surprised to find no mention of Stalinism's actual, practical manifestations (e.g., cult of personality, stranglehold on economic activity, etc.). To the individual that added in these facts, thank you. It serves to make visitors aware of the foolishness of Stalin's policies and the stupidity of communism in general. --Impaciente 23:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is exactly because of Stalin's stupidities that unprecedented economic growth occured in Russia, which allowed her to drastically improve the level of life, defeat the nazis and the japs, become a superpower and be the first nation to send a man into space. With respect, Ko Soi IX 18:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sick of anti-Stalin propaganda

Is anyone else sick of the anti-Stalin trash started by nazu germany and adopted by the west?

-G

I guess 20 million dead wasn't enough, not to mention Stalin's genocidal campaigns against the Ukrainians, Chechens, Volga Germans, etc. All in a day's work, aye. You should be ashamed of yourself. Stalin was far worse than Hitler. --146.145.70.200 19:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, anonymous user, for your wise retort to the idiot above who actually attempted to defend the barbarity of Stalin. --Impaciente 23:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The "idiot" has a good point. For instance, Stalin didn't kill 20 million people. There is no proof. There is, however, proof of a considerably smaller number of excess deaths (at max - 6.5 million, including hunger and disease, executions and people that died in labor camps and prisons). With respect, Ko Soi IX 18:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


I am also sick of morons babbling about how Stalin was bad and all that. He wasn't just a "President", who get selected, serves for 4 years, and then leaves. He was a FATHER,and SUPREME LEADER, a GOD to all of Soviet people! He was worshipped! He ruled our country for over 30 years! He only retired when he died! He gave all of himself to the country, practicly living inside Kremlin, which was what eventually cost him his health! His great planning and strategic wisdom brought us Victory in Great Patriotic War, or WW2. He lost both his sons to that war! He worked through nights, turning CCCP from a poor,weak farmer state to a industrialized SUPERPOWER, capable of defending itself against any enemy, and with possibly the most powerful economy in Europe, and second most powerful after US at the time! Yes, he used brutal methods, but nessesairy ones! Like a good father keeps his children in line with a belt, to teach them discipline, he kept our people in line using repressions and gulags... And in his time, no one dared insult Russia the way some cowards do now! And if they did they paid for it dearly! All of you Stalin-bashers out there are a bunch of losers who just wish you could be Iosif Vissarionovich, just for five minutes. Well you can't! He was only one! Only true Stalin in history! There is no other like him! Unfortunately...

                             --Sergei 21:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It's sad to see how exapmles of people that have been spoon fed propaganda from birth. They will say that Stalin killed millions because they heard other people say it or read it on the web... but where did they get it? From other people who just pass it along with no citations or references... it's much more sinple to say "lalalal i'm not listening you, he was a monster". You do realize that the leader of the USSR had less power than the U.S., less power than the prsident. Not only did these "monsterous acts" never happened but were INCAPABLE of happening.

-G

Industrialised superpower? "Capable of defending itself against any enemy, and with possibly the most powerful economy in Europe"? 1, What did the Soviets have that the West could possibly have wanted? 2, In regards to your "powerful economy" nonsense, we in the West didn't have to queue up for hours on end to buy a loaf of bread! 3, You're still (and will be for a long,long time) a "poor, weak farmer state".

[edit] Question about Stalin's struggle for power

I have a question.... why did it take SO long for someone to finally take over as a leader after Lenin died? -- 00:03, 2 May 2006 209.107.107.22

Your answer is in the article about Stalin. -- TheMightyQuill 08:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Don't agree. I have done quite a lot of reading on Marxism, including Marx Engels Lenin and Trotsky, but unlike most who read Trotsky, I've also read Stalin. I have his collected works - there's 13 volumes, and granted, a large part of them are just speeches, short pamphlets and summaries of theory covered in more detail by Marx and Lenin, but there are also some more substantial pieces, such as his work on "Anarchism or Socialism", "Marxism and the National Question" etc. You may be surprised, but Stalin actually wrote some quite trenchant work on the problem of bureaucratism, and there's his criticisms of "Trotskyism", which, although I don't agree with them, and they contain diostortions and sometimes plain lies, I can understand why many socialists where swayed by them. In my opinion, Trotsky completely underestimated Stalin. He was by no means the semi-literate primitive that Trotsky often makes out. And I can understand why many socialists and communists where drawn to Stalin - his works are very practical, which Trotskyists despise as simplistic, but working class socialists often admire writers who can write in a simple way. Have you actually taken the time to read any of Stalin's works, Mgeekelly/XmarkX?
Oh, and it's wrong to say that the phrase "Stalinism" was not used in Stalin's time. I could find the sources for this, but I'll leave it for now. CPMcE 09:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

You won't find an unbiased reference here on wiki. For example, the article states something like a "complete dictator". That is imspossible considering (as I stated in a previous post) that Stalin had less power than the U.S. president (who many would say is far from a dictatorship).

-G

[edit] 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

[edit] Stalinists on the resurgence

OK, I've never met many people who call themselves Stalinist, but that don't mean they don't exist, and what's more, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, they're on the rise.

Take a look at [[1]] Examples Bill Bland (died 2001, proud to be called a Stalinist), Harpal Brar another proud Stalinist, CPGB-ML, Stalin Society. Ludo Martens author of "Another View of Stalin", and a proud Stalinist. On the net, - mltranslations.org Particularly for the new Stalinists in Russia

Followers of Trotsky may have hoped that Trotsky's views would have a resurgence in the former Soviet Union, but it's not the case, or at least my research indicates. The fact is that Trotsky was so thoroughly slandered in the Soviet Union that the Stalinist lies about him have entered into the "collective consciousness", if you like. No, it appears from my research (and maybe some wikipedians with inside knowledge, ie. Russians could comment), that most who still call themselves socialists in former USSR are coming to the view that maybe Stalinism was the only way to prevent the restoration of capitalism. CPMcE 00:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Trotsky is responsible for more executions than Stalin. Trotsky was a monster, and an ice pick to the head was what he deserved. Trotsky wasn't a patriot (unlike Stalin), and viewed Russia as fire-wood for the World Revolution. With respect, Ko Soi IX 18:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading

I restored the link to Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed" which was deleted by 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)

The "conclusions" section was blatantly POV and more like an essay than an encyclopedia article, it containted several instances of "I think..." and "Given A my opinion is X." Removed.

[edit] 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)

Vandals keep deleting that page. I am tired of restoring it. That article needs a new home and I have determined that this article is the best place for it (since the page on Nehru is locked by the vandals). If you wish, you can talk sense to them and convince them that India had a planned economy and allow me to put out these facts, and I will leave this article alone. Otherwise, I am going to keep adding it here. You can lock this article too. I will go elsewhere and keep posting the facts until you guys stop doctoring facts and supporting violent communists.
You are not addressing the main objection to your posts: you don't provide any reference from reputable sources. You cannot introduce political definitions here. Your IP is also also blocked for foul mouth. You are not posting "facts". You are posting theories, which may describe facts, but unless you point to a solid publication that uses this term, it will not be allowed anywhere in wikipedia. mikka (t) 02:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Victims of stalinism

I think one cannot characterize stalinism without giving information on the victims of stalinism. I plan to add this information (pure facts) to the article. I hope this will not provoke any anger in other authors. I would like to get advice on whether to incorporate this info in existing sections or to create a new section, and how it should be titled.

First of all, if you are going to undertake a big and serious job, please read articles from category:Soviet political repressions and see how what you are going to add fits into what is already there. mikka (t) 6 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)
Those articles give information on a case-by-case basis, one is on NKVD, another on KGB etc. In an article on stalinism, one needs to give information on the consequences of stalinism to human rights standards in the USSR etc. This is information is sorely lacking in present article. If you feel we'd be duplicating information, please tell in what form the links to those articles could be included.
Please sign your posts; it is difficult to trace longer discussions without signatures.
You may add a separate summary section, not to mix info piecewise. The topic of repressions is huge, and it requires a good overview article, which I agree is missing. I will try to make a skeleton one. mikka (t) 16:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I reverted only one sentence of all my additions which you have removed, the one about slave labour in Stalinist economy. Treat it as a gesture of goodwill. I agree that other info (about political repressions) deserves a separate article. But the article of Stalinism should at least point to it. Please note that the article on Nazism mentions practicle effects of Stalinism and political repressions which occurred under Nazi rule. either directly or as links to other articles.--rwerp 10:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
User 172 is removing not only my additions, but also the sentence about totalitarianism at the top of the article. This is absurd, it's whitewashing Stalinism by selecting only positive information about it in the article.--rwerp 10:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
"Totalitarianism" is a typology used by some researchers but not others. Some do not have much use for it even when working with Stalinism. Including it as the second sentence is POV. 172 | Talk 10:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
But still it's a fact that many consider Stalinism as totalitarian.--rwerp 10:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

There is still one thing I do not understand: why the sentence A British historian Norman Davies likens stalinism to national socialism (Europe. A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198201710) because of alleged similarities between the two. has been removed? It's a fact, not a POV. Norman Davies is a serious, respected historian. His opinions carry some value. Or maybe they do not fit someone elses POV and thus were removed? The same question applies to my mentioning of the slave labour. I have no idea how can one discuss the economics of stalinism without mentioning its use of slave labour. It's like discussing nazism without referring to gas chambers. --rwerp 7 July 2005 06:43 (UTC)

Just as a side note, Davies has a POV too. He has the best sellers, but his work is squarely in the right of the historiography on the subject. 172 | Talk 10:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
It appears that reporting positive POV information about Stalinism is OK: "some historians believe it to be the fastest economic growth ever achieved", but reporting negative POV (Davies' POV) is WRONG.--rwerp 10:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Mikka and I don't care about what sounds "good" to some people and "bad" to others. The criterion for including information in this article is relevance to the topic, not the normative effect. There is an entire Wikipedia category for Stalinist repression, where what you are noted is covered in great detail. 172 | Talk 10:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes you do, because you remove only those additions which are not positive about Stalinism. The information that Stalinist economical system was based partly on slave labour is as relevant to the topic "Stalinist political economy" as it could possibly be. Please prove me otherwise or stop removing this particular addition.--rwerp 13:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Europe: A History, as Davies states in the preface contains little original research. Nearly everything in that book is taken from other historians. People have linked the two these totalitarian ideaologies for a long time. I'll try to look up who Davies refrences for that section, maybe we can get some primary research to back up the claim. --BadSeed 15:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin "supported cooperation with the Provisional Government" - out

I removed this phrase 'cause it just ain't true. Stalin (slowly) came round to Lenin's view after the April Theses. He voted FOR the insurrection.

It's also true that Stalin played a small role in the revolution itself, but NOT true to say that he played "no" role.

In 1924, Stalin "remembered" the setting up of a "Party Centre" which consisted of him and 4 others, but this group never functioned, and was anyway subordinate to the Military Revolutionary Committee (led by Trotsky).

Stalin wrote an article called "What Do We Need", in Pravda, the day before the insurrection, in which Stalinists claim he called for the overthrow of the Prov Gov. This is stretching it a bit - if you read the article, he called for the workers to reject the Prov Gov, and instead "elect your delegations and, through them, lay your demands before the Congress of Soviets which opens tomorrow in the Smolny". Hardly a call to arms.

While rejecting the Stalinist account, it goes too far to swing in the opposite direction and say he "supported cooperation" with the Prov Gov, and played NO role in the revolution. CPMcE 00:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stalinist political economy

This text is biased, it ignores the price of the "growth". Was it worth? Xx236 12:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering that without the economic growth, defeat of the nazis would be impossible, it was totally worth it. With respect, Ko Soi IX 18:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extraordinarily bland article?

I was reading through the article and came to the conclusion that it seems very bland. Instead of listing concrete examples, policies, ideological stances, and the consequences of the ideology, we get sentences such as "Stalinism is the order of an interpretation of their ideas, and a certain political system claiming to apply those ideas in ways fitting the changing needs of society". I have rarely seen such a wasteful use of space on Wikipedia. Is there some intent to appease the supporters of Stalinism by making the article so filled with meaningless sentences that nothing gets said? This entire article needs a rewrite, a new structure, and a lack of quasi-intellectual rambling. I've also noted that there is a distinct lack of mention of the victims of Stalinism. The word "victim" can't even be found in the entire article, neither can "murder", "oppression" or any other words that describe any negative consequences of Stalinism. All in all, the entire article reads like a jumbled mess written by people aching to hide the actual ideology behind empty words and contrived phrases. Someone with a bit of sense and education: Rewrite, please?

-Johan

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.112.184.62 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Be bold, Johan. Go ahead and re-write it. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that Stalinism as a theory is responsible for the many deaths under Stalin. I think it was (certainly for Holodomor) but it's hard to prove. Victims of Stalin have a category Category:Soviet_repressions but no article that I can find. It would be great if someone would write a main article. TheMightyQuill 20:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalinism Today

Someone seems to have performed a mass deletion of an entire section titled "Stalinism Today." Seems as though this would be a most relevant topic as the demise of Stalinist nations seems to point to a rejection of its methods by the world's population. Today, some 55 years after the death of Josef Stalin, only two nations remain where the methods of Stalinism are still in use. Am I the only one who believes this to be relevant?

Goatboy95 15:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but I considered it. I think it's pretty POV to call a modern state Stalinist unless they claim that title. I think there are some pretty important differences between today's Cuba and Stalinist USSR that were being kind of glossed over in that section. If you can convince the people working on Politics of Cuba or Politics of North Korea that those countries can be accurately labeled Stalinist, then I would support making that claim here. - TheMightyQuill 18:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That is complete POV.

That article's completely and blatantly an opinion. Wow. 4.234.45.131 01:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Completely opinion? So don't believe it was named after Stalin? - TheMightyQuill 02:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

This article does not describe Stalinism as the term is commonly used. Instead, it adopts a sectarian Communist point of view and describes the ideological nuances that differentiate Stalin from other Communist theorists. Because of this, the article is completely misleading. The article uses heavy sectarian slang and is highly difficult to understand for non-sectarians.

To give an example of an ordinary meaning of the Stalinism, I quote a recent edition of Encyclopedia Britannica:

Stalinism, the method of rule, or policies, of Joseph Stalin, 
Soviet Communist Party and state leader from 1929 until his death 
in 1953. Stalinism is associated with a regime of terror and 
totalitarian rule. /.../

Link to the Britannica article: [2] (requires subscription)

I am not disputing that the ideological stuff described in this Wikipedia article may be interesting to some people. However, the primary aim should be to describe the term as it is commonly used.

Lebatsnok 18:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is this supposed to be?!

State Duration Paramount dictator State terrorism fatalities Succeeded by
Soviet Union 1927–1953 Joseph Stalin 3,500,000–61,000,000 Russia
North Korea 1945 (establishment)-current Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il 3,000,000+ -
People's Republic of Albania,
PSR of Albania		 1946 (establishment)-1985 Enver Hoxha Probably low,
Capital punishment law existed		 Albania
People's Republic of China 1949 (establishment)-1976 Mao Zedong 14,000,000–43,000,000 -
Democratic Kampuchea 1975 (establishment)-1979 Pol Pot 2,000,000~ PR of Kampuchea

Excuse me but I find this table ridiculous at best....

"State: Soviet Union, duration: 1927-1953, State Terrorism fatalities: 3,500,000-61,000,00; Suceeded by: Russia"

I don't get the point of this ridiculous table... First of all if it is to be about "Stalinist States" it should comprise a brief description of a "Stalinist state" and include main charachteristics of it and comparisons between each of them, otherwise it becomes completely unneceaary. Secondly, it should take into account that USSR left Stalinism in 1956 and did not become "Russia" after this. Thirdly, it should take into account the differences that exist, for example, between Maoism and Stalinism.

Is the author of this table trying to show "Stalinist State" merely as any kind of state claiming to be communist and that is responsible of State terrorism? Otherwise, I'd like to know the reason for this table. 06:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discontinuity Theory

"Apart from that clear wish to dismiss Stalin from his post of general secretary Lenin envisaged an oligarchic rule of the party under the leadership of Trotsky after his death[citation needed]. He was definitely opposed to the prospect of a dictatorship of one person. In fact it was much more likely that Bukharin or especially Trotsky would become the new leaders of the party. Stalin just came to power because of failures of his rivals, well-planned intrigues and because of luck. Thus Stalinism is by far not the logical conclusion of Leninism for the discontinuity theorists."

this is my first talk page contribution so i hope the format is correct, but this above contribution is pathetic, its obviously written from a left communist perspective that glorifies trotsky as being the "true" inheriter of the soviet state. Firstly Trotsky was not that respected by lenin, being an unpopular, intellectual who joined from the mensheviks was not what lenin saw as being the new leader of the party so i will simply cut out the opinion in this paragraph feel free to change back if you can put some citation to saying that trotsky was in anyway going to be the next party leader. Just to add its good to see wikipedia's neutrality is kept up in the talk page, although i defiently know stalin was autocratic without taking into account why the soviet union had to be autocratic and also putting all its problems onto one man rather then looking at the economic issues is the least left thing i have ever seen so good on people for challanging middle class left propogranda user:F4i

[edit] China are no a stalinist state?

China (People´s Republic of) weres a maoist dictaturstate, and not a state with the stalinisme ideology.

China had a Maoist period. Maoism is a form of Stalinism. Psychomelodic 16:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agree with earlier comment about the table

I'm not sure what this strange table adds. Looks like original research to me. The ranges of deaths are so wide as to be meainingless. 'State terrorism' is a confusing term that I'm not familiar with - use of terror by the state could be a defining feature of terrorism. Also Democratic Kampuchea is not normally considered Stalinist (see Short, Chandler, Kiernan etc on this). Maoist is more accurate. It's confusing to bundle Maoism together wtih Stalinism. Suggest this be removed and an alternative paragraph created to cover aspects of political repression etc? Adamjamesbromley 09:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest deletion of whole discontinuity/continuity theory section

Following on from the concerns raised by others, these sections are seriously flawed. Referring to Orlanda Figes' The People's Tragedy or Service's biog of Lenin, there's no mention of any of this. The citations at the bottom of the article link to some left wing sites that are not peer reviewed histories, as such should not be used as sources. Never seen this continuity/discontinuity theory given prominence in any histories of the period

Suggestion that section be rewritten, much shorter version outlining what distinguishes Stalinism from Leninism - which is the degree of political control, the personality cult, level of station appropriation, also the maxim of socialism in one country.

The discontinuity/continuity debate seems to be transposed from commmunist internal discussions. I don't feel it helps understanding. Need to keep it objective and facts based. There's lot of original research woven into this section.

Depending on what people think, I could do a pass to fix this section, take out the spurious citations at the bottom, also remove the table - which again is confusing. Could be replaced with something shorter about other Stalinist states (which can't just include all commnunist ones otherwise the term is meangingless.

Why not mention for example of Applebaum's Gulag for example or Solzenitzyhn. Very odd selection of sources.

Will make some notes next week and come back with new content. Adamjamesbromley 16:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed some external links

I've removed some external links at the end of this piece that are not reliable sources:

Andy Blunden - a self-published author, internet only. Not peer-reviewed. Ludo Martens - Leader of the Workers Party of Belgium, internet only content. Also not peer reviewed. Anna L.Strang - it's a PDF of a book published in 1957 with various bits underlined e.g. the Stalin era gave 'birth to millions of heros' Martin Thomas - an internet Marxist site, not peer reviewed Leonie Brunstein - an internet Marxist site, not peer reviewed.

Think this may have been put here by Jacob Peters, who is a banned sock-puppeteer. There was some odd stuff lurking in the Khmer Rouge pages as well.

Also removed link to a blog about the UN trial in Cambodia of Duch, the relevance is very sketchy at best. Adamjamesbromley 12:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conquest quote

"However, Robert Conquest disputed such conclusion and noted that "Russia had already been fourth to fifth among industrial economies before World War I"" it's a quote but is a ridicolous affirmation (U.S, British Empire, German Reich, France, Austrian Empire and maybe other country were more industrialized of Russian Empire.--Francomemoria 11:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When Was "Stalinism" Coined?

This is a useful paragraph in the entry, but it needs more information and a source:

"The term "Stalinism" was coined by Lazar Kaganovich and was never used by Joseph Stalin who described himself as a Marxist-Leninist and a "pupil of Lenin" although he tolerated the use of the term by associates."

In what year did Kaganovich coin the term "Stalinism"? The Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com) says it's been around since 1927, but no reference is made to Stalin's lieutenant.

Stalin was flattered by the term "Stalinism," yet resisted public use. By contrast, the adjective "Stalinist" was allowed in the Soviet press and History of the CPSU(B) (1939). -- Robotron02 (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Large unsourced texts

There are large unsourced paragraphs and sections in this article. They should be deleted per WP:Source.Biophys (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced and largely fictious sections

Particularly the section concerning Lenin, which is completely fictitious. Stalinism is not in continuity with the Bolsheviks, whom Stalin murdered 1936-1939 in the Great Purges, which are well documented. Allegations that Stalinism is anything but an opposing tendency which gained power through brutal means come from Mccarthyist speculation, which seeks to equate all Socialism with Stalin, from Hellen Keller to Lenin to Trotsky. In any case, the writer here does not source his information, so we don't even know if he got it from Pipes or from George Bush or what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samboring (talk • contribs) 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)