Well, unfortunately I won't be able to start the conversation to a full extent. I must admit that I do not know much about this subject, which is why I would like to ask what you guys think about this. It will supposedly be a topic I will have to answer a question on in the future, and am wondering what you guys think about this. I know some of you know this subject throughout. I think I should cover the subject by looking at: 1)His past 2)Professed political ideologies 3)Actions as the leader of the Soviet Union In addition, a solid definition of actual communism will also have to be developed. This is what I am having most trouble with. To what extent are the words of Marx and Engels the base of Communism? In other words, to what extent will I be able to use their words and thoughts in this case? A few questions I have: 1) Did Marx say that Communism could not work in Russia (in particular)? It would seem logical, as he said this would not work in society not industrialized. 2) Was a world revolution as supported by Trotsky an original idea of Communism, or was Stalin's "Communism in one country" philosophy the one believed in by Marx? 3) To what extent are Trotsky and Lenin reliable sources for a definition of Communism? Thanks. ------------------ Nederland 2002 Qualifying Campaign (Damn those penalties!!!) <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Pressbox/6544" TARGET=_blank>Houston Rockets Space Center- Not just another ClutchCity.NET clone. We're that and more! </A> [This message has been edited by Ace (edited August 19, 2000).]
Hope this helps: http://www.cyberenet.net/~lking/stal.htm ------------------ In order to be a success in life, you need 2 things: 1. Don't tell everything you know. [This message has been edited by BobFinn* (edited August 19, 2000).]
Hard questions, but here's a go: 1. Well, Moscow was industrialized. What Russia are you talking about? I don't recall Marx really talking about how to implement his critical works. You probably need to clarify that question. Also, Marx certainly did talk about model farms and agricultural economies. If anyone said that, Engels did. 2. You assume Marx cared about such things. I'd say Trotsky and Stalin's ideas were both original. How much of Marx's writings really talked about how to do a revolution. I thought he concentrated mainly on the end result. He was a critical thinker, and much of it was on economies, not revolutions. You might be treating interpretations of his works as his works. He did have some working plans that I know little about which aren't part of his main critical essays, so maybe I'm missing something. 3. You are going to have to put communism in its Time and Place. Yes, definitely they were realiable sources for the definition because they led the revolution which a prerequisite for bringing Russia to a Marxist economy. You seem to be stuck on equating Marxism to Communism. Each one of those people contributed to a definition. Technically, Stalin is not a Marxist because he become a ruthless dictator. But, how can you really argue that he was not a communist. Lenin and Trotsky are different than Marx and Engels because they organized a revolution to get to Marxism. Lenin and Trotsky were brilliant men. But for that reason, Stalin had to kill/exile them by claiming brilliant people (intelligencia) are not proletariat, and therefore cannot be part of a true communist revolution, following Engles economic writings. Stalin used the definition to the letter in order to kill anyone with power. You could argue that Stalin's writings represented the true spirit of the revolution...but when you consider that had you NOT argued that in 1930 Moscow, you'd be killed, you'll realize Stalin (like any dictator) used revolutionary passion to gain power and keep it.
Thanks for the help, guys. As far as the thought that Communism would not work in Russia, I assume he's referring (if he ever did) to the fact Russia's economy was completely different from the Western countries and based on agriculture. 4)Didn't Marx say that the proletariat resulted from the industrial revolution? 5)Did he think that the proletariat existed in Russia? 6) The fact that Stalin followed Engels' writings to the letter can be interpreted as his using them simply to gain power, as you mentioned. I really don't think I should use his arguments to kill/exile as proof that he was a Communist, but it would be worthy of mention. 7) Yes, I am very much finding trouble between Marxism and Communism. How should I define each? Do they differ at all? 8) Are you sure that Marx did not mention a revolution in order to move towards Marxism? 9) But, how can you really argue that he was not a communist? How can I argue that he was? Thanks again. ------------------ Nederland 2002 Qualifying Campaign (Damn those penalties!!!) Houston Rockets Space Center- Not just another ClutchCity.NET clone. We're that and more!
Could you elaborate on this statement? ------------------ Nederland 2002 Qualifying Campaign (Damn those penalties!!!) Houston Rockets Space Center- Not just another ClutchCity.NET clone. We're that and more!
ace- "fascism" is defined to be tyranny of the majority, and is typically reserved for the notion of an ethnic majority and for police states. both hitler and stalin appealed to the notion of german man/russian man, and used it to rationalize the extermination of all those of adjacent heritages. they fed off paranoia, and created extremely large self-enforcing mechanisms of power: for reasons still troubling today, people would carry out the holocausts and the genocides in their behalf. there's a well-known cliche here of the "banality of evil." again, a really wonderful book to read is "the children of the arbat," a book banned for decades in russia, written by an extremely prominent russian writer. and, again, you have to move beyond the cliches and properly use the term "fascism." recall, hitler's party was the "national socialist party," so obviously words can easily trip people up here. responsible for the deaths of 20 million people, most of whom it might surprise ysome to know were decent god-fearing "family values" christians. of those he killed, almost 8 million were in ukraine, the country of my wife's (and thus my son's) heritage. [This message has been edited by hetero doxy (edited August 20, 2000).]
Ace, all that in 2500 words...good luck. Ace, regardless of what you do, your ideas for the paper are very good. Attempting to question history and make the case that Stalin was not a Communist, is fun and a very sound excercise. I'll leave you with this last thought to see if it gives you another idea. Both Lenin and Stalin fought side-by-side in an effort to strip power from the Aristocrats and give power to the labor class. Lenin valued the intelligencia, and consider them necessary to lead the revolution. But, Stalin ended up wanting to strip power from everyone, and he dangled carrots to move the proletariat. So, what hetero and I are saying is that Stalin either went power hungry to an insane degree after splitting from Lenin, or he chose to take a path that could purposely prove Lenin was not "a true communist" based on his revolution not being truly a proletariat one. Remember, Lenin was clearly the leader of the revolution. Stalin had to level the playing field and give power to the young proletariat in the name of communism in order to wrench power away from Lenin and the other leaders. The masses loved him for giving them power, but it was all a terrible facade in the end.
hetero doxy, I certainly acknowledge that this is a serious issue, but you must realize that my understanding of the subject is fairly limited. Remember that I hold no real views in regard to this issue so far, as I simply do not know enough about the subject. What am I trying to accomplish through these posts? My direct purpose is to find a better direction for the essay previously mentioned. Just curious- How did my posts cause offense? ------------------ Nederland 2002 Qualifying Campaign (Damn those penalties!!!) Houston Rockets Space Center- Not just another ClutchCity.NET clone. We're that and more!
HP, Thanks for the help throughout. I agree that Lenin was clearly the driving force behind the revolution. Your argument could be use, and could be compared to how Stalin attempted later on to seem as if he had taken a large part in the revolution. Often, he put himself as one essetial for its success. I think that the more valid argument is that Stalin simply used Communist ideas to his benefit ands when they did not apply to his personal aims he simply ignored them. Sure, Stalin might have followed the words of Engels and Marx to the letter on occasion, but this alone cannot be used as solid proof (not that this was being implied in your post) that he actually believed in these ideas. ------------------ Nederland 2002 Qualifying Campaign (Damn those penalties!!!) Houston Rockets Space Center- Not just another ClutchCity.NET clone. We're that and more!
Hetero, Don't worry about it. Thanks for your input. As far as Stalin and Hitler comparisons, I will surely consider this option. To support this, I might be able to mention that to a great extent Stalin trusted Hitler more than any Communist he ever met. I have no real solid proof for this, as someone from AllExperts.com mentioned it. Do you know anything about this? ------------------ Nederland 2002 Qualifying Campaign (Damn those penalties!!!) Houston Rockets Space Center- Not just another ClutchCity.NET clone. We're that and more!
Ace, I really can't answer all your questions without pulling out my Marx/Engels book. 4. That is indeed the definition of proletariat. So, whoever coined it, definitely meant it that way. 5. Can't answer that. But theu do write about farms and agricultural proletariat. 7. Sure they differ. Marxism is critical thinking. It is like a philosophy. Communism is more on the side of an economic model. I wouldn't say you can stray too far from the actual writings of Marx, and call something a Marxist idea. But I do believe communism can evolve in definition. In that way, I would argue that Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin contributed greatly to creating working plans for a communist society and executing them. I can say this: definitions like Communism change. Why make an argument about who was most right and most original. 8) no...and I don't doubt he did. But mentioning that it would take a revolution and arguing over how the revolution should take place (as you say with Trotsky/Stalin), are two different things. about 6), yeah leave the killing out of it. My point was, Stalin's interpretation of Marx/Engles is to say communism must be run by the proletariat and no privileged people can participate, essentially. That is a sound argument that attracted much passion from the masses. Lenin's revolution was run by the intelligencia. Stalin purged all that and gave the revolution over to the masses and promised them a beautiful industrial society (at least he made them believe that). I would definitely allow for the evolution of the definition of communism. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited August 20, 2000).]
Heypartner, You said that the ideas of Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin all help in the development of a definition of Communism. However, where do you draw the line between Communism and the so-called Stalinism, Trotskyism and Leninism? After thinking through this, I think I could make the argument that he was a Stalinist rather than a Communist. I might be able to take an approach that reaches a rather solid definition of each, or I could simply leave them out in the open when writing my conclusion. In this case, would declaring that the definition can evolve be beneficial for my purposes? I am currently working on it and must come up with 2500 words. It's basically one of the things I have been busy with lately. Damn IB. ------------------ Nederland 2002 Qualifying Campaign (Damn those penalties!!!) Houston Rockets Space Center- Not just another ClutchCity.NET clone. We're that and more!
heypartner- i've read quite a bit about stalin, since my in-laws are ukrainian. stalin was eerily similar to hitler. they both arose in proximate time and space, and both saw themselves as the new seed of their people. both were completely maniacal messianical, and neither ever slowed their rampages due to any comfort they attained. it's absurd to posit them as ideological adversaries- they were tyrants locked in a great struggle. there really wasn't a dime's bit of difference between their ideologies- stalin was every bit the fascist hitler was. for an amazing visage into stalin, from a russian perspective, i highly recommend "children of the arbat." [This message has been edited by hetero doxy (edited August 20, 2000).]
I couldn't agree more Hetero. Stalin was a ruthless dictator. And used passionate words to gain support from the masses while he killed/exiled/imprisoned all his enemies.
