A disturbing statement from Stalin and the tainting of the name "Communism".

[TMA_1]

I read this statement in a book called In God's Underground. It is about a jewish man who was good looking, rich and extremely well learned, and eventually became a christian and helped christians and jews in communist controlled Romania. The book is amazing because the man is amazing. His name is Richard Wurmbrand, and was the only person to survive the famous "death room" of Tirgul-Ocna. A prison for political and social prisoners. He is actually a sympathetic Communist who was very learned, and it is neat to read a fresh christian mind like this. Always quoating not only the word, but famous men and women of philosophy, befriending professors and political prisoners of the prison. Anyways Professor Popp, a friend of Wurmbrand quoated a well known story during the holiday of the "ten days that shook the world" when the Bulshavics took control of russia, here is how it goes, and mind you that this isnt a ficticious story, but is well documented. Here is the part of the book.

"It was the anniversary of the "ten days that shook the world" -- the russian revolution of November 1917 -- and Professor Popp commemorated it with an historical ancedote.

'On the first anniversary of the triumph of Bolshevism,' he said, 'the new rulers held a hunting party in the forest outside Moscow. Later, they rested by the fire and Lenin asked, "tell me comrades, what do you consider the greatest pleasure in life?"

"War, said Trotsky".

"Women, said Zinoviev."

"Oratory-- the power to hold a vast crowd under your spell," said Kamenev.

'Stalin, as always was taciturn, but Lenin insisted, "Tell us your choice!"'

"At last." Stalin said: "none of you knows what real pleasure is. I will tell you. It is to hate someone, and to pretend for years that you are his best friend, until one day he rests his head trustingly on your breast. And then to plunge a knife into his back. There is no higher pleasure in the world than this!"'

It is said that things like this scared Lenin, as he was not a sadist. He knew himself to be a Pragmatist, but did not wish to do undo harm. Lenin began to fear Stalin and his motives and ideas, and frankly Stalin should have been feared, as he was one of the key people who tainted the name of Communism.  I dont agree with everything Communism stands for, but I know that Stalin did NOT help the plight of Communism.

While trying to destroy religion, and kill off the jewish people, he failed to realize that though Marx hard qualms on the matter of religion, he actually stated that Christianity was the most noble of religions because it could take an evil man and change him for good. In fact one of his first published works was a sympathetic commentary on the Gospel of John! He also was himself jewish of national origin. But the communists tainted the ideals of what communism was all about, which is sad. It is also sad that people dont wish to look deeply into what Engels and Marx said, but only take small quotes that are well known, and then paint marx as they wish to based on a few quotes. This usually comes from ignorance of history, and a wish to be one sided. For example everybody always quotes "religion is the opiate for the masses." But they never wish to actually understand why this was said, and what the whole meaning was behind these kinds of statements.

[TMA_1]

hmm anybody have any responses to this thread? nobody has yet, I find it quite disturbing but interesting how Stalin thought, it just doesnt seem possible that somebody could be filled with such wreckless hate. it is really disturbing.

[Anathema]

It's an interesting story, but as I recall Stalin didn't play a significant role in overthrowing the czar so it seems odd he gets to sit at a campfire with the "big boys" only a year after it.

It's interesting but also dangerous to try to understand how such people think IMO.

[TMA_1]

actually you are right, if you peer into an evil mind, it can taint ya.

yeah I foudn that odd too, that Stalin was around at that time with the great bolshevic leaders. He was always around Lenin though, though he didnt yet hold much power.

[Edric O]

Btw, regarding Marx's famous quote on religion, I'd like to point out that he didn't just say "religion is the opium of the masses". The full quote is as follows:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

- Karl Marx

[Wolf]

Edric, I have a sort of personal question, so feel free not to answer. However, I understand that many of your economic views are similiar to those of Marx, how about your religious views? If you would rather not answer, I completely understand; religion is a personal thing.

[TMA_1]

wow never heard the whole thing edric. Where in the heck do they get his anti christian sentiments from anyways? i have never seen them, besides those who spin his statements. was he anti christian? from what I have read he isnt.

[Edric O]

They get the "anti-christian" part from Stalin and his cronies, of course. And they try to make Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin look "anti-christian" because it's a very good propaganda tool. Divide and conquer. If you make the Christians and the Communists hate each other, then they are divided and much easier to defeat.

Marx and Lenin were atheists, of course, but they always supported religious freedom.

Marx believed that early Christianity had been a great force for good, but that the Church of his day was utterly corrupt and had become a pawn in the hands of capitalists and aristocrats. I think he even wrote an essay on this, but I'm not sure...

As for Lenin, I should mention that the first Constitution of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic - the predecessor of the USSR) stated:

"For the purpose of securing to the workers real freedom of conscience, the church is to be separated from the state and the school from the church, and the right of religious and anti-religous propaganda is accorded to every citizen."

(Article 2, chapter 5, line 13; this constitution was adopted in 1918 and remained in effect until 1924)

[Edric O]

Edric, I have a sort of personal question, so feel free not to answer. However, I understand that many of your economic views are similiar to those of Marx, how about your religious views? If you would rather not answer, I completely understand; religion is a personal thing.

My first reaction upon reading your question was "Oh, he doesn't know?" :)

I'm a Christian. Plain and simple. And there's no need to be so cautious when asking people about their religious beliefs in here - this is the PRP board, after all!

It's true that I haven't participated in any religious debates recently, but that's because I see no point in trying to change people's minds about something as personal as religion. In politics, people can exchange ideas and modify their political views all the time. You can agree with one part of another person's argument without agreeing with the rest. You can build your own unique political ideology. In short, political discussions have results. Religious ones do not. You can't agree with only a part of a religion, and you certainly can't take religious ideas and combine them the same way you can combine political ideas.

And in case you're wondering about my exact political affiliations, I'm a marxist. Or a "marxist - 1/2 leninist" as I like to call myself, because I agree with some leninist ideas, but not all of them. You will find that I agree with Leon Trotsky about most things, however.

[Wolf]

Yes, you see, I was wondering, because the core tenets of Christianity, in my mind, at least, seem to facilitate communism. To love your neighbor as yourself, for example.

[SurlyPIG]

You can't agree with only a part of a religion, and you certainly can't take religious ideas and combine them the same way you can combine political ideas.

Why not?  Sure it's unconventional, but why would that matter?

[Dante]

hmm anybody have any responses to this thread? nobody has yet, I find it quite disturbing but interesting how Stalin thought, it just doesnt seem possible that somebody could be filled with such wreckless hate. it is really disturbing.

Hatred is different from a lust for revenge. It sounds to me as if Stalin was seeking revenge rather than hatred for hatred's sake. Besides which, it's a sensible way of going about dispatching someone you don't like.

[nemafakei]

"You can't agree with only a part of a religion, and you certainly can't take religious ideas and combine them the same way you can combine political ideas."

So long as you don't believe in the sanctity of the institutional dogma, you can mix and match all you like.

[Caid Ivik]

TMA, you cannot compare Stalin by how is he shown in a book or a movie. He was a former gangster, as most of Party leaders, but such view that whole responsibility lies on his back, that is plain confusing justification. Fact that Chruscov attacked only him does not mean that in Lenins era was no such terror. Not talking about communists in other countries. Most of them had own view on the thing, while Stalin only helped them to take power. Czechoslovak president Gottwald was a highly educated man, a communist since fall of monarchy. His rule? Not as bloody as in Russia, but still painful.

Problem was not in Stalin, it was in Marx, or even before him, in Hegel. He first created this senseless system of self-improving intelligent world, where single human is just a pawn of Worldsoul evolution.

[Edric O]

TMA, you cannot compare Stalin by how is he shown in a book or a movie.

And just what other sources do you have, except texts written by historians and eye witnesses? Is TMA supposed to go back in time and meet Stalin personally? ::)

He was a former gangster, as most of Party leaders

Well excuse me, but that's just plain slander. How the hell were they "gangsters"? Do you have any proof of your claims? Do you even know what "gangster" means?

Of course many communists were arrested by the Tsar's political police for dissent against the government, but that makes them freedom fighters, not gangsters (unless you're telling me than anyone fighting against a repressive government is a "gangster").

...but such view that whole responsibility lies on his back, that is plain confusing justification. Fact that Chruscov attacked only him does not mean that in Lenins era was no such terror.

Lenin's era? You mean during the civil war? I need to remind you that the communists won that civil war against overwhelming odds (the White Armies had superior numbers, superior firepower and foreign support; 21 foreign armies invaded Russia to help the White Armies crush the communists, and still the communists won). The only thing the communists had going for them was the support of the people. There was practically no way the communists could have won against such a powerful enemy without massive support from the Russian people. That says a lot about Lenin's policies...

Not talking about communists in other countries. Most of them had own view on the thing, while Stalin only helped them to take power.

Over here in Romania, all our real communist leaders were purged by the stalinists just a few years after they rose to power, and then Stalin replaced them with his own Moscow-trained cronies.

The most famous case is the assasination of Lucretiu Patrascanu by stalinist agents.

Problem was not in Stalin, it was in Marx, or even before him, in Hegel. He first created this senseless system of self-improving intelligent world, where single human is just a pawn of Worldsoul evolution.

If you believe there is any connection between Marx and Stalin, then show it to me. Don't just use vague slippery slope arguments.

Of course there would have been no Stalin without Lenin, and there would have been no Lenin without Marx, and no Marx without Hegel, and no Hegel without Hegel's parents... and so on, down the slippery slope, until we conclude that it was all Adam's fault. ::)

[TMA_1]

heh, glad I wasent adam, frankly anybody who do what adam did in his position, which is why it is unfair to blame adam for anything, we are all humans with the same errors.

[Caid Ivik]

EdricO, difference between fact and fiction should be known. Between truth and speculation.

Stalin and many other communists were robbers and terrorists. Even Bakunin, when he was young, agreed that anarchistic way, which was most popular between young communists in Russia, was destructive. Emperor put them to jail or Sibir for crimes, not political unfitting. Of course, we can't say it about everyone, ie Trockij was an educated and intelligent man. For you it is a "freedom fight" when you rob bank to fund your secret political party...but I see only that robbery. Read #204 of Nietzsche's Frohliche Wissenschaft.

Lenin died in 1924, he had three years to make an order. Minor ukrainian and polish revolts can't be counted. Czechoslovakia had to depend on italian army to stop Bela Kun's forces, much more powerful in comparament than what stayed against russian Red Army, and could do it even without internal terror, like CEKA did. And I wouldn't blame for it Trockij, who led the agency. It's like saying Tiso didn't know what were Germans going to do with those Jews he sent to them.

Connection between Marx and Stalin? You should pass me one document Stalin has written and then I can make you some ubersicht. However I'm not sure he banished the marxist-leninist academies...

[danielsh]

Lenin's philosophy, and that of the Bolsheviki in general, really harnessed only two main aspects of Marx's philosophy: that the socialist revolution was inevitable, and that the proletariat were the most important aspect of society. Aside from that, Lenin and other Soviets only called themselves Communists. They did not practice the philosophy as they should have.

Furthermore, Russia was not the appropriate place for a Socialist revolution. A significant portion of the population was not of the factory-working proletariat class. Indeed, the nation had not been industrialized to the point at which the government could direct labor to produce what was needed for the people. The revolution in Russia was started by the wrong people, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

(A side note: I've been doing a lot of reading in this area of late. If I'm wrong about something, I'm sure that Edric will correct me.)

[TMA_1]

yeah dan I get the same thing, edric was talking to me about it, and also with study I realized that lenin had the timing completely off to make a revolution. The problem was russia didnt go through the initial stages that are needed before russia could become what marx wanted all nations to become. So I think that it was just ill prepared, not as smooth, and generally not as good as it could havebeen if taken how marx said for it to be.

[Caid Ivik]

"EdricO told you". Marxist-leninist philosophy is a thing written and applied for terrabytes of books you have available in libraries everywhere east of Labe. Applied for biology, sociology, historiography, art, economics, culture, communications, military, agriculture and quantum of other areas. Politics including. Everything was considered from view of "socioeconomical structure analysis", "utilitarian materialism" and "maximum reachability for the working class".

Saying that Lenin wasn't follower of Marx is like saying Jesus was no Jew.

[danielsh]

Saying that Lenin wasn't follower of Marx is like saying Jesus was no Jew.

Whaa? I simply related information that I have gleaned from reading a few of those "terrabytes of books." Marx and Engels set forth a philosophy of Communism in The Communist Manifesto. Though I would assume that a revolutionary group need not follow it to the letter, some adherence to the philosophy would generally be required to call that group communistic. Lenin ignored many of the key aspects of Marxism and pushed for revolution when the time was not right, when Russia was not fully industrialized.

Your analogy is absolutely absurd. Lenin did not follow the Marxist philosophy, and therefore was not a Marxist. Period. Russia was a fascist state (the fact that it had a state to speak of is evidence enough that Communism was not the dominant philosophy), not a Communist state. I can't even argue against your analogy with any degree of conviction or sureness, because I can't figure out what the heck you were trying to prove.

[Caid Ivik]

You're joking. Full industrialization, not saying it is a nonsense as agriculture is needed even nowadays (even it is considered as priority!), wasn't attained even in Germany or Britain of Marx' times. While Russia of 1918 was maybe on same level of technological application as Germany of 1860. You should tell me what book are you referring to. No, Chomsky is no Russian. You don't have to read anything, come to Slovakia, live here for a month and you will understand.

[Wolf]

Yes, I think, with the advent of the industrialized society, communism will have to be severely modified for it to work in the modern world. I can understand how communism can work on small scales with agrarian communities, but I have difficulty understanding how it would work in organized industry.

[danielsh]

Agriculture is needed, but a Communist revolution requires a society to be 'fully' industrialized (not to the extent that there is no agriculture, but to the extent at which the proletarians are a majority). To my understanding, this is a fundamental element of Marxism. For a time, Slovakia was under the control of the Soviet Union which, as has been conclusively demonstrated, was not a Communist state.

Matt, I don't think that I'm able to respond to that. There are more knowledgeable people here to answer you :-).

[alchemi2]

All you actually need is for the vast majority to be well educated, with the natural ability to see beyond local issues and the need to encompass all aspects of life on a global scale.

Remove the peasant mentality this tends to happen in industrial nations, hence the need to be industrialised.

It should be a natural progression towards socialism and eventually communisum rather than a violent one. Russia jumped the queue so to speak hence the failure.

Imperialism-Capitalism-Socialism-Communism

Russia went from the 1st and tried for the last but ended up with a buracratic dictatorship which used the communist credo as a cover to the people.

Of course that's just my opinion/interpretation.