It's Saturday morning, the end of another long and successful day, but I wanted to take the time to respond to some posts.
What is the best way of educating the masses of what real communism is? For example. soviet Russia was not actually communist based on what you all have been saying, yet many Americans seem to think that it actually is.
Communism is best understood as the final stage of human civilized development, and communists as those dedicated to bringing that about. We have not seen Communism on a a national scale, ever, as communism demands a classless society and no hitherto existing society has achieved an elimination of class contradiction so take that as it is.
The best way of educating the masses of what real communism IS, is best put in the First Condition of Admission to the Communist International:
1. Day-by-day propaganda and agitation must be genuinely communist in character. All press organs belonging to the parties must be edited by reliable Communists who have given proof of their devotion to the cause of the proletarian revolution. The dictatorship of the proletariat should not be discussed merely as a stock phrase to be learned by rote; it should be popularised in such a way that the practical facts systematically dealt with in our press day by day will drive home to every rank-and-file working man and working woman, every soldier and peasant, that it is indispensable to them. Third International supporters should use all media to which they have access—the press, public meetings, trade unions, and co-operative societies—to expose systematically and relentlessly, not only the bourgeoisie but also its accomplices—the reformists of every shade.
I belong to several organizations that put out their own newspapers that talk about the things these organizations DO (picket lines, speaking at hearings, fighting utility rate increases, distributing food and clothing, organizing medical care and legal advice.
FYI: The USSR was a socialist nation, Belarus, China and Cuba and Vietnam ARE socialist nations. There are others, but the main characteristic that these nations all have in common is a government of, by and for the working class, which favors heavily the working class over its historic antagonists, the "owning" class. Also, in the case of China and Cuba there is a "ruling" Communist Party, with narrow, closed party membership guidelines -- uch that you must be 30 years of age to be a member of the Communist Party of Cuba.
What plans do reds have to help the masses differentiate between fact and fiction on these issues?
See my comment above -- the reds I hang with are busy busy busy building solid, lasting organizations that deal blows to the class antagonist without doing anything illegal or stupid.
Thanks for the link, very interesting data. However, my position stands, and it differs from other reds on this thread, but is common among reds of my stripe -- that he had very good theoretical treatises that I put into practice, and that, unfortunately, he also did things that cost lives. As I said before, if you like Jane Goodall, you have to like the chimps.
Another question for ReindeerThistle: You say that the purges saved the USSR but that you are not in favor of capital punishment. If there were a revolution in the USA and a true communist leadership came into power, would you be in favor of imprisoning those who pose a threat to the revolution?
Yes, but only those who committed crimes. That is an important factor. The worst thing a party in power can do is violate its own laws -- we would be no better than the bourgeoisie we unseat from power. Free speech and press will likely be allowed in a Socialist America, as will freedom of religion, the right to assemble and private gun ownership. All that would be decided by the government, which would consist of more than communist, BTW -- as what happened in China (and what still happens, the GCPCC or whatever it's called now is mostly non-communists) and Cuba does it as well.
Also what type of people pose a threat to the revolution? Would you say that a person who dissented against the communist leadership is OK so long as they do not seek any kind of political power within the Party? You also say "reformers" are among those who posed a threat. What exactly do you mean by "reformer"? Do you mean, for instance, a person who is simply trying to preserve capitalism by making "reforms" to it, rather than being a true "revolutionary"?
Lenin said the greatest enemy of the revolution was
Oblomov, that do-nothing, paralyzing effect that complacency bestows upon those who think they are safe -- whoever they think they are, inside or outside the party.
Reformers may pose a threat if they possess political power within a communist party, but they are not necessarily unwelcome in society. See the
21 Conditions, the rules apply to members of the party, not to the general public.
I've heard it mentioned that it was more of an attempt to liquidate the kulaks as a class, is that particularly more credible?
Yes, more credible. In fact that is mentioned in the article Gary Childress cited above.
Do you have any idea how many children in the world die of starvation (30,000 a day in the year 2000) in a world that produces more food than it needs? How many Americans lost their homes -- and then how the world economic situation was turned upside-down when these American banks lost their solvency and had to be bailed out? Look at Cyprus, Greece, Spain, etc. Capitalism ain't doing so well, and we have not seen such grim days in a while. Who is doing the accounting for that carnage? Homeowners in Cleveland, e.g. were sold sub-prime mortgages to refinance their homes in order to make repairs (people who qualified for market rate loans, BTW) and then lost those homes during the mortgage crisis. Utility rate payers in NJ were awarded a $200 million rate rebate which was followed immediately by a $500 million rate
increase -- how many people were shut off in the fall and froze to death in the winter?
41% of the victims of Sandy were people who made less than $15,000 a year. 67% make less than $30,000 a year -- which is effectively the poverty level for a family of four in NJ. But what are they rebuilding? The Jersey Shore tourist attractions!
So, yeah, Stalin liquidated the kulaks, but by the time Stalin was liquidating the kulaks, they were posing a threat to the food production in the USSR, as they were controlling a large portion of it at the expense of the nation -- and by then the collective farms could outproduce the kulaks, so Stalin said it was time to go. Incidentally, liquidation of the kulaks was a Trostky programme, but he wanted to do it at a time that the collective farms could not feed the country. As I stated before, I know WHAT happened, but since I was not there, I did not come off of a civil war, years of violent oppression and invasion by 13 foreign armies as the USSR had gone through, and I don't know how I would have handled it.
My opinion of Stalin is multifold...
I think Stalin is best understood as a unique historical persona, whose persona ought to stay historical. I do not think anyone should seek to emulate Stalin any more than I think anyone should seek to emulate Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan, even though one might marvel at their incredible achievements and their lives.
Well said.
I wanted to add (I know, I've had my say about Stalin...) that circumstances of history, not bourgeoisie appeal, dictate the course of action of a communist. A revolutionary does not reject a tactic
on principle -- we reject tactics because they will not work. So, I don't think "Stalinist" tactics are quite the way to go, n'est pas? We have evolved.
In short, I am fighting for a world where people will look back at today with the same kind of awe that modern Catholics look back at the Inquisition -- "How could that have happened?"
EDIT: I also want to say I appreciate the early responses on the question of labor history writing. I checked the copyrights on the book series ReindeerThistle mentioned and it considerably predates the single-volume edition I read (Dray published in 2010). What I'm trying to figure out was whether the more mainstream popular histories of labor significantly diverge from the redder takes on the subject, or if this is a field where there is some consensus.
Good question, and I am sorry for not coming to this sooner. It is interesting to note, that of the two books I mentioned,
Labor;s Untold Story is the least "red," and the UE, who commissioned the book, is far from being a red union. However, the title of the book suggests the take -- that this was the first time LABOR was telling its own. I did not have the pleasure of meeting him, but friends of mine used to attend classes form the former head of the Illinois Labor History society and his non-communist version of this history was spot-on with the communist version. So, I think there may be some consensus on this, after all. The US labor movement, once a militant harbor for revolutionaries of all stripes, has been pared down by bourgeoisie labor laws -- which were mostly written by lawyers working for the manufacturers -- that forbid revolutionaries from working in unions.
Clearly, we need another ways (or ways).
Thanks for the queries, all.
) perspective on Stalin. 
