Talk:Hilding Hagberg

...
According to the Swedish article (which I did not write) Hilding was a very much a Stalinist and I think that is a word we can use here too. Bronks.
 * In regards to Hagberg, he was called a 'stalinist' since he belonged to the pro-Soviet minority. Stalinist in that sense is strictly a pejorative, to identify someone who was authoritarian and close-minded. He was not a Stalinist in the sense that he upheld Stalin's political legacy (like KP(mlr) etc.). --Soman 14:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

-He was a stalinist becouse he supported Stalin! It is as simple as that! Bronks.
 * No, history isn't that simple. Pre-1953 SKP upheld relations with CPSU under the leadership of Stalin. If any member of pre-1953 is a Stalinist, then that would also apply for C.H. Hermansson. The question at stake, which provides a more correct judgement is how people reacted towards the 1956 CPSU party congress. Those who, in opposition to the mainstream communist movement, defended Stalin against Khrusthev's accusations and actively upheld Stalin's political legacy might be considered as Stalinists. Is this the case with Hagberg? Did he not abide by official CPSU line? --Soman 14:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hagberg was not a Trotskyist (left opposition) and he was not part the right opposition. He remaind in SKP in support of the Stalinist leadership in the USSR, when all none-stalinists were expelled or left the party. He was present at Stalinis funeral in 1953. I say he was a Stalinist during those days!

And yes I would label Hermansson as a Stalinist too, when he was one! Bronks.
 * Well, we differ on this issue. I think your outlook is to Trot-centric, trying to conceptualize Stalinism mainly in relation to Trotskyism. I, on my part, see the term 'Stalinism' as more problematic, as it is actually more of a general pejorative and dubious to the changing situation of before and after 1956. The wordings used in the Swedish wiki article stated that Hagberg remained devoted Stalinist and that this contributed to the 1962 election result. In that case, 'Stalinist' is simply used to substitute 'pro-Soviet', a wording I find objectable. --Soman 15:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you want to get personal (calling me a trot), I say you for some reason want to defend Hagberg by not refering to him as a Stalinist, which he obviously was! Bronks.
 * I was neither intending to get personal nor did I call you a 'trot'. I said your argumention is at many times trot-centric, that it gives unproportional attention to the Stalin-Trotsky divide. My question to you remains, did Hagberg abide by the CPSU line after 1956 or not? --Soman 15:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)