Talk:Stalinism/Archive 2

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 r&eacute;gime 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)

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