It doesn't make it a Flames-worthy thread either. As I said, put it in either "Casual Intercourse" or, if necessary, "cryptic's thread emporium."Also, to boot, that thread wasn't even a discussion because no one disagreed that Adam Smith's political economics were a basis of Marx's work because it's a goddamned fact. Just because you can post more words about the fact that everyone else (I mean really, who gives a shit?) doesn't make it an AI thread worth keeping.
After the Khrushchevites took over, yes. Before that no, both Lenin and Stalin regarded ideology as very important. Both stressed the need to fight bureaucracy, to combat revisionism, and to purge rightists.Just like the old communist part, mr die, it really is all about who you know, not what you know.
As anti-communist historian Ian Grey notes:
"Stalin could not maintain direct control over the purge. He was aware that the NKVD had arrested many people who were not guilty and that of the 7 to 14 million people serving sentences of forced labor in the GULAG camps many were innocent of any taint of disloyalty. They were inevitable sacrifices, inseparable from any campaign on this scale. But he resented this waste of human material. The aircraft designer Yakovlev recorded a conversation with him in 1940, in which Stalin exclaimed: 'Ezhov was a rat; in 1938 he killed many innocent people. We shot him for that!'"
(A.S. Yakovlev, Tsel Zhizni (Moscow, 1966), p. 179. Quoted in Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979., p. 289)
"It will take decades to overcome the evils of bureaucracy. It is a very difficult struggle, and anyone who says we can rid ourselves of bureaucratic practices overnight by adopting anti-bureaucratic platforms is nothing but a quack with a bent for fine words."
(See Lenin: Collected Works Volume 32; pp. 56-57)
"A second shortcoming. It consists in introducing administrative methods in the Party, in replacing the method of persuasion, which is of decisive importance for the Party, by the method of administration. This shortcoming is a danger no less serious than the first one. Why? Because it creates the danger of our Party organisations, which are independently acting organisations, being converted into mere bureaucratic institutions. If we take into account that we have not less than 60,000 of the most active officials distributed among all sorts of economic, co-operative and state institutions, where they are fighting bureaucracy, it must be admitted that some of them, while fighting bureaucracy in those institutions, sometimes become infected with bureaucracy themselves and carry that infection into the Party organisation. And this is not our fault, comrades, but our misfortune, for that process will continue to a greater or lesser degree as long as the state exists.
And precisely because that process has some roots in life, we must arm ourselves for the struggle against this shortcoming, we must raise the activity of the mass of the Party membership, draw them into the decision of questions concerning our Party leadership, systematically implant inner-Party democracy and prevent the method of persuasion in our Party practice being replaced by the method of administration."
(Stalin, J.V. The Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.): December 2-19, 1927. Works, Vol. 10. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1954.)
Etc. Needless to say, these same bureaucrats opposed Stalin's democratic reforms to allow for multi-candidate elections.
Marxists are trolls, apparently?Your views are stupid and aged enough for you to be a troll,
Originally Posted by Husein
Bookmarks