"Nothing dramatic or revolutionary".

[C. Flower]

There is no such political ideology as "Stalinism", as I have pointed out many times so it does not really apply.

But sure, if you find someone calling themselves a Stalinist feel free to use Stalinite if you wish .... I would not argue with it.

Stalin and his followers had no political ideology ? Everyone has one. And of course many named political tendencies and groups lack a distinct ideology of their own, but are defined by leadership, time and place. Most of them have an ideology which is a variant on the dominant bourgeois ideology of the day, whether or not they dress it up in left or marxist terminology.

But I won't be descending to abuse, for the reason given. When I see it, it always makes me suspect that the user isn't able to stand over their position in a more coherent way.

[Sam Lord]

Stalin and his followers had no political ideology ? Everyone has one.

Of course they did. It was known as Marxism-Leninism. Stalin added nothing to it that would deserve it being renamed in his honour, and not even the most ardent admirer of his would claim that (well I have never come across such a thing anyway).

But I won't be descending to abuse, for the reason given. When I see it, it always makes me suspect that the user isn't able to stand over their position in a more coherent way.

I'm not sure why you consider Trotskyite a term of abuse. It simply contains a criticism of Trotskyism from the point of view of those who do not agree with it. Seems fairly legitimate to me.

[Holly]

Of course they did. It was known as Marxism-Leninism. ...

Well, if mass deportations of ethnic groups to Siberia, a police state, gulags and murder by the millions is to be equated with Marxism-Leninism, I for one am glad it is a defunct ideology from the last century.

[Sam Lord]

Well, if mass deportations of ethnic groups to Siberia, a police state, gulags and murder by the millions is to be equated with Marxism-Leninism, I for one am glad it is a defunct ideology from the last century.

Dream on ....

[C. Flower]

[quote]

Of course they did. It was known as Marxism-Leninism. Stalin added nothing to it that would deserve it being renamed in his honour, and not even the most ardent admirer of his would claim that (well I have never come across such a thing anyway).

Many would say that he took away from it. To lead a workers state for decades and to add or substract nothing from an ideology is not possible. Nothing stands still. And of course, many non-Stalinist parties also claim to be Marxist-Leninist.

I'm not sure why you consider Trotskyite a term of abuse. It simply contains a criticism of Trotskyism from the point of view of those who do not agree with it. Seems fairly legitimate to me.

....Semantics

-ite = A suffix denoting one of a party, a sympathizer with or adherent of, and the like, and frequently used in ridicule; as, a Millerite; a Benthamite.

[Sam Lord]

Many would say that he took away from it.

People say all sorts of things.

To lead a workers state for decades and to add or substract nothing from an ideology is not possible. Nothing stands still.

**Shrug**

I know he did some work on the question of nationalities and also linguistics that are often referred to ... but there is nothing that I know of (in termes on new thesies) that would merit renaming Marxism-Leninist after him or even adding his name to it like the Maoists did with Marxist-Leninism-Mao Tse-Tung Thought. I have never heard this claim made.

And of course, many non-Stalinist parties also claim to be Marxist-Leninist.

What exactly do you mean when you refer to a Stalinist party as "Stalinism" is not an ideological trend. The term is, of course, used by the bourgeoise to denote tyrrany and terror but I am sure this is not what you mean.

With regard to "ite" I note that your definition says "frequently used in ridicule". This, of course, does not make it synonymous with ridicule. And, in any case, I'm not sure that ridicule and abuse are the same thing.

[C. Flower]

People say all sorts of things.



**Shrug**

I know he did some work on the question of nationalities and also linguistics that are often referred to ... but there is nothing that I know of (in termes on new thesies) that would merit renaming Marxism-Leninist after him or even adding his name to it like the Maoists did with Marxist-Leninism-Mao Tse-Tung Thought. I have never heard this claim made.

What exactly do you mean when you refer to a Stalinist party as "Stalinism" is not an ideological trend. The term is, of course, used by the bourgeoise to denote tyrrany and terror but I am sure this is not what you mean.

The theory of Socialism in One Country would be most associated with Stalinism. That, and an uncritical "personality cult" admiration for Stalin as a leader. Right wing critics just use it as a Red Scare term. There are more than 900,000 search results for Stalinism, and there is no standard accepted definition as far as I know. The term has been used by admirers as well as right and left critics.

[Griska]

The theory of Socialism in One Country would be most associated with Stalinism. That, and an uncritical "personality cult" admiration for Stalin as a leader. Right wing critics just use it as a Red Scare term. There are more than 900,000 search results for Stalinism, and there is no standard accepted definition as far as I know. The term has been used by admirers as well as right and left critics.

Yes, the international revolution wasn't for Uncle Joe.

There seems to be an inordinate effort, not just on this issue, to categorise views or positions.
I suspect this practice centres around people's fear of the unfamiliar.

[RedSunRising]

The theory of Socialism in One Country would be most associated with Stalinism. That, and an uncritical "personality cult" admiration for Stalin as a leader. Right wing critics just use it as a Red Scare term. There are more than 900,000 search results for Stalinism, and there is no standard accepted definition as far as I know. The term has been used by admirers as well as right and left critics.

There is much more a personality cult around Trotsky (which he encouraged, and his overly authoritarian style through out his career is plain for all those who care about the truth, something most followers of Trotsky do not) than there ever was around Stalin. Plus Stalin wasnt a fan of his "personality cult" which arose out of material conditions (a country just coming out of feudalism). Opposition to Stalin at the end of the day is very connected to attitudes towards violence. Read Lenin on guerrilla warfare and than read the likes of the CWI/Socialist Party on it. Just a thought.

No Admirers of Joseph Stalin, whether Maoist, supporters of the line of the Albanian Labour Party or "tankies" refer to themselves as Stalinist.

[Sam Lord]

The theory of Socialism in One Country would be most associated with Stalinism.

I don't think anyone really viewed that "theory" as any great new elaboration of Marxism-Leninism. It was a thesis, sure, but it was also a necessity given the failure of proletarian revolution anywhere else in Europe. To me it looked more like a practical question rather than one of theory.

That, and an uncritical "personality cult" admiration for Stalin as a leader. Right wing critics just use it as a Red Scare term. There are more than 900,000 search results for Stalinism, and there is no standard accepted definition as far as I know. The term has been used by admirers as well as right and left critics.

Stalin was well know to have not agreed with the outlandish boosting of his "personality". He was actually a very humble man. So possibly this trait could be accorded the names of those who actually indulged in it.

Why would you frequently use a term, as in "stalinist parties" for example, for which you say there is no accepted definition?

[C. Flower]

Yes, the international revolution wasn't for Uncle Joe.

There seems to be an inordinate effort, not just on this issue, to categorise views or positions.
I suspect this practice centres around people's fear of the unfamiliar.

What do you have in mind?

This was an answer to a question btw...

[C. Flower]

There is much more a personality cult around Trotsky (which he encouraged, and his overly authoritarian style through out his career is plain for all those who care about the truth, something most followers of Trotsky do not) than there ever was around Stalin. Plus Stalin wasnt a fan of his "personality cult" which arose out of material conditions (a country just coming out of feudalism). Opposition to Stalin at the end of the day is very connected to attitudes towards violence. Read Lenin on guerrilla warfare and than read the likes of the CWI/Socialist Party on it. Just a thought.

No Admirers of Joseph Stalin, whether Maoist, supporters of the line of the Albanian Labour Party or "tankies" refer to themselves as Stalinist.

I agree that Trotsky set out to foster an image. But the idea that Stalin was immune from this and was powerless to prevent in his own case I dont find at all credible. It was a pattern across CPs generally and I would say also in Trotkyist Parties. I don't view these leaders as victims of this trend. They benefitted from it

[Summerday Sands]

The theory of Socialism in One Country would be most associated with Stalinism. That, and an uncritical "personality cult" admiration for Stalin as a leader. Right wing critics just use it as a Red Scare term. There are more than 900,000 search results for Stalinism, and there is no standard accepted definition as far as I know. The term has been used by admirers as well as right and left critics.

Certainly one of the most dislikable aspects of the Communist regimes in the 20th century was the whole "personality cult" thing. However Trotskyists were not averse to fostering a cult of the leader around Trotsky. I've heard about British Trotskyists parading Trotskys death mask at party conferences, they also made quite a ballyhoo over Trotskys relatives.

[C. Flower]

I don't think anyone really viewed that "theory" as any great new elaboration of Marxism-Leninism. It was a thesis, sure, but it was also a necessity given the failure of proletarian revolution anywhere else in Europe. To me it looked more like a practical question rather than one of theory.



Stalin was well know to have not agreed with the outlandish boosting of his "personality". He was actually a very humble man. So possibly this trait could be accorded the names of those who actually indulged in it.

Why would you frequently use a term, as in "stalinist parties" for example, for which you say there is no accepted definition?

Well, in this case I've used the term as it was used by RedSunRising in his/her opening post.

[C. Flower]

I don't think anyone really viewed that "theory" as any great new elaboration of Marxism-Leninism. It was a thesis, sure, but it was also a necessity given the failure of proletarian revolution anywhere else in Europe. To me it looked more like a practical question rather than one of theory.



Stalin was well know to have not agreed with the outlandish boosting of his "personality". He was actually a very humble man. So possibly this trait could be accorded the names of those who actually indulged in it.

Why would you frequently use a term, as in "stalinist parties" for example, for which you say there is no accepted definition?

Certainly one of the most dislikable aspects of the Communist regimes in the 20th century was the whole "personality cult" thing. However Trotskyists were not averse to fostering a cult of the leader around Trotsky. I've heard about British Trotskyists parading Trotskys death mask at party conferences, they also made quite a ballyhoo over Trotskys relatives.

Our posts crossed. I agree with you about this.