Stalin - classic or dud

-- Cathy (cathyleec...), January 30th, 2006.

... el hobsbo meantime very much IS a stalinist; he remained in the party after 1956. qed.

no wai; the whole thing is that there wasn't much to stalin -- no hitler, he. the russian revolution -- never a runaway success -- went bureaucratic and stalin was the helmsman. it's not down to his personality though.

I have often heard this comment attributed to Stalin, but always detached from any context or publication... does anyone have a reliable source for it?

http://images.art.com/images/products/regular/10126000/10126167.jpg

Indeed. He even signed for a billionaire Russian capitalist.

He remained in the party, to much criticism, because he continued to believe in its ideals. That doesn't make him a Stalinist. Is every member of the Labour Party a Blairite?

There's a nice interesting Guardian article about Hobsbawm here, which explains his position quite well:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/artsandhumanities/story/0,12241,791760,00.html

well, yes they are, in the sense i'm using (see other post about the meaning of 'stalinist'). if you remained in the party you tacitly supported the party's attempts to stifle debate (eg in the 'reasoner' which ep thompson co-edited) -- which makes you a stalinist. or a supporter of the SU, whatever.

I suspect that for all his intellectual window-dressing the real reasons why he stayed in the party are sociological and psychological - the difficulty of leaving something in which you have invested a lot of emotional capital.

The whole Militant debacle springs to mind. Which said, Derek Hatton deserves to be thrown out of anything and everything (including - but not limited to - shops, public parks, windows).

O RLY?

http://www.beheard.com/beheard/images/items/1842120069.jpg
http://www.humanities.uci.edu/users/vfolkenflik/VRF%20Sources/george-orwell.jpg

Why are we so hung up on Hobsbawm? This thread is meant to be about Stalin, FATHER OF THE WORKERS!

http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/index.html

Ignatieff: “In 1934, millions of people are dying in the Soviet experiment. If you had known that, would it have made a difference to you at that time? To your commitment? To being a Communist?”

Hobsbawm: “This is the sort of academic question to which an answer is simply not possible. . . . If I were to give you a retrospective answer which is not the answer of a historian, I would have said, ‘probably not.’”

Ignatieff: “Why?”

Hobsbawm: “Because in a period in which, as you might imagine, mass murder and mass suffering are absolutely universal, the chance of a new world being born in great suffering would still have been worth backing. Now the point is, looking back as an historian, I would say that the sacrifices made by the Russian people were probably only marginally worthwhile. The sacrifices were enormous; they were excessive by almost any standard and excessively great. But I’m looking back at it now, and I’m saying that because it turns out that the Soviet Union was not the beginning of the world revolution. Had it been, I’m not sure.”

Ignatieff: “What that comes down to is saying that had the radiant tomorrow actually been created, the loss of fifteen, twenty million people might have been justified?”

Hobsbawm: “Yes.”

Okay, yes, enough Hobswbawm.

Fuck that pock-faced, moustachioed little dictator. The shit he pulled in Poland is unforgiveable.

-- Cathy (cathyleec...), January 31st, 2006.

no, not enough. this is hard to unpack, but first off about half of those dead died in the USSR itself, which under stalin purged its own officer corps AND THEN SIGNED A PACT WITH HITLER, so the two things -- stalinism and the numbers of dead -- are not unconnected.

also there is a diff between the enforced famine in the ukraine and the liberation of france, or is that just too insane for you?

As it is, I'm just left saying: Bethune, you're an idiot. Others have already said it, but seriously.

Have you read ANYTHING about the history of computing in the USSR? Or are you just too smart to believe anything you read? What's your yardstick for determining the integrity of a source of information?

Also NB cheney-rove thus far have not lined up men, women and children, tied them together two by two, and then shot every other one in the face so that the falling corpses cause the spared to be forced into a trench, which is then filled in while half its occupants are still breathing. Not to defend lying or warfare but hey at least they ain't breaking new barriers in inhumanity to man in an attempt to save ammunition.

It is hard to unpack, yes. And a little hard for me to relate to personally, because I don't believe in the ideals of communism so bringing about a communist utopia wouldn't be worth even one pointless death to me. However, in the context of WW2, if you see the aim of the alliance purely as defeating Nazism, that is a cause most people would consider worth fighting for, at any cost. But is people's evident repulsion at Hobswbawm's comments because you don't believe any cause is worth such a high death toll, or just that the success of communism wasn't?

It is perhaps not a very helpful way of thinking about things. If asked, was the defeat of Nazism worth the bombing of Hiroshima, Dresden, Nagasaki, Berlin etc, I'm not really sure what I'd say. I'd probably say "ask me a different question".

Among other charming crimes committed by Stalin: The wholesale expulsion of the Ossetians. The imperialist invasion of Finland.