This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stalinism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Stalinism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Stalinism at the Reference desk. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 24 February 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DominicScotti.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The first section reads as follows: "Stalinism, when used in its broadest sense, refers to socialist states comparable to the Stalin-era Soviet Union, i.e. that are characterized by an overly centralized state, totalitarian figure head, secret police, propaganda, and especially brutal tactics of political coercion."
This last sentence is obviously biased, referring to an overly centralized state. There are many who don't feel that it was overly. Whether the tactics should be described as "especially brutal" I'm not sure, but the description of the centralization seems obviously wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.105.208.2 ( talk) 20:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Most of the opening section is either biased, not related to Stalinism, or both. Information about Stalin himself should be on the main Stalin page.
"...Stalin likely had the mental disorder of psychopathy and that its traits such as paranoia and manipulative behaviour influenced his political decisions.'' < This "claim" shows a lack of understanding of both Stalin and Antisocial Personality Disorder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helzerman ( talk • contribs) 01:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
where it says that stalin wrote more clearly than marx. any liar can write clearly. the communist manifesto though is very readable, more so than stalin or any phoney russian red. also weasel words throughout. needs a rewrite if you ask me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.170.242 ( talk) 13:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you read the Communist Manifesto? It's possibly the worst piece of writing ever put to paper. -- Crimzon2283 ( talk) 21:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimzon2283 ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
This article was great before. It flat-out stated that Stalinism refers to any self-identified socialist government ruled by bureaucrats that uses state terrorism, massive amounts of propaganda, a personality cult around the leader, bureaucratic central planning, omnipresent secret police and a one-party state to enforce its rule. Now it is nothing but POV. This article would be utterly useless to anyone who wanted to know what Stalinism actually is. It is one giant compilation of weasel words, POV, and plain bad writing. To be brief and frank: This article is crap. You can help by starting over with a vengeance. No matter what you do to it, please do it fast. It can't possibly get any worse. Commissarusa ( talk) 02:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I have visited this page in the past and was surprised to find no mention of Stalinism's actual, practical manifestations (e.g., cult of personality, stranglehold on economic activity, etc.). To the individual that added in these facts, thank you. It serves to make visitors aware of the foolishness of Stalin's policies and the stupidity of communism in general. -- Impaciente 23:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
In big part it was already set by Lenin
Some hard data ?
The costs were horrendous, however. The system was dependent on a régime 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.
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)
The following piece is cut away.
In this paragraph, the term Stalinism is nothing but name calling, similar to the usage of the word "fascist" for all "bad guys". " cult of personality and extensive use of secret police" are not at all "stalinism in a nutshell"; AFAIK, these were in good use like 3,000 years ago in China. Mikkalai 17:47, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
While this phrase is around now, it certainly wasn't used in Stalin's Soviet Union, nor by many Stalinists - Stalin simply did not do theory, so made no theoretical contributions which could amount to an Stalinist theory.-- XmarkX 05:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The phrases "Stalinism" and "Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism" were used in the 1930s Soviet Union. Soviet archival sources document it. -- Robotron02 17:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Which archives? Στάλιν και παραλλαγή ( talk) 11:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Please better explain a legitamite meaning of the term, rather then the more obvious pejorative one. For example, the mention of "socialism in one country" and even the article on the subject doesn't explain the reasoning of stalin really at all.
-G
The Marxist-Leninist beliefs typify ' socialist communism'. They also used 'Socialist' in their national name!
The philosophical off shoot known as Trotskyism owes part of it's beliefs to Anarchism, so should Trotsky be considered a Anarchist as well as a communist?
Stalinism was the "theory and practice of communism" practiced by Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union from 1928–1953. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, "Stalinism is associated with a regime of terror and totalitarian rule." [1] Stalinisum was reliant on Gulag labour and Maoisum diverged of from Stalinisum, not Marxisum- Leninisum in the late 1940's. -- P. E. Sonastal ( talk) 02:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Right, but Gulag labor was an instrument of terror. Maoism also uses terror to maintain its rule, and Mao philosophically justified this as a " people's democratic dictatorship". I'm unsure as to what your point is. And could you please fix your spelling? I'm not trying to use this as a point of debate, but it's hard to figure out what you're saying. Commissarusa ( talk) 21:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
How is it that in an article about Stalinism, GULAG is not even mentioned in the policies section? One would think Stalin had nothing to do with the GULAG. -- 68.229.179.254 ( talk) 02:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Even if Stalinism were only ever used as a pejorative it does not mean that the term has no meaning (or that it is inapplicable to other situations combining collectivisation, communism, centralisation of power, repressive purges and a cult of personality). I don't think that there is any argument that Stalin used repression - he said so himself, not least at the Yalta conference. Spookpadda ( talk) 16:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I have never met anyone who has called themselves a Stalinist or a follower of Stalinism. And I have probably met more people that would do so than most people. It's hard to say there is an -ism with -ists running around when you can't find any. On the other hand, I have met many people who say they are anti-revisionists. There are millions of anti-revisionists all over the world. There are no, or virtually no people who call themselves Stalinists, and there is no such thing as Stalinism. This article covers the same topic as anti-revisionism, so it is better covered there. The concept of Stalinism is as ridiculous as talking about "Newtonism". Such discussion should take place on either the Isaac Newton or the physics page, not some bizarre Newtonism page. Ruy Lopez 08:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I concurr! this whole page should be emphasized as POV. "Stalinism" originates as a lable used by Trotskyites, and was later used by Revisionists to justify their changes of socialism and implement capitalism in the Soviet Union. -- Mista-X 16:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. The above comment seems to have been written by a Stalinist (why else would he write "Trotskyites" instead of "Trotskyists" ?), which counters the first comment. The fact is that most Stalinists today do not like to talk about Stalin, because it is a lousy way to recruit new members. It is simply a matter of PR. Because of that, it might seem to some that there are no Stalinists. However, that is not true. There still are Stalinists, and they still follow e.g. the 2 stadia theory or the theory of socialism in one country. -- Jon Sneyers; 23 Apr 2005
OK, I've never met many people who call themselves Stalinist, but that don't mean they don't exist, and what's more, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, they're on the rise.
Take a look at [ [1]] Examples Bill Bland (died 2001, proud to be called a Stalinist), Harpal Brar another proud Stalinist, CPGB-ML, Stalin Society. Ludo Martens author of "Another View of Stalin", and a proud Stalinist. On the net, - mltranslations.org Particularly for the new Stalinists in Russia
Followers of Trotsky may have hoped that Trotsky's views would have a resurgence in the former Soviet Union, but it's not the case, or at least my research indicates. The fact is that Trotsky was so thoroughly slandered in the Soviet Union that the Stalinist lies about him have entered into the "collective consciousness", if you like. No, it appears from my research (and maybe some wikipedians with inside knowledge, ie. Russians could comment), that most who still call themselves socialists in former USSR are coming to the view that maybe Stalinism was the only way to prevent the restoration of capitalism. CPMcE 00:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
^ Agree with above post regarding Trotsky (including the bit about the ice pick). More important, Trotsky does not belong in a page about Stalinism.
OK, I've never met many people who call themselves Stalinist... < Now you have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helzerman ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I restored the link to Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed" which was deleted by 80.217.161.77 without comment. I added a Stalin Reference Archive link to his writings, since this seems relevant too. DJ Silverfish 21:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
The "conclusions" section was blatantly POV and more like an essay than an encyclopedia article, it containted several instances of "I think..." and "Given A my opinion is X." Removed.
I have lived in a Stalinist country (Czechoslovakia) and would like to mention some reasons why the economic system associated with Nehru should not be called Stalinism.
This is the "Nehru-Stalin" model:
"The Nehru-Stalin model was characterized by a tight state control of major sectors of the economy, artificially created famines, shortage of essential goods including water and electricity, a high rate of unemployment, rampant corruption and punitive measures for those who indulged in economic activity outside the purview of the state. However, a small number of people, usually those connected to the rulers (also see crony-capitalism), were given licenses to operate industries and small businesses like gas stations. In India, this system came to be called the 'License-Permit-Quota Raj' or the 'License-Permit Raj' or just the 'License Raj.'
And when you change the paragraph to describe the situation in stalinist Czechoslovakia and Soviet union:
"The Stalin model was characterized by a tight state control of all sectors of the economy, artificially created famines, shortage of essential goods including water and electricity, no unemployment (to be unemployed was illegal) , rampant corruption and punitive measures for those who indulged in economic activity outside the purview of the state. No peeple, not even those connected to the rulers (also see crony-capitalism), were given licenses to operate industries and small businesses like gas stations. In the stalinist countries there were no private gas stations, no private farmers, no private shops or private hair-dressers"
I have just found out that the content of the Nehruvian-Stalinism section had found an abode in a separate article Nehruvian Stalinism. May it rest in peace there. I still think it should be called "Nehruvian Socialism", in view of the differences with Soviet and European Stalinism which are certainly not minor. Consequently, I make one more attempt to delete Nehruvian Stalinism from this article.
-- Georgius 12:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think one cannot characterize stalinism without giving information on the victims of stalinism. I plan to add this information (pure facts) to the article. I hope this will not provoke any anger in other authors. I would like to get advice on whether to incorporate this info in existing sections or to create a new section, and how it should be titled.
There is still one thing I do not understand: why the sentence A British historian Norman Davies likens stalinism to national socialism (Europe. A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198201710) because of alleged similarities between the two. has been removed? It's a fact, not a POV. Norman Davies is a serious, respected historian. His opinions carry some value. Or maybe they do not fit someone elses POV and thus were removed? The same question applies to my mentioning of the slave labour. I have no idea how can one discuss the economics of stalinism without mentioning its use of slave labour. It's like discussing nazism without referring to gas chambers. -- rwerp 7 July 2005 06:43 (UTC)
I removed this phrase 'cause it just ain't true. Stalin (slowly) came round to Lenin's view after the April Theses. He voted FOR the insurrection.
It's also true that Stalin played a small role in the revolution itself, but NOT true to say that he played "no" role.
In 1924, Stalin "remembered" the setting up of a "Party Centre" which consisted of him and 4 others, but this group never functioned, and was anyway subordinate to the Military Revolutionary Committee (led by Trotsky).
Stalin wrote an article called "What Do We Need", in Pravda, the day before the insurrection, in which Stalinists claim he called for the overthrow of the Prov Gov. This is stretching it a bit - if you read the article, he called for the workers to reject the Prov Gov, and instead "elect your delegations and, through them, lay your demands before the Congress of Soviets which opens tomorrow in the Smolny". Hardly a call to arms.
While rejecting the Stalinist account, it goes too far to swing in the opposite direction and say he "supported cooperation" with the Prov Gov, and played NO role in the revolution. CPMcE 00:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
This text is biased, it ignores the price of the "growth". Was it worth? Xx236 12:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I was reading through the article and came to the conclusion that it seems very bland. Instead of listing concrete examples, policies, ideological stances, and the consequences of the ideology, we get sentences such as "Stalinism is the order of an interpretation of their ideas, and a certain political system claiming to apply those ideas in ways fitting the changing needs of society". I have rarely seen such a wasteful use of space on Wikipedia. Is there some intent to appease the supporters of Stalinism by making the article so filled with meaningless sentences that nothing gets said? This entire article needs a rewrite, a new structure, and a lack of quasi-intellectual rambling. I've also noted that there is a distinct lack of mention of the victims of Stalinism. The word "victim" can't even be found in the entire article, neither can "murder", "oppression" or any other words that describe any negative consequences of Stalinism. All in all, the entire article reads like a jumbled mess written by people aching to hide the actual ideology behind empty words and contrived phrases. Someone with a bit of sense and education: Rewrite, please?
-Johan
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.112.184.62 ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
Be bold, Johan. Go ahead and re-write it. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that Stalinism as a theory is responsible for the many deaths under Stalin. I think it was (certainly for Holodomor) but it's hard to prove. Victims of Stalin have a category Category:Soviet_repressions but no article that I can find. It would be great if someone would write a main article. TheMightyQuill 20:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone seems to have performed a mass deletion of an entire section titled "Stalinism Today." Seems as though this would be a most relevant topic as the demise of Stalinist nations seems to point to a rejection of its methods by the world's population. Today, some 55 years after the death of Josef Stalin, only two nations remain where the methods of Stalinism are still in use. Am I the only one who believes this to be relevant?
Goatboy95 15:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
That article's completely and blatantly an opinion. Wow. 4.234.45.131 01:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This article does not describe Stalinism as the term is commonly used. Instead, it adopts a sectarian Communist point of view and describes the ideological nuances that differentiate Stalin from other Communist theorists. Because of this, the article is completely misleading. The article uses heavy sectarian slang and is highly difficult to understand for non-sectarians.
To give an example of an ordinary meaning of the Stalinism, I quote a recent edition of Encyclopedia Britannica:
Stalinism, the method of rule, or policies, of Joseph Stalin, Soviet Communist Party and state leader from 1929 until his death in 1953. Stalinism is associated with a regime of terror and totalitarian rule. /.../
Link to the Britannica article: [2] (requires subscription)
I am not disputing that the ideological stuff described in this Wikipedia article may be interesting to some people. However, the primary aim should be to describe the term as it is commonly used.
Lebatsnok 18:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
State | Duration | Paramount dictator | State terrorism fatalities | Succeeded by |
---|---|---|---|---|
Soviet Union | 1927–1953 | Joseph Stalin | 3,500,000–61,000,000 | Russia |
North Korea | 1945 (establishment)-current | Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il | 3,000,000+ | - |
People's Republic of Albania, PSR of Albania |
1946 (establishment)-1985 | Enver Hoxha | Probably low, Capital punishment law existed |
Albania |
People's Republic of China | 1949 (establishment)-1976 | Mao Zedong | 14,000,000–43,000,000 | - |
Democratic Kampuchea | 1975 (establishment)-1979 | Pol Pot | 2,000,000~ | PR of Kampuchea |
Excuse me but I find this table ridiculous at best....
"State: Soviet Union, duration: 1927-1953, State Terrorism fatalities: 3,500,000-61,000,00; Suceeded by: Russia"
I don't get the point of this ridiculous table... First of all if it is to be about "Stalinist States" it should comprise a brief description of a "Stalinist state" and include main charachteristics of it and comparisons between each of them, otherwise it becomes completely unneceaary. Secondly, it should take into account that USSR left Stalinism in 1956 and did not become "Russia" after this. Thirdly, it should take into account the differences that exist, for example, between Maoism and Stalinism.
Is the author of this table trying to show "Stalinist State" merely as any kind of state claiming to be communist and that is responsible of State terrorism? Otherwise, I'd like to know the reason for this table. 06:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
"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
China (People´s Republic of) weres a maoist dictaturstate, and not a state with the stalinisme ideology.
I'm not sure what this strange table adds. Looks like original research to me. The ranges of deaths are so wide as to be meainingless. 'State terrorism' is a confusing term that I'm not familiar with - use of terror by the state could be a defining feature of terrorism. Also Democratic Kampuchea is not normally considered Stalinist (see Short, Chandler, Kiernan etc on this). Maoist is more accurate. It's confusing to bundle Maoism together wtih Stalinism. Suggest this be removed and an alternative paragraph created to cover aspects of political repression etc? Adamjamesbromley 09:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Following on from the concerns raised by others, these sections are seriously flawed. Referring to Orlanda Figes' The People's Tragedy or Service's biog of Lenin, there's no mention of any of this. The citations at the bottom of the article link to some left wing sites that are not peer reviewed histories, as such should not be used as sources. Never seen this continuity/discontinuity theory given prominence in any histories of the period
Suggestion that section be rewritten, much shorter version outlining what distinguishes Stalinism from Leninism - which is the degree of political control, the personality cult, level of station appropriation, also the maxim of socialism in one country.
The discontinuity/continuity debate seems to be transposed from commmunist internal discussions. I don't feel it helps understanding. Need to keep it objective and facts based. There's lot of original research woven into this section.
Depending on what people think, I could do a pass to fix this section, take out the spurious citations at the bottom, also remove the table - which again is confusing. Could be replaced with something shorter about other Stalinist states (which can't just include all commnunist ones otherwise the term is meangingless.
Why not mention for example of Applebaum's Gulag for example or Solzenitzyhn. Very odd selection of sources.
Will make some notes next week and come back with new content. Adamjamesbromley 16:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I've removed some external links at the end of this piece that are not reliable sources:
Andy Blunden - a self-published author, internet only. Not peer-reviewed. Ludo Martens - Leader of the Workers Party of Belgium, internet only content. Also not peer reviewed. Anna L.Strang - it's a PDF of a book published in 1957 with various bits underlined e.g. the Stalin era gave 'birth to millions of heros' Martin Thomas - an internet Marxist site, not peer reviewed Leonie Brunstein - an internet Marxist site, not peer reviewed.
Think this may have been put here by Jacob Peters, who is a banned sock-puppeteer. There was some odd stuff lurking in the Khmer Rouge pages as well.
Also removed link to a blog about the UN trial in Cambodia of Duch, the relevance is very sketchy at best. Adamjamesbromley 12:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
"However, Robert Conquest disputed such conclusion and noted that "Russia had already been fourth to fifth among industrial economies before World War I"" it's a quote but is a ridicolous affirmation (U.S, British Empire, German Reich, France, Austrian Empire and maybe other country were more industrialized of Russian Empire.-- Francomemoria 11:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a useful paragraph in the entry, but it needs more information and a source:
"The term "Stalinism" was coined by Lazar Kaganovich and was never used by Joseph Stalin who described himself as a Marxist-Leninist and a "pupil of Lenin" although he tolerated the use of the term by associates."
In what year did Kaganovich coin the term "Stalinism"? The Online Etymology Dictionary ( http://www.etymonline.com) says it's been around since 1927, but no reference is made to Stalin's lieutenant.
Stalin was flattered by the term "Stalinism," yet resisted public use. By contrast, the adjective "Stalinist" was allowed in the Soviet press and History of the CPSU(B) (1939). -- Robotron02 ( talk) 19:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
There are large unsourced paragraphs and sections in this article. They should be deleted per WP:Source. Biophys ( talk) 04:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Particularly the section concerning Lenin, which is completely fictitious. Stalinism is not in continuity with the Bolsheviks, whom Stalin murdered 1936-1939 in the Great Purges, which are well documented. Allegations that Stalinism is anything but an opposing tendency which gained power through brutal means come from Mccarthyist speculation, which seeks to equate all Socialism with Stalin, from Hellen Keller to Lenin to Trotsky. In any case, the writer here does not source his information, so we don't even know if he got it from Pipes or from George Bush or what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samboring ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Stalinizm certainly negative phenomena but comparison it with fascism preconceived and emotional. This two absolutely opposite ideologies. Not notice this signifies is political manipulate the fact. Stalinizm never spoke of uniqueness what or nations conversely tried to unite all nations but did this barbarous way. He more looks like east satrapies of period Babylonia or Ancient Egypt. Prisoner of GULAG executed duties a slave. And their job and was made technological jump in development. Read "The First Circle" Solzhenicyn. High-paid scientist got ready work for piece of bread and possibility to sleep on mattress. Yes this too terribly as fascism but absolutely other phenomena. Gnomsovet ( talk) 06:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
In the lead, the article says:
"Stalinism is a term that purportedly describes the political system of the Soviet Union under the leadership of Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union from 1929–1953. The term implies an inherently oppressive system of extensive government spying, extrajudicial punishment, and political "purging", or elimination of political opponents either by direct killing or through exile..."
I have weasel words in bold. It is my opinion that this particular section should be modified, and the words in bold should be removed or changed. It sounds like it was written by a Stalin supporter.
Patricius Augustus ( talk) 01:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
After reading the article my natural question is: "What is Stalinism?" I don't care very much if none calls him/her-self a "Stalinist", Stalinism can any case be attributed to the Stalin regime, so the concept is definable, just by comparison with the preceeding and the succeeding regimes. OK, person cult, yes. Increased terror against the communist party itself, yes. What more? Increased centralization of decisions? Harsher discipline against labourers, yes?? Being blindly believing that the Nazi occurrence was really only an internal capitalist problem? (Increased Leninist historicism then). There must be horseloads of historicians out there defining "Stalinism" this or that way. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 15:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Before this article talked about theoretical nuances of Stalinism but skirted around the definition. The word "Stalinism," when used by 90% of the people, use it to differentiate it from socialism. People who say Stalinism say it instead of "Leninism" or "Communism". I fixed the beginning so now it actually defines clearly what Stalinism is when used in place of "communism" or "Leninism" as Stalinists and anti-communists use the latter two terms. It looks as if someone deliberately is rewriting this article to make it more Stalin-friendly. The contents of this article may or may not have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, so let's try to keep it as NPOV and factual as possible. Commissarusa ( talk) 00:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Someone seems to have redirected this page to Marxism-Leninism without providing a solid reasoning as to why they think a well-known political concept (Stalinism) is the same thing as Marxism-Leninism. I would kindly ask someone with appropriate editing privileges to revert the redirect, since there's no reason it should exist.-- UNSC Trooper ( talk) 18:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
That is probably just a vandal. Commissarusa ( talk) 03:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
there is no information about contemporary Stalinism. which parties -around the world- still promoto Stalinism? the article has to answer this question.-- 85.99.166.170 ( talk) 15:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Here is an interesting definition of Stalinism by Walter Duranty from 1931:
“ | Stalin does not think of him as a dictator or an autocrat, but as the guardian of the sacred flame, or ‘party line’ as the Bolsheviki term it, which for want of a better name must be labeled Stalinism. | ” |
-- Petri Krohn ( talk) 03:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed on
delete, definitely a BLP violation. One cannot simply tar Western socialists or communists as apologists for Stalin (as far as I can tell, charges from incendiary blogs).
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK 03:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, this is probably the 123th complaint about the article but it deserves to be heard over-and-over again. It says Stalin was a dictator and doesn't mention criticism from Stalinists, or other communists, over that claim. -- SomeDudeWithAUserName ( talk with me!) 05:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
That's very interesting! Please remind me in which of his publications J. Arch Getty has claimed that Stalin wasn't a dictator? Was it in The Politics of Repression Revisited, The Stalinist Dictatorship by J. Arch Getty perhaps?-- Termer ( talk) 08:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that according to WP:FRINGE, fringe viewpoints are to be discussed in articles that are about those viewpoints themselves. Thus, for example, the views of Stalinists should be represented in this article, because the article is about them. Even if you think Stalinism is akin to, say, creationism, notice that the creationism article does in fact present the views of creationists. Wikipedia aims to describe all views that can be backed up with sources (with appropriate weight given to each one). Surely the views of Stalin's supporters have enough sources and are sufficiently notable to be discussed somewhere. This seems like the logical place to put them. User1961914 ( talk) 23:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FRINGE, WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The term "Stalinism" is primarily a bourgeois term, used by the class enemies of the communists. The term "Stalinsim" has no theoretical content in terms of worldview. Stalin did not further developed the theory of scientific socialism. The theoretical work of Stalin, which is concentrated in 14 volumes (the famous "J.V. Stalin Collected Works" - which are overwhelmingly less from the 55 volumes of "V.I. Lenin Collected Works") concerns mainly in speeches, presentations, articles he wrote. The most significant part of his contribution mainly concerns the national question, being non-Russian himself (Georgian), the exemptions in the Bolshevik Party as well as the very important pamphlet titled "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" which deals with the aspects of socialist economic policy, a very useful and instructive look at the issue of survival of some economic phenomena from capitalism to socialism. This article reproduces the Western "democratic" (capitalist) propaganda but yet it does not represent the communist propaganda. Therefore this article is NOT neutral. I mean, it should contain information from sources like these: http://www.plp.org/books/book1.pdf http://www.plp.org/books/book2.pdf http://www.plp.org/books/book3.pdf A very educative book called "Another View of Stalin" by Ludo Martens. 176.92.147.1 ( talk) 10:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Nicolae Ceausescu.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Joseph Stalin.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Joseph Stalin.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 23:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
The inactivity in addressing POV complaints in this article is outstanding. POV here does not merely mean "anti-Stalinist", but also "pro-Stalinist", both pro and anti are POVs. Material by deliberately politically-motivated anti-Stalinist organizations is unacceptable and material by deliberately politically-motivated Stalinist organizations is unacceptable. Scholarly research by historians and other peer-reviewed academics is what should be used here.
Now then, issues that should be addressed to reduce POV. (1) material on Stalin's personal views as analyzed and recorded by reliable sources alone. (2) More material on Stalinist rapid industrialization - this was a major economic development in the Soviet Union that completely altered the country's economics as previously it was a largely rural peasant society. (3) Material on efforts to spread Marxism-Leninism (in Stalin's form) - such as Stalin's support of popular fronts in Spain and France, Stalin's support of establishment of Eastern European Marxist-Leninist client states and support of Kim Il-Sung's North Korea in the Korean War. (4) Changing relations with the West - i.e. Stalin's initial welcoming of Western private enterprises to assist Soviet industrialization (such as Ford Motor Company assisting the Soviet GAZ automobile manufacturer) to anti-Western stances in the Cold War. (5) Acknowledgement of atrocities and maltreatment of people by Stalin's regime as recorded by reliable sources alone.-- R-41 ( talk) 17:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Americans, Germans, Italians and thousands of other foreign technicians and engineers who worked for Soviet industries, such as GAZ car manufacturer, aviation industry and hydroelectric power plants across the Soviet Union, were exiled and exterminated during the 1930s. Very few managed to survive and escape from the USSR.
Stalinism is not an ideology, and has been just derogatory to describe either how Stalin think or used to describe states such as North Korea... Its a way to rule a country within the context of a nominally socialist political structure. -- TIAYN ( talk) 09:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
As a lay person in this area, I cam across an unfinished sentence (obviously I don't know what it should be but I'd like to know haha!) It's: "Stalin's ideas of Socialism in one country" ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.9.69 ( talk) 08:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
After Khrushchev's fall from power, Stain got some praises by Leonid Brezhnev. [1] [2]In May 1965, Leonid Brezhnev publicly praised Stalin as a war leader. And in September, the secret police arrested the writers Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel for "the crime" of publishing their novels abroad under pseudonyms. Suddenly, hundreds of leading Soviet intellectuals, writers,artists, and scientists began to send petitions to the party leadership with appeals to free the arrested writers and to stop the backslide to neo-Stalinism. A new movement was born, which demanded public trials and constitutional rights."Dissidents," as the members of this movement came to be called, began to appeal to the world via the foreign media.The Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 1968 substantiated the fears of the Soviet anti- Stalinist intelligentsia that the post- Khrushchev leadership might take the country in a neo-Stalinist direction. The crushing of the Prague Spring and its "socialism with a human face" dashed the hopes ofmany educated Soviet patriots that the existing system could be reformed. This produced a remarkable rise of antigovernment sentiment, even among some who were establish in the Soviet elites. [3]Brezhnev praised Joseph Stalin's reign, but refrained from the brutality that Stalin was known for.Brezhnev admissioned "Stalin's serious mistakes about the Cult of personality to himself in his old ages". [4] People's Republic of China (under Mao Zedong) and Albania (under Enver Hoxha) still condemned Brezhnev as Khrushchev as a revisionist,until Deng Xiaoping and Ramiz Alia wield power in the 1980s. [5]
On November 2, 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev said that Stalin knowingly committed "real crimes" against the Soviet people."The guilt of Stalin and his immediate entourage . . . of wholesale repressive measures and acts of lawlessness is enormous and unforgivable," he told an audience of 6,000 Communist Party officials, foreign leaders and veterans of the Bolshevik Revolution. "This is a lesson for all generations." Former leaders Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev also came in for stern criticism in Gorbachev's three-hour speech at the Kremlin Palace of Congresses. It was the opening event of the Communist Party's week-long celebration of the 70th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution.A "truthful analysis" of history, Gorbachev said, was essential to the success of perestroika, his attempt to radically restructure Soviet society. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NVRENGUANNANREN ( talk • contribs) 13:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
References
The article contains the famous photo of Lenin and Stalin captioned:
"
Vladimir Lenin with Stalin in the early 1920s."
However, following the link to
Vladimir Lenin one sees there the same photo, but this time with the caption:
"During Lenin's sickness (1922–23), Stalin used this altered photograph as his bona fides claim to leading the CPSU" with the reference: Gilbert, Felix and Large, David Clay, The End of the European Era: 1890 to the Present, 6th edition, p. 213.
If that (sourced) caption is correct, then the photo of Lenin and Stalin is a fake and so is Stalin for using it.
That should be explained in any caption of the photo, including in this article.
Lklundin (
talk) 11:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Is "style" really the right and best word to use in the first sentence? "Style" usually emphasizes surface appearance or expressive function; as in, "opulent display was characteristic of the governing style of Louis XV ", or characteristics that are open to subjective interpretation, such as 'Domitian's style of governance was harsh and uncompromising'. Not so much the mechanisms or means through which one governs, or the ideology or principles upon which one governs. There's a lot of "style" associated with the Third Reich and Italian fascism (that is, favored kinds of art, the aesthetics of iconography)—an interest in how things should be represented and "styled" for those to be governed. Nothing listed as characteristic of Stalinism in the intro strikes me as particularly stylistic.
I'm sure someone can pull out a dictionary definition for "style" and assert that it fits this context, but ithe terminology should have technical precision in an encyclopedia article. This source calls Stalinism a "political culture", which seems usefully vague, while addressing the difficulties of definition. Here the phrase "style of governance" is used specifically in the context of Stalinism's relation to an aesthetic environment. In a somewhat different context, here "style of governance" refers to a values-driven attitude of general conduct (transparency vs. secrecy, truth vs. manipulation). "Stalinism" as defined in our article seems to be much more than a mere "style" of governance—and those aspects of Stalinism that are unquestionably stylistic aren't much described here.
I wanted to leave a comment instead of a drive-by tag, but I'm not offering an answer. Just describing my reaction (puzzlement) in coming to the article for the first time. I'm not suggesting that "political culture" is the best replacement for "style of governance", just that as a more capacious label it does show the limitations of or questions raised by the latter phrase. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Stalinism is a theory which is often generalized by leading others to be one way to govern a socialist society. However, this article fails to understand this completely, instead of discussing the theory (which is Stalinism), and basic concepts such as Aggravation of class struggle under socialism, the article talks about Stalinist practices. While I concur these events, such as the Great Purge should be mentioned, the article should focus on "Aggravation of class struggle ..." to explain the ideological rationale, and have a short paragraph of these beliefs were practiced. Other concepts are "Socialism In one Country", "Planned economy", Centralism over democracy in "Democratic centralism", peace with capitalist states being futile (the world encirclement of the socialist camp as they often said) and so on. Its not like Hoxha, Mao and co called themselves Stalinists because Stalin killed people, they called themselves Stalinists because of the "theoretical development of Marxism" which occurred under Stalin's rule. This is missing, which is strange, considering thats what the article is about! At last, not everything that was Stalinist theory was conceived by Stalin himself, just as not everything in classical Marxism was based upon Karl Marx's writing. The name is a generalization, so as to state that Stalinism was conceived by Stalin is an awful generalization. -- TIAYN ( talk) 22:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a socialist/marxist theorist's views (Hillel Ticktin) that have been included in this article for some time. His views are sourced to his writings. there is no indication that other sources RS suggest his opinions are important (beyond his adherents, of course). Capitalismojo ( talk) 21:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Note that there are hundreds (thousands) of marxist theorists. The question is why this one? I note that the "legacy" section is Trotsky, Mao, Anarchism...and Hillel? Clearly not the same scope or scale of "legacy". Capitalismojo ( talk) 21:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The "Stalinist policies" section asserts near the top that "Socialism in one country" and centralization were contradictory to Lenin's theories. This is an opinion, one that does not seem to be anywhere in the cited source. Stalin did not reject worker internationalism; he pursued it vigorously in a manner aligned with the geographical interests of the USSR. Stalin's centralization was prefigured in Lenin's concept of "a single office and a single factory" (State and Revolution). The questions involved have been debated over decades and need not be further debated here. I only ask that the opinion should be presented as such and cited to a source where it actually appears. 50.185.134.48 ( talk) 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
If you are interested in Marxism - read "Main Currents of Marxism" by Leszek Kołakowski. Xx236 ( talk) 10:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The article treats "Stalinism" as if the policies of the Soviet Union during Stalin's time are something different to Marxist-Leninism or that there is an actual school of thought known as "Stalinism", when it is primarily used by Trotskyites, revisionists and anarchists as a fighting term in polemics. Very, very few of the political parties which consider their lineage to be Marx-Lenin-Stalin (-Mao-Hoxha) refer to themselves as "Stalinist", all of them either use the term Marxist-Leninist or Bolshevik. This should be pointed out in the first sentence. It does mention that Stalin himself rejected use of the term, but does not give the wider context of its primarily use in sectarian polemics. Claíomh Solais ( talk) 22:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
...exasperated capitalists need a page to link to in every other one where they blather on about "Stalinism" as if it's even a thing. Even spell check knows it isn't, dammit! I mean, for the time being at least. Oh, and would you look at that? There's a Wikipedia series on Stalinism. The monkeys are officially running the zoo. 76.71.49.36 ( talk) 01:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Rapid urbanization converted many[quantify] small villages into industrial cities.
Does the editor who added the annotation "quantify" know anything about the Iron Curtain / Potemkin shell game / mystery-riddle-enigma / black box / industrial-scale blood, bone and paper shredder of the former Soviet Union back in the day?
I know precious little myself, but it strikes me that quantification can only lead to a giant tar pit of history recorded by split decision: with each passing decade, new—and equally discordant—numerical scrims offered up from both sides of the listless, shuffling curtain.
What I suspect this sentence is trying to say is that many sleepy rural settlements (most likely) and minor conurbations were rapidly industrialized more so by fiat than from any native inclination. Because skills and industry go together, this was probably associated with a fair amount of human dislocation (and consequent disruption of the local, established order), regardless of any actual growth, which in many cases probably came along for the ride (note that rapid urbanization during this time period was a fixture of all post-oxcart, industrialized nations).
Perhaps more useful would be to pick a handful of representative heavy industries (steel, glass, concrete, petroleum come to mind) and then survey a few substantial post-revolution industrial hot spots (leaning toward the incontrovertible) that Tsarist Russia would have least expected.
Anything but quantify.
Or am I nuts? — MaxEnt 16:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
In 1922, in combination with an expansion of the (for early Bolsjevism important) Central Committee, Lenin wished to form a secretariat that he thought would be necessary. At the 11:th Bolsjevist Party congress, 3.April 1922 (Lenin got his first stroke two months later), Stalin was appointed head of this new institution. Hence the title "General Secretary". But that did NOT give Stalin autocracy - and there was no "Stalinism" that early.
It was still in the Polite Bureau that all major (and not so few minor) decisions were made. And it took a quite long time before he became the autocratic ruler of USSR. Still in 1927, could Zinovjev and Kamenev simply joined Trotsky (or Trotsky joined Zinovjev and Kamenev) - and they could have got rid of him. But being head of the Central Committee gave him advantages vs the others. The idea of Socialism in one country was the very first pure Stalinistic idea, this eventually stood against Trotsky's "The ever ongoing revolution". But aside of Trotsky (who stood alone in the party's top after Lenin's death), Stalin also fought the "left opposition" (Zinovjev and Kamenev). He then gained a certain rumor as being in the modest center, and "stood above" the Trotsky vs Zinovjev & Kamenev issues initially. Then later he cleared the table also with the "right opposition" (Bucharin, Tomsky [or Tomskij ?] Karl Radek and others).
To the core - it's wrong to speak of "Stalinism" (an ideology) already from 1922. If being really thorough , "Stalinism proper" didn't arrive until November 1936, at the 8:th Soviet congress, as a new constitution known as the Stalin Constitution was imposed. But 1936 would be far too late.
It's difficult to determine a specific year, but around 1927-1929 one could say that "Stalinism" began.
I would, by the way, like to recommend
Isaac Deutscher's "Stalin" - 1946/47 and 1961 (no changes, just additions). Especially on the 1920's intern Bolsjevist party struggles. Newer author's may spell out their condemnations bolder and better, but Deuthscher is a true master in explaining the historical processes from within the Bolsjevist Party. (and through the explanations, a natural condemnation reaches the reader even better, in my opinion at least.)
Boeing720 (
talk) 01:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
References
These references below the photo are inaccurate, there were several photos taken at the time of this photo, showing Lenin and Stalin together in these clothes, here is another of the photos: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DNAJM0tONbA/WmRa80f7GeI/AAAAAAAAEDI/s4rL4BW96tsbZUKxf3rE8S_HCBb08F1OwCLcBGAs/s1600/Lenin%2Band%2BStalin.jpg and here is another https://cdn.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/pipes_1-112014.jpg. I do not have a source that refutes the assertion that the photo is doctored, but there may be some out there, but the other photos I have shown here should at least make an assertion that the photo is doctored seem dubious and that a claim that it is doctored should not be treated as a clear-cut fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.82.158 ( talk)
somehow I'm not surprised this article is such a mess when 90% of the people on this talk page are anti communists that have no clue what stalinism is outside of "secret police". Stalin had less power then any prime minister/president today. He was frequently overruled such as the appointment of lavrentiy beria to the NKVD when he wanted Georgy Malenkov. At no point did stalin have dictatorial power and he was so powerless that he was not even allowed to resign, he tried to resign four seperate times, the last because of old age and he was refused. I've never seen a dictator that was somehow simultaneously able to execute his rivals and everything stalin is accused of, as well as not even being able to resign even though he clearly wanted to. Furthermore, it does not surprise me either that the person reversing my edits is a self admitted trotskyist. Just as you would not trust a trump supporter to be the arbiter of what about hillary clinton is true or false, neither should you trust a trotskyist to be truthful about stalin. finally, stalin was vehemently against the personality cult ( https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/02/16.htm). The personality cult existed because he was the most well known of the old bolsheviks besides lenin. I'd go further and say theres more of a personality cult around george washington than stalin, nobody carved stalin's head into a mountain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabbyTheML ( talk • contribs)
Gabrielle: Roland, im not sure you know what personal abuse means. People telling you that you're incorrect and why is not personal abuse. There is no obtaining agreement with you because your ideology hinges on you believing stalin was a horrible dictatorial monster and mine tends to lean towards the opposite, there is no consensus to be reached, you get what you want or I get what I want, theres no middle ground here, stalin was either totalitarian or he wasnt, and history proves to the latter.
Gabrielle: putting here since I accidentally hit enter on the edit: It satisfies ronald's need to accuse stalin of wrongdoing and mine of not lying — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabbyTheML ( talk • contribs)
Gabrielle: Supporting false information is lying last time I checked, you have access to the internet, you are able to find out that its false, therefore you fit the definition of lying. Thats not an attack thats the truth — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
GabbyTheML (
talk •
contribs)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
During eerie Stalinism the government utilized ethnic cleansing mainly as a deportation, but were also explicit physical extermination such as Katyn massacre as the best document, but due to Soviet censorship many other cases were hidden. In the Stalinist Soviet Union existed term "Repressed Nations" ( Russian: Репрессированные народы). [1] [2] There also existed some other political phenomenon such as National Bourgeoise ( Russian: национал буржуй) which meant that as any other bourgeoise that person wanted to destroy the Soviet regime and introduce his foreign culture. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 05:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
References
I agree with Rjensen - the diff. The statements do mention "Stalinism" in passing, just as a political label rather tnan the subject. One paragraph tells an opinion by ethnographer about "triumphalist attitudes of Western powers at the end of the Cold War". Another paragraph debates if the "practices of state violence" by the Soviet state were derived from the socialist ideology. He means all periods of Soviet history, including ones before Stalin: "The Soviet state was born at this moment of total war..." meaning obviously Russian Civil War, et. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Trotsky believed China and India to be possible hubs of revolution and even proposed the Ukrainian Bolsheviks form a cavalry unit in Central Asia to support such a revolution. Stalin was much less enthusiastic, famously resulting in the Shanghai Massacre when he ordered the communists to disarm. NatriumGedrogt ( talk) 20:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Nothing described in the entry is new or unique to politics or Stalin, having secret police or penal colonies or economic planning does not constitute a political ideology unto itself, the article serves no purpose except to further confuse people and it should simply be deleted outright. Call him a monarch if you think he had so much power, and you think you can make the case. Occams ied ( talk) 20:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Hey fellow Wikipedians!
I'm a little bit new to Wikipedia, but am fairly well-versed in Sovietology and the great debate over "Stalinism".
I think it'd be hugely beneficial (and important) to create a topic discussing the Continuity vs. Discontinuity arguments regarding Stalinism, and the Stalin-era of the Soviet Union. These arguments generally focus around the question of whether Stalinism was an inevitable, logical outcome from the Bolshevist / Leninist prior-period due to previous seeds of authoritarianism, or whether Stalin's reign represents a rupture in Soviet politics that exacerbated excess, cult-of-personality, and totalitarianism. (Other arguments often made question whether "Stalinism" is even a real ideology distinct from Leninism or Marxism, and some persist that Stalinism was actually a necessity due to international interference and counter-revolutionary activity within the USSR).
Historiography (the study of how history itself has been studied and recorded) is very important, and especially important in Sovietology, which combines as history and political science. Many of the cited sources in the current article, while respected Sovietologists, have very obvious connections to state-sponsored, right-wing financial backers, or government connections to the United States, who were understandably biased against the Soviet Union until its fall in 1991. Without discounting these sources, I think a topic within the article explaining the argument for and against continuity v. revisionism would be important to the understanding of how Stalinism (and the Soviet Union altogether) has been viewed for over 100 years at this point.
I think a group of wikipedians can work together to source equally from both sides of this debate and explain what the debate entails, without injecting their own personal biases (as, in my opinion, the "truth" is likely somewhere in between both sides in reality). Would look forward to working together with like-minded and non-like-minded people to make this subtopic. Gimmethecreeps ( talk) 21:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Sbishop: I have not seen this mention of a "second wave" of de-Stalinization during the Gorbachev years neither in the body of this article nor in the article de-Stalinization. When looking into this, I see a mention of a "second wave" referring to the 22nd Party Congress in 1961 in The Dilemmas of De-Stalinization by Polly Jones and the journal Problems of Communism (vol. 20, no. 3) etc, but I have not seen any sources referring to Gorbachev's reforms as a second wave. Possibly this is misleading then, do you think we should rephrase this? Or am I wrong? Thanks. Mellk ( talk) 14:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The link to the "defense attorney" page under the "Purges and Executions" section redirects to the 1951 drama "Defense Attorney". It should probably redirect to the Criminal Defense Lawyer page. 159.2.196.204 ( talk) 04:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The article discusses policies during his rule, not life before it. I don't see how highlighting his life before coming to power is necessary to an article discussing what happened after it. 95.57.53.78 ( talk) 05:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Cult of personality section "seen as an embelm of Marxism." ⮕ "seen as an emblem of Marxism." -- Virivren ( talk) 15:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)