Talk:Stalinism

Stalinism was the "theory and practice of

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Stalinists on the resurgence

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

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)[reply]

Trotsky is responsible for more executions than Stalin. Trotsky was a monster, and an ice pick to the head was what he deserved. Trotsky wasn't a patriot (unlike Stalin), and viewed Russia as fire-wood for the World Revolution. With respect, Ko Soi IX 18:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ 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)[reply]

It's a inside joke they don't literally believe that. Stalinism a insult word made up by capitalist ideologues. For the occasional person who "literally calls themselves Stalinist" are only doing so as to claim the insult as badge of honour for being a Marxist-Leninist. You guys who aren't communist are the only ones who believe it literally exists. Orexin (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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"

Georgius, thank you for your thoughtful comments. There is a reason why the Indian experience is called Nehruvian-Stalinism and not Stalinism. This is due to some minor differences. Having said that, I must correct myself in the light of your comments. The Indian government controlled ALL sectors of the indian economy. Gas stations were not like small businesses, they were OWNED by the government and some people were appointed to merely operate them. My own thinking has been influenced by the American experience. The term "small business" did not exist in popular lexicon until recently. The amount of petrol or diesel they got was determined by what the government decided. The licenses were not permanent. Farmers grew food, but had to surrender the produce to the government. Growing "cash crops" like coffee was illegal though it was grown under strictly regulated conditions in a few places. Of course, the produce was the property of the Coffee Board! Why, the government even owned every sandalwood tree in the country and if a sandalwood tree grew in your garden and you hadn't reported it to the government, they would arrest you and treat you in a cruel manner. Shops were permitted, but they couldn't stock anything because there was nothing to stock! How would there be when manufacturing was done by the government? All you got was the basic stuff. The original idea of controlling the "commanding heights" was Lenin's idea which Nehru put into place. In fact, the Indian system was put into place with the help of "experts" from USSR that Stalin sent to India. So the credit for shattering Indian lives goes to Stalin too! As you pointed out, there were minor differences and that is why there is a difference in the name of the system.

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)

Vandals keep deleting that page. I am tired of restoring it. That article needs a new home and I have determined that this article is the best place for it (since the page on Nehru is locked by the vandals). If you wish, you can talk sense to them and convince them that India had a planned economy and allow me to put out these facts, and I will leave this article alone. Otherwise, I am going to keep adding it here. You can lock this article too. I will go elsewhere and keep posting the facts until you guys stop doctoring facts and supporting violent communists.

You are not addressing the main objection to your posts: you don't provide any reference from reputable sources. You cannot introduce political definitions here. Your IP is also also blocked for foul mouth. You are not posting "facts". You are posting theories, which may describe facts, but unless you point to a solid publication that uses this term, it will not be allowed anywhere in wikipedia. mikka (t) 02:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

First of all, if you are going to undertake a big and serious job, please read articles from category:Soviet political repressions and see how what you are going to add fits into what is already there. mikka (t) 6 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)

Those articles give information on a case-by-case basis, one is on NKVD, another on KGB etc. In an article on stalinism, one needs to give information on the consequences of stalinism to human rights standards in the USSR etc. This is information is sorely lacking in present article. If you feel we'd be duplicating information, please tell in what form the links to those articles could be included.

Please sign your posts; it is difficult to trace longer discussions without signatures.

You may add a separate summary section, not to mix info piecewise. The topic of repressions is huge, and it requires a good overview article, which I agree is missing. I will try to make a skeleton one. mikka (t) 16:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted only one sentence of all my additions which you have removed, the one about slave labour in Stalinist economy. Treat it as a gesture of goodwill. I agree that other info (about political repressions) deserves a separate article. But the article of Stalinism should at least point to it. Please note that the article on Nazism mentions practicle effects of Stalinism and political repressions which occurred under Nazi rule. either directly or as links to other articles.--rwerp 10:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User 172 is removing not only my additions, but also the sentence about totalitarianism at the top of the article. This is absurd, it's whitewashing Stalinism by selecting only positive information about it in the article.--rwerp 10:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Totalitarianism" is a typology used by some researchers but not others. Some do not have much use for it even when working with Stalinism. Including it as the second sentence is POV. 172 | Talk 10:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But still it's a fact that many consider Stalinism as totalitarian.--rwerp 10:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is still one thing I do not understand: why the sentence A British historian

Just as a side note, Davies has a POV too. He has the best sellers, but his work is squarely in the right of the historiography on the subject. 172 | Talk 10:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that reporting positive POV information about Stalinism is OK: "some historians believe it to be the fastest economic growth ever achieved", but reporting negative POV (Davies' POV) is WRONG.--rwerp 10:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mikka and I don't care about what sounds "good" to some people and "bad" to others. The criterion for including information in this article is relevance to the topic, not the normative effect. There is an entire Wikipedia category for Stalinist repression, where what you are noted is covered in great detail. 172 | Talk 10:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do, because you remove only those additions which are not positive about Stalinism. The information that Stalinist economical system was based partly on slave labour is as relevant to the topic "Stalinist political economy" as it could possibly be. Please prove me otherwise or stop removing this particular addition.--rwerp 13:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Europe: A History, as Davies states in the preface contains little original research. Nearly everything in that book is taken from other historians. People have linked the two these totalitarian ideaologies for a long time. I'll try to look up who Davies refrences for that section, maybe we can get some primary research to back up the claim. --BadSeed 15:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This text is biased, it ignores the price of the "growth". Was it worth? Xx236 12:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that without the economic growth, defeat of the nazis would be impossible, it was totally worth it. With respect, Ko Soi IX 18:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm.. what does that even mean? was it worth it to have millions of people die in slavery so that they could stop another maniac from killing millions of other people? I don´t get it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.62.228 (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I didn't remove it, but I considered it. I think it's pretty POV to call a modern state Stalinist unless they claim that title. I think there are some pretty important differences between today's Cuba and Stalinist USSR that were being kind of glossed over in that section. If you can convince the people working on Politics of Cuba or Politics of North Korea that those countries can be accurately labeled Stalinist, then I would support making that claim here. - TheMightyQuill 18:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article's completely and blatantly an opinion. Wow. 4.234.45.131 01:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely opinion? So don't believe it was named after Stalin? - TheMightyQuill 02:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This comment from seven years ago is right on target. And this problem hasn't been fixed. If anything it's gotten worse. Volunteer Marek  06:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

China had a Maoist period. Maoism is a form of Stalinism.

Psychomelodic 16:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This is from a while ago, but strictly speaking, Marxism–Leninism–Maoism isn't "a form of Stalinism" in any sort of academic, historical, or objective sense. Firstly, "Stalinism" itself is a POV term with no clear meaning. Furthermore, disputes over orthodox Marxist policy were deep-seated and widespread between the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Loyalprecision (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There are large unsourced paragraphs and sections in this article. They should be deleted per

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't think it's entirely "emotional". We can say there's also an "emotional thing" each time we think of fascism itself, since there were practical and social reasons why Nazism and Fascism occurred. Many people were also driven into fascism while simply seeking work or stability. I don't think it's inaccurate to say that the exacerbation of nationalistic, belligerent and judeophobic elements during Stalinism brought Communism closer to fascism. I think currently the article is trying to justify or embellish Stalin's period by presenting it as a "natural or expected extension" of Leninism without observing the differences with attention. That is POV. Who is like God? (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Someone seems to have redirected this page to

That is probably just a vandal. Commissarusa (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a serial IP-hopping vandal, who has attacked this and other articles, including Erich Mielke and East Germany. Just revert the move and report the IP. RolandR (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here is an interesting definition of Stalinism by Walter Duranty from 1931:

• Source: Walter Duranty (14 June 1931). "Red Russia od Today Ruled by Stalinism, not Communism". The New York Times.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This BLP smear seems to be an extension of the ongoing battle at the article on the person attacked. RolandR (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can you be specific about what is POV in the article? The mere fact that there is negative info - which reflects reality - in the article doesn't cut. Sigh. Here we go again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a dictator how? We're not here to give equal weight to propaganda. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that Stalin was or was not a dictator, however, I want POV to be changed. It never mentions what Stalinists have to say, and last I checked, they are not paid propagandists by a non-existent government. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 21:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe views need not be represented. Also, aren't the negative connotations carried by the word "dictator" the issue, not the fact that as such he ruled (for better or for worse)? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a fringe viewpoint. J. Arch Getty, a well known and respected (and very notable) professor at UCLA has provided much evidence to show that Stalin was not a "dictator" and that his regime was primarily led by his advisors, most notably Nikita Kruschev. It is an indisputable fact that most of Stalin's policies were actually not originated by him and that Western historians have generally grossly overestimated the level of influence he held. Even Stalin's grandson has been fighting to clear the family name from these negative associations and has been able to provide a great deal of evidence in favor of his argument.

Furthermore, if Stalin is to be considered a dictator, then we must also state in Lenin's article that he was a dictator (the Bolshevik left certainly opposed the imposition of the New Economic Policy, which many considered draconian) and likewise we must also state that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were dictators as well, because they imposed policies which were considered dictatorial (Washington imposing taxes, and using violence to enforce them, and Lincoln opposed as a tyrant by the Southerners.) So it is not "fringe" to state the obvious that the article suffers from horrible POV and bias. Laval (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Whether Stalin was a dictator or not depends on the structure of the Soviet Government during his rule. My encyclopedia (book) says he and Lenin were both dictators, but it also somehow forgot to mention how Stalin industrialized Russia, so I can't trust that. --Σ _☭^★ 02:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that according to

Couldn't be better said. (If we can find them). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot -- talk) 22:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

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 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. 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 -- talk) 23:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

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)[reply]

Do not be naive. Stalin was extremely crafty. He ruled for 30 years and destroyed most evidence of his wrongdoings. During the Stalin's regime, people in the Soviet Union did not have IDs, so millions of deaths were not even registered - no records of extermination of millions of peasants, farmers, clergy, rural teachers. We only know about killings of famous actors, writers, scientists, journalists, but there were millions of victims of Stalin's dictatorship.

If there were no IDs of these people, how can you know they died? Or for that matter, even existed in the first place?

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)[reply]

Empty words.

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)[reply]

Thank you. The article had been edited a couple of weeks ago by a sockpuppet of an inveterate vandal, but the damage was missed because of other problems caused by a second vandal. Article now corrected. RolandR (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Cynwolfe: I get you're point, the problem is that Stalinism is not a form of government, but rather a way to rule a socialist system. Kinda tricky. The most apt statement would be to state that "Stalinism is an ideology which supports repression of anti-socialist elements in the socialist state to safeguard its socialist tendencies [or something similar]"--TIAYN (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stalinism has an ideological basis, but the ideology has its own name(s), and as a term Stalinism seems also to refer to how that ideology is implemented or how the government was run based on that ideology … and other things. I see why "style" might be a way to express that, but still wonder whether it isn't an "approach to governance" rather than a style. Or a "political culture" with a set of attitudes, ideology, modus operandi, and so on. Agree that the question isn't easy. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm currently working on a new version of the article at User:Trust Is All You Need/Soviet Union (the only thing I've done so far is to create a general outline...) --TIAYN (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no ref's for Stalinism as a "theory". All our refs refer to the practice of Stalinism. Rather than try to rewrite the entire article at your userspace, why don't you bring proposed changes here to talk to get consensus. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitalismojo: Stalinism is a theory which was implemented in practice, its a reason why both Hoxha and Mao defended Stalinist theory... --TIAYN (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, do you have ref's for that statement? That's sort of how it works here, content backed by multiple specific reliably sourced references. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitalismojo: Its even referenced in the article; you know, thats how it works here, you read the article before you act like arrogantly towards another user.. The source which supposedly sources the statement even attacks Stalinism by treating it as an ideology. At last, none of the sources refer to it as "style of government/governance", none, so instead of saying I have no sources, try finding a reliable source which uses "style of government/governance". At last, everything in the Soviet Union was rationalized by ideology; the official ideology of the state was Marxism-Leninism, which was when it was introduced, synonymous with Stalinism. It only became a term with a different meaning all together with de-Stalinization. To claim it was not an ideology also fails to answer why these ideological concepts are identified only with Stalinist regimes; Aggravation of Class struggle under socialism, cult of personality, the redefinition of "Democracy" in democratic centralism to mean not to overt criticize the party and its leadership, People's democracy, Socialism in One Country, Two camp theory or the primitive socialist accumulation thesis. All these are ideological concepts based on Stalinist thought; and if you knew something about it you would have known that primitive socialist accumulation thesis led directly to the planned economy. Its not like Stalin and co suddenly found out; "lets destroy private property, and i dunno, replace it with planning?!?" They did rationalize it by creating an ideological basis for it (as they do in all socialist states). --TIAYN (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I see that Hillel Ticktin appears notable enough by Wikipedia standards to have a biographical article, and has published at least several books. May I inquire as to the specific reasoning behind the deletion of the material? I see that you have expressed concern about the placement of Ticktin's criticisms and assertions in the "Legacy" section, which may have some merit, but doesn't justify wholesale deletion of said content. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merely having an article (albeit such a poor one that doesn't seem to meet the N minimum) is not suitable for such prominent inclusion. I'm removed it per

WP:UNDUE and the fact that it also linking to copyright violations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

As usual, without supervivision, some parts of wikipedia turn into shit. This opinion about "contradictions" are from some sectarian leftist dogmatists (despite Lenins's motto "Marxism is not dogma but a guide for action", leftists are hardcore dogmatists w.r.t. their creed). This particlular claim is attributed to a nonnotable commie, presented without any arguments why and how it is contradiction. Therfore I am removing it, for want of a better source: either a neutral, or leftist, bit more respectable. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verbrannte Erde. Stalins Herrschaft der Gewalt, Munich (C.H. Beck) 2012,

ISBN 978-3-406-63254-9. Xx236 (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

If you are interested in Marxism - read "Main Currents of Marxism" by Leszek Kołakowski.Xx236 (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article treats "Stalinism" as if the policies of the Soviet Union during Stalin's time are something different to

I disagree. Rhetoric in Albania and China is beside the point. "Stalinism" and "anti-Stalinism" became standard terminology in Moscow after 1953. see the many cites in David R. Egan; Melinda A. Egan (2007). Joseph Stalin: An Annotated Bibliography of English-Language Periodical Literature to 2005. pp. 427–50. "Stalinism" was the common term used by Communist historians in Moscow in the 1980s when I was a professor there. Rjensen (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also disagree. Claíomh Solais' point is only valid until about the time "Socialism in one (single) country" became official politic. This was most certainly something quite different and new, when compared to both Lenin and Marx. And the intern struggles inside the Bolsjevist Party were both many and huge, Lenin was the glue that tied the party together. If not already as Lenin got his first stroke, at the second or the last one - so at his death in early 1924. This is no defense of Lenin, nor of Leninism or Marxism. In any case "Socialism in one (single) country" was entirely a Stalin invention, and it came gradually during his rise to autocracy. Further, Lenin desired a certain discussion inside the party, and originally also with the Mensjeviks, the anarchists, the Social Revolutionaries and others, but under Bolsjevistic control. For a brief time Lenin even formed a government together with a "left wing" of the Social Revolutionaries. This changed through the civil war (and after the Polish (

Joseph Pilsudski lead) invasion of Ukraine. Lenin saw (or hoped for) Bolsjevist Russia as the beginning of a far larger revolution. Also the horror and violence got beyond all comprehension with Stalin, not limited to, but especially after the assassination of Kirov in Leningrad 1934. Largely none of the Lenin associated Bolsjevists would survive the 1930's. (Zinovjev, Kamenev, Bucharin etc) Stalin firmly believed in violence in itself, not as regretful necessity. To the all the victims of Bolsjevism not of significance, but there was - or at least became - a huge difference, also from the perspective of the use of terror and violence. Boeing720 (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

...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)[reply]

Did you know that there's this thing called mainstream academia? It's the totality of published interactions between professional scholars.

Did you know that Wikipedia does is summarize mainstream academic works? We don't just make shit up or use editor's opinions.

Maybe if you knew how Wikipedia worked, your criticisms would come off as something other than pathetic trolling. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Stalinism started at the

First-Five-Year plan.^[1] Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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)

That is not a reasoned argument, but a diatribe that descends into personal abuse. If you want to make an edit which other editors contest, then you need to discuss and obtain agreement on the talk page, not simply to abuse other editors and plough on regardless. RolandR (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Please withdraw the suggestion that I am lying. RolandR (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• The Commissar Vanishes 2.jpg
• Voroshilov, Molotov, Stalin, with Nikolai Yezhov.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

During eerie Stalinism the government utilized ethnic cleansing mainly as a deportation, but were also explicit physical extermination such as

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)[reply]

But the latter source in particular is emphasizing the impact WWI and other developments at the time had on the development of Stalinism, which makes it pertinent to this section. How anyone could make the argument that this passage in particular does not pertain to the subject of scholarly interpretations of Stalinism is baffling, IMO. As to Ghodsee, she is making the case that the excesses of communism, and Stalinism in particular, have been used as an ideological hammer with which to bludgeon the left and popular progressive movements and to buttress the current orthodoxy and global capitalist hegemony. If we were talking about obscure journalists or other relative unknowns putting forth such analyses, I would agree with you to an extent, but both Kristen Ghodsee and David L. Hoffmann are renowned and distinguished scholars in their field, making this material DUE for a section for "Other interpretations" (by scholars).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this paragraph Hoffman tells not about Stalinism, but about repressive policies by the Soviet state in general. This is not the same. "Stalinism" and the cult of Stalin were created only in 1930s (but he tells "The Soviet state was born at this moment of total war..." meaning obviously Russian Civil War in 1917-1923). BTW, this page incorrectly entitles some of the early policies by Lenin and his comrades as "Stalinist" - this should be fixed. Stalin did not play a role in defining these early Bolshevik policies when Lenin, Trotsky and others were in power, that was a legend created by Stalin. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are deliberately leaving out the most pertinent parts of the passage, which expressly discuss these issues in the development of Stalinism and its excesses: "...raises the issue of whether Stalinist practices of state violence derived from socialist ideology. Placing Stalinism in an international context, he demonstrates that many forms of state interventionism used by the Stalinist government--including social cataloguing, surveillance, and concentration camps--predated the Soviet regime and originated outside of Russia. He argues that technologies of social intervention developed in conjunction with the work of nineteenth-century European reformers and were greatly expanded during the First World War, when state actors in all the combatant countries dramatically increased efforts to mobilize and control their populations." (emphasis mine)--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, we have to blame the "nineteenth-century European reformers" and WW I for the crimes of Stalinism and the Soviet state in general? That content was included by a suspicious SPA. Did you check the source and can confirm this is a correct summary? For example, "he demonstrates that ...". Said who? Any attribution? My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about who added the content, but the contributor might have the page numbers wrong, as I found a discussion of these issues on the pages 310-312, which does indeed include assertions about the limits of socialism and Marxist ideology in the creation of the authoritarian Soviet state as established by Lenin and greatly enhanced by Stalin. It certainly seems relevant to the discussion as it exists in that section, all of which does not strictly discuss Stalinism in a vacuum, as you apparently believe it should. And Ghodsee's analysis should also be restored as

WP:DUE, as hers largely corroborates the analysis of Seumas Milne in the tail end of the section in terms of the excesses of Stalinism being used as an ideological weapon against the contemporary left.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you, I checked what was written on pages 310-312. This is obviously a valid view/opinion by a historian that could be cited somewhere, but I see two problems. (1) This is simply incorrect summary. For example author tells that Great Purge resulted from Stalin's idea about the "increasing class struggle". Also, he did mentioned some earlier philosophers, but it was in relation to Marxism rather than Stalinism. (2) The text on these pages is not really about Stalin or his policies, but about the Soviet system/regime in general (as author tells) which is not the same as Stalinism. My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is about the Soviet state in general, but emphasis is placed on the Stalin period throughout these three pages, and Stalinism is mentioned twice, which is what makes it relevant. Again, Stalinism did not develop in a vacuum, and he elaborates on how the extreme violence of the Stalinist state materialized (along with more positive aspects such as universal healthcare etc., which are often overlooked). There might be other discussions on these issues within the text. I only did a quick google books search as I don't own it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least on these pages, author clearly debates the genesis of Soviet system, from its start to demise in 1990s. Yes, Stalinism was mentioned, but the subject is different. Also, that was bad summary by red-linked account. My very best wishes (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghodsee is an anthropologist who works on Bulgaria and neighboring small countries in Eastern Europe. Her main complaint about Stalinism is that it is used in recent years by opponents of left-wing causes that she champions. C.J. Griffen mentions Seumas Milne. He is a left-wing publicist for the British Labour Party, who has written very extensively on recent British politics and likewise defends Communism. History of the Stalin era in USSR ia the topic of this article--Historians with that specialty pay Ghodsee scant attention, as shown by this review of her work by Wim de Jong: "Ghodsee pushes her argument to its limits. The big elephant here is whether it is better to have despotism and relative economic equality, or a corrupt parliamentary democracy with a harsh neoliberal system. In her zeal to point out the need for a more nuanced vision of the communist past, she does not take enough time to weigh the realities of communist life, showing how exactly one should see the balance between unfreedom, a police state, and religious persecution under communism versus its attractions. She might have argued that its economic system was supposed to have been better, when it had its obvious deficiencies: endless waiting lines for food, shortages of consumer goods, et cetera. The fact that all this is well known does not take away the responsibility to show how the pros and cons of life under communism should be measured. This would strengthen her argument about how the realities of neoliberal democracy are at least just as bad." [ Wim de Jong in H-SOCIALISMS October, 2018 online here— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • Rjensen)

Actually, the review was not as negative as I expected it to be, and the author says her work fits nicely with other works on the re-evaluation of this "Triumphalist" period of the post-Communist era: "This narrative has changed. With the advent of populism in western European democracies, with a neofascist government in Italy and Trump in the White House, the West is no longer certain that its own democracies are that strong, which might bring with it some humility that is well overdue. Ghodsee’s book adds to recent trends in European historiography, such as Philip Terr’s Europe since 1989: A History (2016), which accords equal attention to western and eastern parts of Europe. To increase our understanding of what exactly happened to Europe in these thirty years and how it can explain our current predicament, the postcommunist regime must be put into focus, and Ghodsee’s book contributes quite well to that task." While he has some quibbles with some of her positions, he concludes his review by praising her book: "Even though she sometimes gets carried away by her personal investment in the topic, this is a real contribution to the re-narration of European history after 1989."

The other citation from Ghodsee also makes a similar argument as in the book but it is perhaps delivered more forcefully with elaboration on the "double genocide thesis" regarding Stalin's and Hitler's crimes. This passage I believe demonstrates why the removed material should be restored as pertinent to the subject of the sub-section "other interpretations": "In addition to the desire for historical exculpation, however, I argue that the current push for commemorations of the victims of communism must be viewed in the context of regional fears of a re-emergent left. In the face of growing economic instability in the Eurozone, as well as massive antiausterity protests on the peripheries of Europe, the “victims of communism” narrative may be linked to a public relations effort to link all leftist political ideals to the horrors of Stalinism. Such a rhetorical move seems all the more potent when discursively combined with the idea that there is a moral equivalence between Jewish victims of the Holocaust and East European victims of Stalinism. This third coming of the German Historikerstreit is related to the precariousness of global capitalism, and perhaps the elite desire to discredit all political ideologies that threaten the primacy of private property and free markets."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly looked at this source, and it is apparently not about Stalinism, but about disagreement of author with a resolution by the European Parliament. However, author does say: the “victims of communism” (in "...") meaning "victims of Great Purge", "victims of Gulag", etc. This is exactly like someone saying "victims of Holocaust". So, what kind of "historian" is that? My very best wishes (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Deleting an article regarding one of the most well-recognised styles of governance from the 20th century is a pretty absurd suggestion. — Czello 20:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@

If there are no cited sources for a second wave, then I think reference to it should be removed altogether, at least for now. If someone does locate a source then they can re-insert.

talk) 15:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I will remove it then. Mellk (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cult of personality section "seen as an embelm of Marxism." ⮕ "seen as an emblem of Marxism." --Virivren (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]