Stalinist

Farah Notash, Wien, Jänner 2007
www.farah-notash.com

The term Stalinist was used by the proved traitor Michail Gorbatschew. It was used purposely to split the Communist forces in the former Soviet Union. It was a sword-like weapon consciously used to bring up the collapse.

In philosophy “ism” after the name of a person is only used when he/she has represented a thesis or a new outlook. E.g. Marx, due to his economical, poitical philosophy was called Marxism by Engels. Obviously the believers of his ideas are called Marxists since.

Stalin has never brought a new idea. There is no Stalinism, to be believed and followed by other people. So in reality the term is not scientific and does not exist. Application and usage of it is absolutely wrong. If we would not believe this, we would live in such a chaotic world with isms as many as the great historical population of the world.

The dictatorship of the proletariat was advised by the founder of Marxism long before the experience of Chile, Iran, Congo, etc.
Before, during and after the fall of Paris’ Commune in 1871 Marx studied and analysed the causes of the Commune’s defeat in the book of The Civil War in France: the Commune of Paris and also in the 18th Brumaire Louis Bonaparte.
He concluded that the Bourgeoise’s state machine cannot be left untouched. But rather should be totally broken up. On the contrary Proletariat’s dictatorship state to be established. The state which should be settled in the passing period of Socialism till reaching to Communism. So the dictatorship of the proletariat is a marxistic idea and nothing else.

In the everyday activities of life, everyone’s personality reflects on their function, so did Stalin’s. On the other hand, the hard conditions and pressure brought about by all the capitalist governments of the time is totally neglected.

Over all this a newly born marxistic state with no help from outside and immense of problems inside is also usually unseen.

Lenin’s letter to the Politbureau (Selected Works) severly advises to avoid electing Stalin for leadership of the USSR (for his selfishness). The same is said for Trotzki (for his instability). Furthermore comes the state to be ruled consultatively. Then why and under what sort of conditions was Stalin elected? And this absolutely proved advise of Lenin in the process of time, was unseen?

Was it not because of that great destructive pressure of the capitalist states from all sides, with no support for this newly born state of the working class for the first time in history.

Was it the need of having a hard man to be chosen, to construct a dike to overcome all the destructive waves?

The birth of a dictator but was nothing new. History is full of dictators, but this one was supposed to support the working class’ benefits. Many books have been written about the dictatorship of Stalin, but unfortunately with a less analytic vision on the capitalists pressure of that time. Their combined destructive activities are always under shadow and ignored.

Anyhow, perhaps if it was not for the existence of this hard dictatorship and resistance opposite the Nationalsocialist forces, we could now be living in a thoroughly ruined world. The world ruled by the Nazis. The world with no oil problem! Fuming chimneys with enough human resources from different Non-Aryan races to be used as consume! Or enough Communists to be used instead of animals in the Nazi scientist Pathlabs. E.g. Bolshevik head reduced in size and a lampshade of human skin in Berlin Anti-war-museum from Nazi pathlabs, seen in 1979.

As the term Stalinist has been used by the proved traitor Gorbatchew the present users unaware of the incident, are acting as conspirators. More openly as imperialist’s wage-earners.

The term “classical Marxist” instead of “Stalinist” is a correct term in expressing the idea about the believers of the dictatorship of Proletariat.

If some so-called Communists do not dare to refuse Marx’s ideas and need some false isms in between, like Stalinism, to hang for refusal, should be aware they cannot decieve world’s Communist society. Marx’s ideas cannot be refered to Stalin and then be refused as Stalin’s ideas.

Anyhow, in the former USSR there was only one active party “The Communist Party”. But in European countries there had been Social Democratic Parties active for such long time.

* Why were the Communist leaders and Central Committees of some Communist parties trying to deform their parties, with reducing them to the level of a second weak Social Democratic Party. That is the question?

* Why did the members, who believed the Social Democracy, not change their parties and become active as Social Democrats?

* Why were they acting as Communists and occupying the seats in parties and making the environment so intolerable, that classical Marxists had to leave the parties?

* Why did they ruin their parties from strong parties to weak liberalized parties?

* Why did they think everything coming from the Kremlin was correct?

* Why did they not critisize and stop Gorbatchew? (in fact he was the follower of Chrustshow and Breshnew)?

After all, Marx was a German philosopher, wasn’t he? We are all responsible for all these misery in the world. So let us stop it. Unite and rebuild what has been ruined.