- b2SqoVNs8bsDElIhiYO7Sj4Pf6GdsoImLpdc0YWgQ_cpn4QOJUAYGg53ax-s_ORM1L9KgEk9riyHk5CLQ0-VO1p1soU2XPHyQ0cWZJyu3h8qeieZ7YaKu-orzAhFAJ8CgQ98TixFXUMOEjJC-T1RSY1mmyVQ8OY1Eyo0M2MK0M4X-Hdg0lzd86cO4lmsozeO5-uLYTm2Kt_G62zMYYibZrFLnLosmZ0Ps-YKIhXRFNG18utRjOAmUSNGc.webp (65.63 KiB) Viewed 273 times
- 288253@2x.jpg (775.83 KiB) Viewed 273 times
- -9WnENeLfWw2naFgzsQcwrqzZKZBnkE88J8UcX4Rcp3JAb7Zjeabx-IgyJe7qK1ruum7pFS-0FIJwmUAxG9H33AU.jpg (111.31 KiB) Viewed 273 times
On December 18th 1878 Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (born Dzhugashvili) was born.
Comrade Stalin played a pivotal role in forming the Bolshevik party with Lenin. His contributions to the party on Marxism and the National Question were of historic significance. Stalin's writing style is beautiful. His ability to explain complex ideas into easily digestible and clear style is familiar to all Marxists that take seriously the study of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.
In the 1920s Stalin was able to correctly assert the position that Socialism can be built in one country against an opposition of Trotskyite rats that insisted it could not. The Trotskyites did not read Lenin, as they still refuse to today.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ ... aug/23.htmUneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.
Having destroyed the Trotskyites openly in the Communist Party and publics debates in the 1920s the Trot-rats moved into terrorism/sabotage and subterfuge. In the 1930s Stalin renewed the revolution in the countryside in collectivisation and the move to large scale mechanised agriculture.
There were many in the party that wanted to slacken the pace and go at a slower pace.
In February of 1931 Stalin made presicent point that the Communists could not slacken the pace. Predicting the Nazi invasion to the year he stated:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /02/04.htmIt is sometimes asked whether it is not possible to slow down the tempo somewhat, to put a check on the movement. No, comrades, it is not possible! The tempo must not be reduced! On the contrary, we must increase it as much as is within our powers and possibilities. This is dictated to us by our obligations to the workers and peasants of the U.S.S.R. This is dictated to us by our obligations to the working class of the whole world.
To slacken the tempo would mean falling behind. And those who fall behind get beaten. But we do not want to be beaten. No, we refuse to be beaten! One feature of the history of old Russia was the continual beatings she suffered because of her backwardness. She was beaten by the Mongol khans. She was beaten by the Turkish beys. She was beaten by the Swedish feudal lords. She was beaten by the Polish and Lithuanian gentry. She was beaten by the British and French capitalists. She was beaten by the Japanese barons. All beat her — because of her backwardness, because of her military backwardness, cultural backwardness, political backwardness, industrial backwardness, agricultural backwardness. They beat her because it was profitable and could be done with impunity. You remember the words of the pre-revolutionary poet: "You are poor and abundant, mighty and impotent, Mother Russia." 4 Those gentlemen were quite familiar with the verses of the old poet. They beat her, saying: "You are abundant," so one can enrich oneself at your expense. They beat her, saying: "You are poor and impotent," so you can be beaten and plundered with impunity. Such is the law of the exploiters — to beat the backward and the weak. It is the jungle law of capitalism. You are backward, you are weak — therefore you are wrong; hence you can be beaten and enslaved. You are mighty — therefore you are right; hence we must be wary of you.
That is why we must no longer lag behind.
In the past we had no fatherland, nor could we have had one. But now that we have overthrown capitalism and power is in our hands, in the hands of the people, we have a fatherland, and we will uphold its independence. Do you want our socialist fatherland to be beaten and to lose its independence? If you do not want this, you must put an end to its backwardness in the shortest possible time and develop a genuine Bolshevik tempo in building up its socialist economy. There is no other way. That is why Lenin said on the eve of the October Revolution: "Either perish, or overtake and outstrip the advanced capitalist countries."
We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries.That is what our obligations to the workers and peasants of the U.S.S.R. dictate to us.We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall go under.
The 1930s were a period of clearing out the traitors in Soviet society in preparation for war. The Soviet Union under Stalin pursued a consistent pattern of attempting to build a block of anti-aggressors. The Soviets approaches to the British and French were repeatedly rebuffed - they understood that under an "anti-aggressor" they were liable for their colonies so the British and French would flirt with the Soviets then make pacts with the Nazis and Italian Fascists.
The British Empire had brought into power both the Italian Fascists and Nazis.
Lord Hamilton referred to the Nazis as a "Bulwark against communism in the east".
The American companies JP Morgan and the head of the Bank of England organised the 1933 crash deliberately in an attempt to expand capital markets into central Europe. They refused to lend credit to the German government until it collapsed and the Nazis took over. Once the nazi's were in power the American and British banks opened credit up to the Nazis which stabilised their governments and counted for the "economic miracle" under Hitler.
Contrary to fake history by whores of the bourgeoisie, the Soviets were the last country on earth to sign a pact with the nazis and they did so very skillfully.
After almost a full decade of the Western bourgeois nations signing all of the following pacts with Nazi Germany, ending in the betrayal of Czechoslovakia at Munich in 1938, Stalin stated to the Communist Party how the Western bourgeois nations were trying to start wars on the continent
andThe tasks of the Party in the sphere of foreign policy are :
1. To continue the policy of peace and of strengthening business relations with all countries;
2. To be cautious and not allow our country to be drawn into conflicts by warmongers who are accustomed to have others pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them;
3. To strengthen the might of our Red Army and Red Navy to the utmost;
4. To strengthen the international bonds of friendship with the working people of all countries, who are interested in peace and friendship among nations.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /03/10.htmIt is not so easy in our day to suddenly break loose and plunge straight into war without regard for treaties of any kind or for public opinion. Bourgeois politicians know this very well. So do the fascist rulers. That is why the fascist rulers decided, before plunging into war, to frame public opinion to suit their ends, that is, to mislead it, to deceive it.
A military bloc of Germany and Italy against the interests of England and France in Europe? Bless us, do you call that a bloc? "We" have no military bloc.
All "we" have is an innocuous "Berlin-Rome axis"; that is, just a geometrical equation for an axis. (Laughter.)
A military bloc of Germany, Italy and Japan against the interests of the United States, Great Britain and France in the Far East? Nothing of the kind.
"We" have no military bloc. All "we" have is an innocuous "Berlin-Rome-Tokyo triangle"; that is, a slight penchant for geometry. (General laughter.)
A war against the interests of England, France, the United States? Nonsense! "We" are waging war on the Comintern, not on these states. If you don't believe it, read the "anti-Comintern pact" concluded between Italy, Germany and Japan.
That is how Messieurs the aggressors thought of framing public opinion, although it was not hard to see how preposterous this whole clumsy game of camouflage was; for it is ridiculous to look for Comintern "hotbeds" in the deserts of Mongolia, in the mountains of Abyssinia, or in the wilds of Spanish Morocco. (Laughter.)
But war is inexorable. It cannot be hidden under any guise. For no "axes," "triangles" or "anti-Comintern pacts" can hide the fact that in this period Japan has seized a vast stretch of territory in China, that Italy has seized Abyssinia, that Germany has seized Austria and the Sudeten region, that Germany and Italy together have seized Spain - and all this in defiance of the interests of the non-aggressive states.
The war remains a war; the military bloc of aggressors remains a military bloc; and the aggressors remain aggressors.
It is a distinguishing feature of the new imperialist war that it has not yet become universal, a world war. The war is being waged by aggressor states, who in every way infringe upon the interests of the non-aggressive states, primarily England, France and the U.S.A., while the latter draw back and retreat, making concession after concession to the aggressors.
Thus we are witnessing an open redivision of the world and spheres of influence at the expense of the non-aggressive states, without the least attempt at resistance, and even with a certain amount of connivance, on the part of the latter.
Incredible, but true.
To what are we to attribute this one-sided and strange character of the new imperialist war?
How is it that the non-aggressive countries, which possess such vast opportunities, have so easily, and without any resistance, abandoned their positions and their obligations to please the aggressors?
Is it to be attributed to the weakness of the nonaggressive states? Of course not. Combined, the nonaggressive, democratic states are unquestionably stronger than the fascist states, both economically and in the military sense.
To what then are we to attribute the systematic concessions made by these states to the aggressors?
It might be attributed, for example, to the fear that a revolution might break out if the non-aggressive states were to go to war and the war were to assume world - wide proportions. The bourgeois politicians know, of course, that the first imperialist world war led to the victory of the revolution in one of the largest countries. They are afraid that the second imperialist world war may also lead to the victory of the revolution in one or several countries.
But at present this is not the sole or even the chief reason. The chief reason is that the majority of the non-aggressive countries, particularly England and France, have rejected the policy of collective security, the policy of collective resistance to the aggressors, and have taken up a position of nonintervention, a position of "neutrality."
Formally speaking, the policy of non-intervention might be defined as follows: "Let each country defend itself from the aggressors as it likes and as best it can. That is not our affair. We shall trade both with the aggressors and with their victims." But actually speaking, the policy of non-intervention means conniving at aggression, giving free rein to war, and, consequently, transforming the war into a world war. The policy of non-intervention reveals an eagerness, a desire, not to hinder the aggressors in their nefarious work : not to hinder Japan, say, from embroiling herself in a war with China, or, better still, with the Soviet Union : to allow all the belligerents to sink deeply into the mire of war, to encourage them surreptitiously in this, to allow them to weaken and exhaust one another; and then, when they have become weak enough, to appear on the scene with fresh strength, to appear, of course, "in the interests of peace," and to dictate conditions to the enfeebled belligerents.
Cheap and easy!
Take Japan, for instance. It is characteristic that before Japan invaded North China all the influential French and British newspapers shouted about China's weakness and her inability to offer resistance, and declared that Japan with her army could subjugate China in two or three months. Then the European and American politicians began to watch and wait. And then, when Japan started military operations, they let her have Shanghai, the vital centre of foreign capital in China; they let her have Canton, a centre of Britain's monopoly influence in South China; they let her have Hainan, and they allowed her to surround Hongkong. Does not this look very much like encouraging the aggressor? It is as though they were saying :
"Embroil yourself deeper in war; then we shall see."
And finally ending with
ibidFar be it from me to moralize on the policy of non-intervention, to talk of treason, treachery and so on. It would be naive to preach morals to people who recognize no human morality. Politics is politics, as the old, case-hardened bourgeois diplomats say.
It must be remarked, however, that the big and dangerous political game started by the supporters of the policy of non-intervention may end in a serious fiasco for them.
Such is the true face of the prevailing policy of non-intervention
The 1940s were a period of fighting off the Nazi hordes whilst Western countries prevaricated and prolonged the World War for as long as possible. Toward the end of World War 2 Winston Churchill, the treacherous rat-British imperialist class, wrote Operation Unthinkable in which he planned to rearm the Werhmacht and invade the Soviet Union whilst atom bombing Soviet Cities. Churchill was so despised that even though Britain formally won the Second the world war (by standing on the sidelines for as long as possible) that he was immediately voted out of office when Britain had resumed the election process (which was suspended for dictatorship under World War).
With Europe destroyed the Soviets set about rebuilding. Stalin would make another epic appearance in the Korean war. Whilst General MacArthur wanted to nuclear bomb China and Korea Stalin bluffed about Soviet nuclear capability declaring he had hundreds when in reality Soviets only had 4. Sending much help to the Koreans during the war Korea was free from US dictatorship.
By the late 1940s a clique of revisionists had already formed inside the Soviet Union pushing revisionist economic policies.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bland/ ... ndix-3.htm
Stalins counter-attack to this was Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, a masterclass in Socialist economics.
In 1953 Comrade Stalin died. Likely murdered by the Kruschevites.
Stalni's legacy was phenomenal and by the time of his death the world map of socialism looked like this.
