OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 28, 2014, 11:29:08 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Trotsky's objection and non-Czarist Russia: My questions  (Read 8515 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #45 on: March 16, 2013, 06:39:42 PM »

As a moderator I ask you to adress hierarchs with their proper titles.  Ignoring this request will result in official warning.
Sorry about that.  Will do.

I noted your fix to an earlier post and bore that in mind when discussing Arbishop Khrapovitsky.  I think you will note above that I did include attempt an abbreviation of Archimnadrite David's title.  I had so much to say about Patriarch Tikhon, I forgot and slacked on form.  No disrespect intended. My mistake.

EDIT:
When I saw the initial fix, I thought what a nice forum that has that. 
One does not encounter that sophistication of manners often enough these days.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2013, 06:43:45 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #46 on: March 19, 2013, 03:51:35 PM »

In hindsight (for me as a former Trotskist) his central error is the one you pointed out, his Atheism. This blinded him and led him into all kinds errors simply because Atheism is untrue.
Speaking of atheism, check this out:

'New Myth, New World:  From Nietzsche to Stalinism'
By Bernice Rosenthal

http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-02218-3.html

Bernice Rosenthal views Stalinist culture as Nietzschean which is the specific form of nineteenth century occultism adopted by the Soviet Union.
I have a history of occultism in nineteenth century Russia by this author.

'The Occult in Russian and Soviet Culture'
By Bernice Rosenthal

http://www.amazon.com/Occult-Russian-Soviet-Culture/dp/080148331X

EDIT:
'No Religion Higher than Truth' by Maria Carlson deserves mention because in this context because it is seemingly the only history of Russian theosophy and occultism in english which views this phenomenon negatively.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2013, 03:56:12 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #47 on: March 19, 2013, 04:20:34 PM »

Troktsky's analysis of the Russian Revolution and how it went wrong is the best there is. His book is called "Revolution Betrayed"

I have always believed in hearing both sides of a controversy, and I wonder if you are familiar with Nikolai Sukhanov's 'Russian Revolution 1917' which I had mentioned.

I actually received 'Stalin: an Appraisal od the Man and His Life' by Leon Trotsky in the mail yesterday, and I perceive it to be a better book than 'The Stalinist School of Falsification which I ealier mentioned for two reasons.  Trotsky's "Stalin School of Falsification" is a hodge podge compilation that is tedious read (like most of Trotsky's books).  Books on the same subjects by Isaac Deutscher and Victor Serge are make much nicer reads than Trotsky's sarcastic style. 

Be that as it may, Trotsky's biography of Stalin written in the late 1930's is better than the other books I have by him (though I imagine other books by him from the 1930's are comparable quality).  In particular, half of this biography has information about Stalin before the revolution.  Many sources indicate that Stalin was a Tsarist agent working undercover for the Okhrana secret service just like Malinovsky had been - that Stalin was never really communist at heart at all.  I have a well researched book by Roman Brackman that convincingly makes the case that Stalin was a (Tsarist) Okhrana agent working undercover to control the Bolsheviks from within.  To the extent that is the case, then the Okhrana through Stalin was unfortunately the most significant element of Tsarist Russia to survive the Russian revolution intact - the red tsar. 

'The Secret File of Joseph Stalin'
By Roman Brackman
 
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-File-Joseph-Stalin-Hidden/dp/0714684023/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363724600&sr=1-1&keywords=Roman+Brackman 

In spite of administrative and name changes, the same can be said for the KGB which survived the Soviet breakup intact and reemerged as the rulling class with Putin's accession in 2000 in the form of the FSB. 
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #48 on: March 19, 2013, 04:27:25 PM »

Many sources indicate that Stalin was a Tsarist agent working undercover for the Okhrana secret service just like Malinovsky had been - that Stalin was never really communist at heart at all.  I have a well researched book by Roman Brackman that convincingly makes the case that Stalin was a (Tsarist) Okhrana agent working undercover to control the Bolsheviks from within.  To the extent that is the case, then the Okhrana through Stalin was unfortunately the most significant element of Tsarist Russia to survive the Russian revolution intact - the red tsar.  

'The Secret File of Joseph Stalin'
By Roman Brackman
 
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-File-Joseph-Stalin-Hidden/dp/0714684023/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363724600&sr=1-1&keywords=Roman+Brackman  

In spite of administrative and name changes, the same can be said for the KGB which survived the Soviet breakup intact and reemerged as the rulling class with Putin's accession in 2000 in the form of the FSB.

'State Capitalism in Russia' by Tony Cliff (no de plume used by Trotskyite writer Ygal Gluckstein) takes Trotsky's anti-Stalinism to a more logical and consistent conclusion making the case of Stalinist Russia as a capitalist, expansionist colonizing empire - completely right-wing.  

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/index.htm

I find this analysis both accurate and corroborative of the view that Stalin was an Okhrana agent in the service of the tsar since the Stalinist empire described by Tony Cliff is a modern form of the old elitist and exploitative tsarist empire of Peter I and his successors.    
« Last Edit: March 19, 2013, 04:34:10 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #49 on: March 19, 2013, 07:20:53 PM »

Antony Sutton's research demonstrating western financial support for Trotsky and the Soviet monstrosity he created demonstrate that he was a pawn of the west being used to destroy a good work in progress that.   Both Wall Street and the German High Command (who sent Lenin to Russia) were in on the destruction of Russian society.

'Wall Street & the Bolshevik Revolution'
By Antony Sutton

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution

Financial support of Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin is comparable to the way that the west has financed Wahhabis like the Taliban, al Qaida, and the Saudi dynasty to the detriment of more benevolent forms of Islam such as Sufism.   I only mention Sufism here deliberately avoiding mention of political Islam to avoid heated political discussion.

In my opinion, Wahhabism is to Islam what protestant fundamentalism is to Orthodoxy.  The Suni religionism has the most colonial legacy within Islam analogous to the crusades and colonialism which sprang from the Frankist papal system.  

Shiism is analogous to Orthodoxy and strongest in places like Iran which have the highest concetration of Sufism which is the part of Islam most influenced by the Eastern Orthodox Church.  The Zikr prayer of the Naqsibandis comes particulary close to imitating the Jesus Prayer.  The Sufi Tariqas are modeled on Eastern Christian brotherhoods, and the better Islamic histories themselves state that the history of Sufism is more ancient than Mohammed himself.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2013, 07:22:21 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,629


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #50 on: March 19, 2013, 10:22:15 PM »

Troktsky's analysis of the Russian Revolution and how it went wrong is the best there is. His book is called "Revolution Betrayed"

I have always believed in hearing both sides of a controversy, and I wonder if you are familiar with Nikolai Sukhanov's 'Russian Revolution 1917' which I had mentioned.

I actually received 'Stalin: an Appraisal od the Man and His Life' by Leon Trotsky in the mail yesterday, and I perceive it to be a better book than 'The Stalinist School of Falsification which I ealier mentioned for two reasons.  Trotsky's "Stalin School of Falsification" is a hodge podge compilation that is tedious read (like most of Trotsky's books).  Books on the same subjects by Isaac Deutscher and Victor Serge are make much nicer reads than Trotsky's sarcastic style. 

Be that as it may, Trotsky's biography of Stalin written in the late 1930's is better than the other books I have by him (though I imagine other books by him from the 1930's are comparable quality).  In particular, half of this biography has information about Stalin before the revolution.  Many sources indicate that Stalin was a Tsarist agent working undercover for the Okhrana secret service just like Malinovsky had been - that Stalin was never really communist at heart at all.  I have a well researched book by Roman Brackman that convincingly makes the case that Stalin was a (Tsarist) Okhrana agent working undercover to control the Bolsheviks from within.  To the extent that is the case, then the Okhrana through Stalin was unfortunately the most significant element of Tsarist Russia to survive the Russian revolution intact - the red tsar. 

'The Secret File of Joseph Stalin'
By Roman Brackman
 
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-File-Joseph-Stalin-Hidden/dp/0714684023/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363724600&sr=1-1&keywords=Roman+Brackman 

In spite of administrative and name changes, the same can be said for the KGB which survived the Soviet breakup intact and reemerged as the rulling class with Putin's accession in 2000 in the form of the FSB. 

Very interesting... Go to youtube and search on "Stalin Society" which is a British CP outfit that posts various apologies for Stalin. Pretty good stuff actually.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,629


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #51 on: March 19, 2013, 10:31:06 PM »

Many sources indicate that Stalin was a Tsarist agent working undercover for the Okhrana secret service just like Malinovsky had been - that Stalin was never really communist at heart at all.  I have a well researched book by Roman Brackman that convincingly makes the case that Stalin was a (Tsarist) Okhrana agent working undercover to control the Bolsheviks from within.  To the extent that is the case, then the Okhrana through Stalin was unfortunately the most significant element of Tsarist Russia to survive the Russian revolution intact - the red tsar.  

'The Secret File of Joseph Stalin'
By Roman Brackman
 
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-File-Joseph-Stalin-Hidden/dp/0714684023/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363724600&sr=1-1&keywords=Roman+Brackman  

In spite of administrative and name changes, the same can be said for the KGB which survived the Soviet breakup intact and reemerged as the rulling class with Putin's accession in 2000 in the form of the FSB.

'State Capitalism in Russia' by Tony Cliff (no de plume used by Trotskyite writer Ygal Gluckstein) takes Trotsky's anti-Stalinism to a more logical and consistent conclusion making the case of Stalinist Russia as a capitalist, expansionist colonizing empire - completely right-wing.  

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/index.htm

I find this analysis both accurate and corroborative of the view that Stalin was an Okhrana agent in the service of the tsar since the Stalinist empire described by Tony Cliff is a modern form of the old elitist and exploitative tsarist empire of Peter I and his successors.    

There was a hot debate within the Trot World between proponents of the "State Capitalism" analysis and those who kept to Troksky's "Deformed Workers State" idea.  I may get the bends trying to remember the details but the "Deformed Workers State" side won the day.

I think the central idea is that the Capitalist Class was fully destroyed and replaced. The Bureaucrats who then ran the economy do not constitute a "Class" but are a different animal. They are better characterized as a "Caste" (of bureaucrats) and not a "Class" that could pass down any sort of ownership to their heirs......... No Capitalist Class = No Capitalism   
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #52 on: March 19, 2013, 11:46:40 PM »

There was a hot debate within the Trot World between proponents of the "State Capitalism" analysis and those who kept to Troksky's "Deformed Workers State" idea.

Appreciate the posts.

I am personally inclined more towards Tony Cliff since extreme positions like his give a clear perspective of the whole which is obscured to some on the left whose loyalty to leftism or secularism has prevented them from acknowledging truths which happen to be popular with the political right.  The Menshevik David Dallin wrote some of the most informative books about Russia during the early cold war which were very critical of Stalin - and he was a leftist!  However, his books became unpopular with the 1960's american left who insensitively ignored his informative books because he was seen as weak as having only been a Menshevik and not a Bolshevik.  Although Dallin wrote a book about Soviet slave labor in the 1940's, america forgot about this by the 1960's and was surprised when the right-wing Solzhenitsyn "exposed" it in the 1970's and 1980's. 

Two indications of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's character (among other factors) is that he criticized americans who opposed the Vietnam war, and he had been a snitch in the prison camp back in Russia - an embarrasing fact which he omitted to mention in the Gulag Archipelago.
Solzhenitsyn was a Snitch in the Prison Camp
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2003/06/02/1385.shtml

Tony Cliff's Trotskyite critics make valid points about details of the "trees" even though I think he provides a better overall vision of the "forest" (i.e. the Stalinist system).  Iron sharpens iron, and a Marxist point of view perhaps more completely opposite to Tony Cliff is that of Sam Marcy who began as a Trotskyite in the 1950's and wrote dynamic analyses of Russia and China during the cold war. 

Several pro-Maoist writers maintain that China became capitalist after Mao's death with the ascension of Deng Xiaopeng in the late 1970's and is today quite capitalist, but Sam Marcy's history of the 1971 Lin Biao incident is the best analysis that I have seen of the origin of China's descent towards capitalism and yet Sam Marcy would maintain that China is still essentially Marxist today - although it has acquired many capitalist characteristics. 

The British scholar Peter Reddaway is perhaps the best non-Marxist Soviet analyst still around from the cold war since he wrote the books exposing Soviet Psychiatric abuse in the 1970's (among other things), and I thought his book on Yeltsin was the best book on the breakup of the Soviet Union until I came across 'Perestroika' by Sam Marcy which came to similar conclusions on key points from an old school communist perspective.  Sam Marcy's books are real gems. 
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,629


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #53 on: March 20, 2013, 11:26:37 AM »

There was a hot debate within the Trot World between proponents of the "State Capitalism" analysis and those who kept to Troksky's "Deformed Workers State" idea.

Appreciate the posts.

I am personally inclined more towards Tony Cliff since extreme positions like his give a clear perspective of the whole which is obscured to some on the left whose loyalty to leftism or secularism has prevented them from acknowledging truths which happen to be popular with the political right.  The Menshevik David Dallin wrote some of the most informative books about Russia during the early cold war which were very critical of Stalin - and he was a leftist!  However, his books became unpopular with the 1960's american left who insensitively ignored his informative books because he was seen as weak as having only been a Menshevik and not a Bolshevik.  Although Dallin wrote a book about Soviet slave labor in the 1940's, america forgot about this by the 1960's and was surprised when the right-wing Solzhenitsyn "exposed" it in the 1970's and 1980's.  

Two indications of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's character (among other factors) is that he criticized americans who opposed the Vietnam war, and he had been a snitch in the prison camp back in Russia - an embarrasing fact which he omitted to mention in the Gulag Archipelago.
Solzhenitsyn was a Snitch in the Prison Camp
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2003/06/02/1385.shtml

Tony Cliff's Trotskyite critics make valid points about details of the "trees" even though I think he provides a better overall vision of the "forest" (i.e. the Stalinist system).  Iron sharpens iron, and a Marxist point of view perhaps more completely opposite to Tony Cliff is that of Sam Marcy who began as a Trotskyite in the 1950's and wrote dynamic analyses of Russia and China during the cold war.  

Several pro-Maoist writers maintain that China became capitalist after Mao's death with the ascension of Deng Xiaopeng in the late 1970's and is today quite capitalist, but Sam Marcy's history of the 1971 Lin Biao incident is the best analysis that I have seen of the origin of China's descent towards capitalism and yet Sam Marcy would maintain that China is still essentially Marxist today - although it has acquired many capitalist characteristics.  

The British scholar Peter Reddaway is perhaps the best non-Marxist Soviet analyst still around from the cold war since he wrote the books exposing Soviet Psychiatric abuse in the 1970's (among other things), and I thought his book on Yeltsin was the best book on the breakup of the Soviet Union until I came across 'Perestroika' by Sam Marcy which came to similar conclusions on key points from an old school communist perspective.  Sam Marcy's books are real gems.  

I have known many Marcy-ites. He founded the Workers World Party (and YAWF "youth against war and fascism"). They were very active in my neck of the woods.

The problem is that they are Stalinists for all practical purposes. They disdain the CP for all the usual reasons and  are more militant, but they apologized for every two bit dictator in Eastern Europe. Especially bad was their coziness with North Korea. I knew some WWP folks who went there on an official Party to Party thingy. I personally found it quite distasteful.

From where I sit if you beleive North Korea is a fine example of Socialism, then something is a miss.  Smiley

 
« Last Edit: March 20, 2013, 11:27:39 AM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,860



« Reply #54 on: March 20, 2013, 12:04:25 PM »

Two indications of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's character (among other factors) is that he criticized americans who opposed the Vietnam war, and he had been a snitch in the prison camp back in Russia - an embarrasing fact which he omitted to mention in the Gulag Archipelago.

Maybe he just liked to describe what other people were doing. Isn't that what he was famous for?
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #55 on: March 21, 2013, 08:54:43 AM »

Two indications of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's character (among other factors) is that he criticized americans who opposed the Vietnam war, and he had been a snitch in the prison camp back in Russia - an embarrasing fact which he omitted to mention in the Gulag Archipelago.

Maybe he just liked to describe what other people were doing. Isn't that what he was famous for?
The article I linked says that some of Solzhenitsyn's fellow prisoners were once planning a revolt and/or escape, and he secretly turned in their names along with minte details of the planned revolt.  They were executed based upon the information which he submitted.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #56 on: March 21, 2013, 09:22:43 AM »

I have known many Marcy-ites. He founded the Workers World Party (and YAWF "youth against war and fascism"). They were very active in my neck of the woods.

The problem is that they are Stalinists for all practical purposes. They disdain the CP for all the usual reasons and  are more militant, but they apologized for every two bit dictator in Eastern Europe.
I rather agree. 

It seems that the theoretical foreign policy of these regimes contrasts most sharply with their harsh domestic reality. 
If we scratch the surface of the Soviet Union's foreign policy, it was perhaps designed rather to undermine freedom movements.  That certainly seemed to be the effect which the Comintern's (ie. Stalin's) directive had on Chinese revolutionaries in the 1930's.  He advised them to confront Chiang kai Shek's Nationalist Army in a traditional manner on the open battlefield, and they were consequently slaughtered forcing them into the retreat known as the long march losing the strongholds they had established in the process.  Mao had always advocated guerilla war based on the reality of their position, and was correct being elected leader during the long march because he had advocated this strategy.

Soviet defector Mitrokhin concluded that the Soviet purpose in befriending the third world was to undermine it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-World-Was-Going-Our/dp/B0017HSXXQ

Cuban writer Piero Gleijeses wrote a cold war history of Cuba and west African countries from Morroco and Algeria in the 1950's to South Africa and Angola.  He says that the relationship of Cuba with the Soviet Union was consistently acrimonious.  Cuba was always the activist and the Soviet Union was always a hindrance.  The notion that Cuba was a pawn of the Soviet Union is american propagnda.
http://www.amazon.com/Conflicting-Missions-Havana-Washington-1959-1976/dp/0807854646/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363872127&sr=1-2-fkmr1&keywords=washington+havana+connection

The United States seems roughly the inverse of the Soviet Union in that it has a comparatively benign domestic policy with a fascist or imperialist foreign policy.
Logged
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,885


« Reply #57 on: March 21, 2013, 09:48:50 AM »

Let me see Solzhenytsin was a snitch based on info from the Chechnya Islamic insurgent site (Kavkaz)?, Patriarch Tikhon is a heretic?, Shiites seem to be cool.... is this the typical info we get from the mindset of the alleged holy synods of resistance or is this some sort of psyop?
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #58 on: March 21, 2013, 09:54:53 AM »

Let me see Solzhenytsin was a snitch based on info from the Chechnya Islamic insurgent site (Kavkaz)?, Patriarch Tikhon is a heretic?, Shiites seem to be cool.... is this the typical info we get from the mindset of the alleged holy synods of resistance or is this some sort of psyop?

I have encountered that same information about Solzhenitsyn from other sources as well.
However, I do think that Kavkazcenter.com is one of the best sources of critical information on Russia to be found on the internet.
Also, I did not say that Tikhon himself was a heretic.

This conversation has nothing to do with holy synods of any variety.  
As per the forum category's title, this is a non-religious subject having to do specifically with a prominent opponent of non-Tsarist Russia.

The moderators have warned against political discussion probably for a good reason.
In the interests of avoiding political discussion, I will try to avoid getting into the fairly recent Russian Chechnyan wars since recent issues like that are more closely connected to heated political discussion. 

I think it is good for us to respect each other's God given freedom of will and the religious and political choices that others make that free will even if we happen to disagree.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 10:06:05 AM by Dionysii » Logged
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,885


« Reply #59 on: March 21, 2013, 10:10:19 AM »

This conversation has nothing to do with holy synods of any variety.  
As per the forum category's title, this is a non-religious subject having to do specifically with a prominent opponent of non-Tsarist Russia.

^^^
(Quote functoin is not working properly for me)

You are correct on this most valid point & I must apologize about that in the spirit of the thread. Whatever suspicions I may have otherwise, I do not want to be argumentative & I will bow out of this thread.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 10:13:57 AM by recent convert » Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #60 on: March 21, 2013, 10:13:40 AM »

Let me see ... Shiites seem to be cool.... is this some sort of psyop?

For what it's worth, Saint Methodios of Patara and Saint Kosmas of Aetolia have prophecied that the time of Ishmaelite power will end with their division into three parts.  One third will die.  Another third will convert to the Orthodox Church, and a final third will flee to the land of burnt face. 

iF one bothers to read the details of what I wrote about Shiites, I said that I reckon that the prevalence among them of Sufis might be a good thing since Sufism is perhaps more heavily influenced by the Orthodox Church than any other aspect of Islam.

Is your analysis of Islam and attitude towards muslim people guided by a Christian motive or something political?
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,629


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #61 on: March 21, 2013, 10:20:10 AM »

I have known many Marcy-ites. He founded the Workers World Party (and YAWF "youth against war and fascism"). They were very active in my neck of the woods.

The problem is that they are Stalinists for all practical purposes. They disdain the CP for all the usual reasons and  are more militant, but they apologized for every two bit dictator in Eastern Europe.
I rather agree. 

It seems that the theoretical foreign policy of these regimes contrasts most sharply with their harsh domestic reality. 
If we scratch the surface of the Soviet Union's foreign policy, it was perhaps designed rather to undermine freedom movements.  That certainly seemed to be the effect which the Comintern's (ie. Stalin's) directive had on Chinese revolutionaries in the 1930's.  He advised them to confront Chiang kai Shek's Nationalist Army in a traditional manner on the open battlefield, and they were consequently slaughtered forcing them into the retreat known as the long march losing the strongholds they had established in the process.  Mao had always advocated guerilla war based on the reality of their position, and was correct being elected leader during the long march because he had advocated this strategy.

Soviet defector Mitrokhin concluded that the Soviet purpose in befriending the third world was to undermine it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-World-Was-Going-Our/dp/B0017HSXXQ

Cuban writer Piero Gleijeses wrote a cold war history of Cuba and west African countries from Morroco and Algeria in the 1950's to South Africa and Angola.  He says that the relationship of Cuba with the Soviet Union was consistently acrimonious.  Cuba was always the activist and the Soviet Union was always a hindrance.  The notion that Cuba was a pawn of the Soviet Union is american propagnda.
http://www.amazon.com/Conflicting-Missions-Havana-Washington-1959-1976/dp/0807854646/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363872127&sr=1-2-fkmr1&keywords=washington+havana+connection

The United States seems roughly the inverse of the Soviet Union in that it has a comparatively benign domestic policy with a fascist or imperialist foreign policy.

The US domestic policy is only benign if you are not an opponent of some important War or seek a big social change like civil rights or are a Socialist. If that is the case then you will have extra legal measures taken against you which in the past have been pretty aggressive. 
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,885


« Reply #62 on: March 21, 2013, 10:24:38 AM »

Since I must respond to this quote (in # 60)

, your analysis of Islam and attitude towards muslim people guided by a Christian motive or something political?

My negative opinion of this religion is the same negative opinion I have towards a political ideology (also a religion) like communism. It is not directed towards the individuals within them (who are its adherents willingly or unwillingly. I believe in the mercy of God in knowing the heart of any individual no matter what belief system that individual belongs although the Christian has the greater advantage having the truth ( & probably more accountable) but not in personal disposition.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 10:28:31 AM by recent convert » Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #63 on: March 21, 2013, 10:31:19 AM »

Whatever suspicions I may have otherwise, I do not want to be argumentative
Peace be with you, brother.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #64 on: March 21, 2013, 10:33:06 AM »

The US domestic policy is only benign if you are not an opponent of some important War or seek a big social change like civil rights or are a Socialist. If that is the case then you will have extra legal measures taken against you which in the past have been pretty aggressive.

You are spot on. 
I was making a generalization compared with the overall domestic experience that Russia had with the Soviet Union.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #65 on: June 28, 2013, 09:31:29 PM »

the Romanovs have been canonized
Tsar Nicholas II and many in his family were canonized, but the whole of the Romanov Dynasty?  That's a bit of a stretch.
As per the instruction of Saint Paul to test the spirits to see whether they be of God, I myself would question anything that canonized Nicholas II.
I just picked up two books about late Romanov century Russia.

First, journalist Harrison Salisbury's 'Black Nights, White Snow'.  Classic. 
It takes Russian history from circa 1850 to 1920, but it mainly focuses on the period from 1905 to 1920 by concentrating on Nicholas II and Lenin.  This book is critical of both of them.  It is almost unmitigated against Nicholas II.  For anyone wanting an antidote to ROCOR propaganda about Nicholas II, this is your book. 

Although I prefer David Dallin's books about Stalinism over those of Alexander Solzhentisyn, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that Alexander Solzhenistyn did in fact write a book providing evidence that slammed Nicholas II.  Pobedonostsev, the church's procurator until Nicholas was forced to replaced him after the 1905 revolution, was universally viewed as a corrupt autocrat.  Pyotr Stolypin was Russian Prime Minister from 1906 to 1911 - a huge step in the right direction.  "He is considered one of the last major statesmen of Imperial Russia with clearly defined public policies and the determination to undertake major reforms." Stolypin was basically a good egg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Stolypin

In 'August 1914', Solzhenitsyn gives a truckload of evidence to the effect that Nicholas II was in on Stolypin's assassination or at the least gave his blessing to it.  Dmitry Bogrov, the assassin, was a member of Nicholas's Okrhana security service from whom he received his gun and did nothing to harm the tsar who was adjacent to him when he shot and killed Stolypin.  Nicholas II then repeatedly begged Stolypin for forgiveness at the hospital only to order the investigation closed as soon as Stolypin died - and failed to attend the funeral!   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_1914

Josef Djugashvili (i.e. Koba aka Stalin) was also a member of Nicholas II's Okhrana secret police.  He joined the Bolsheviks because he was an undercover cop - not because he believed in it like Lenin and Trotsky.  Roman Brackman's book on Stalin discusses his membership in the Okhrana in great detail.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-File-Joseph-Stalin/dp/0714650501

The good part is it is highly critical of both Nicholas II and Lenin.  Salisbury sees the Romanovs as hopelessly corrupt, and the February revolution as a huge step in the right direction.  Peter I's system made the Russian church an arm of the Russian government.  This era dealt a death blow to that system (which ultimately proved to be temporary because Stalin effectively revived the corrupt elements of the tsarist system on so many levels).

Lenin and Trotsky's Octobre revolution destroyed the beneficent effects of the February revolution replacing the ever so brief liberal Russia with a dictatorship that persecuted Orthodox Christians, anarchists, and social revolutionaries (even though the latter won the majority in the January 1918 elections fair and square).   The outspoken Vatican critic Avro Manhattan even showed that the Bolsheviks were supported by the Vatican in Russia from 1917 to about 1925 when they swung their support to fascism.  Although the Vatican actually admired tsarist corruption, it supported Bolshevism because it has long wanted to subjugate the Russian Orthodox Church to itself and supported the overthrow of tsarism only to this end - although fascism is more naturally the Vatican's ally.

'The Vatican in World Politics'
By Avro Manhattan
(page 332 and chapter 17 generally)
http://www.seawaves.us/na/web4/VWP.pdf

Of course, Antony Sutton wrote an excellent series of books first originally published by Stanford's Hoover Institution such as 'Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution' and 'Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1917-1965' (in three volumes)
http://archive.org/details/Sutton--Western-Technology-1917-1930

'Black Night, White Snow' comes out of a fairly recent but increasingly bygone liberal American generation.  I think the author has a lot of character.   
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Night-White-Snow-Paperback/dp/030680154X
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #66 on: June 28, 2013, 09:49:53 PM »

Trotsky was hardly an objective commentator ...

I have to say I basically concur with this.  
In spite of all the anti-communist propaganda, I could imagine drinking a beer Lenin.  At least he had a sense of humour.
In an interview with American journalist George Seldes about 1920, Lenin said that a group of British laborers once asked his advice, but at first they couldn't agree on what they all wanted.  Lenin told them to go home and return telling him in unison with simple words.  They returned the following day and said they only wanted two things: world revolution and better toilets.

Lenin was also never in complete control.  He rode the whirlwind to the top.
Trotsky may have been more intelligent, but he was also so narrow minded that he failed to perceive Stalin's cunning.
Reading the part of Trotsky's biography of Stalin that discusses Lenin's death, the information given automatically brought to my mind the real possibility that Stalin poisoned Lenin.  Although hindsight is 20/20, Trotksy's tunnel vision mindset let Stalin get the better of him. We reap what we sow.  

Prince Kropotkin is the best Russian philosopher since the 1700's of which I am aware although I am mostly unread in Old Believer literature.
Frankly, I find his Kropotkin's anarchist books more useful than the Optina literature. Widely respected by everybody, Kropotkin's the man.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAkropotkin.htm
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 10:22:06 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #67 on: June 28, 2013, 11:01:15 PM »

I just picked up two books about late Romanov century Russia.

The other one is 'Empire of the Czar' by the Marquis de Custine in 1839.  
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_empire_of_the_czar_or_Observations_o.html?id=ksgDAAAAQAAJ

Table of Contents page
http://books.google.com/books?id=ksgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR3&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

Review
"The descriptions of entering the country, St. Petersburg, roads and traveling on them (treatment of horses, skill and attitude of drivers), the portraits of the overly polite short fused aristocracy and the many interesting conversations are very good. There are great descriptions of countryside, the architecture, the market at Ninjni, the plight of the peasants, and the continual plague of insects. There are ruminations on Russian history and comparisons of Russian and French culture, ethics and well being.

The best, though is the author's take on the effects of the autocracy, and how the despotic attitude trickles down. For all his refined manners, the czar meets out swift, frequent and severe punishment. (Siberia and/or torture) and through his auspices, aristocrats and officials feel entitled to perform acts of great cruelty as well. Because those who are not being punished live in fear that they will be, Custine calls the Czar the jailer of 1/3 of the world."
http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Czar-Marquis-De-Custine/product-reviews/0385249586/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 11:23:36 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,241



« Reply #68 on: June 28, 2013, 11:10:35 PM »

I could imagine drinking a beer Lenin.

I wonder what a beer Lenin would taste like.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,211



WWW
« Reply #69 on: June 28, 2013, 11:35:20 PM »

Lenin was also never in complete control.  He rode the whirlwind to the top.
Trotsky may have been more intelligent, but he was also so narrow minded that he failed to perceive Stalin's cunning.
Reading the part of Trotsky's biography of Stalin that discusses Lenin's death, the information given automatically brought to my mind the real possibility that Stalin poisoned Lenin.  Although hindsight is 20/20, Trotsky's tunnel vision mindset let Stalin get the better of him. We reap what we sow.  
Dionysii,

You have raised an interesting question, however my reply involves modern day politics, so I have posted in the Politics thread
Inside Job 2010 documentary
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,48803.new.html#new
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 11:36:25 PM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,211



WWW
« Reply #70 on: June 29, 2013, 12:12:36 AM »


His book Israel at High Noon: Stalin's Failed Satellite sounds interesting and deals with a subject about which very little has been written.
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-High-Noon-Stalins-Satellite/dp/192963143X

What do you think?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 12:13:02 AM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,211



WWW
« Reply #71 on: June 29, 2013, 01:13:56 AM »


I am finding Brackman's book quite interesting. Although it collects noteworthy evidence suggesting Stalin was illegitimate, looking at the pictures of Stalin's legal father Vissarion, the latter appears to look alot like Stalin and complement the other side of him from his mother. The Egnatashvili brothers, on the other hand, look less like Stalin to me.
Vissarion

Obviously, I do not know the answer, it's just my impression looking at photos. The author has a tendency to make wild guesses (the paternity issue is an educated guess), some of which seem noteworthy, while others are at least annoying.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 01:44:40 AM by rakovsky » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #72 on: June 29, 2013, 08:31:50 AM »

Roman Brackman
His book Israel at High Noon: Stalin's Failed Satellite sounds interesting and deals with a subject about which very little has been written.
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-High-Noon-Stalins-Satellite/dp/192963143X

What do you think?

I have not considered the idea of the early Israeli state as a Soviet satellite, but it helps explain the attraction of so many Jewish leftists to what I have considered an essentially fascist entity.  Israel's founders were all opponents of Nazism (at least publicly).  

Truman endorsed Israeli statehood against a lot of opposition, and the US did not become pro-Israeli partisans until Lyndon Johnson's presidency from late 1963 onwards.  Therefore, Israel's origin as a colony of the Soviet Union does make sense.

Mike Piper's book 'Final Judgment' finds that the Israeli Mossad arranged the assassination of President Kennedy in order to ensure substantial American support for the state of Israel.  Alan Hart's three volume history of Israel states the same.  

Although Israel has doubtless always maintained connections with Russia, I wonder if "high noon" refers to the Kennedy assassination because that seems to be the point when Israel acquired unquestioned American support. 
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 08:55:46 AM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #73 on: June 29, 2013, 09:23:11 AM »

I am finding Brackman's book quite interesting. Although it collects noteworthy evidence suggesting Stalin was illegitimate, looking at the pictures of Stalin's legal father Vissarion, the latter appears to look alot like Stalin and complement the other side of him from his mother. The Egnatashvili brothers, on the other hand, look less like Stalin to me.
Obviously, I do not know the answer, it's just my impression looking at photos. The author has a tendency to make wild guesses (the paternity issue is an educated guess), some of which seem noteworthy, while others are at least annoying.

People from the same region normally have similar characteristics due especially to a similar environment and diet among other factors.  

Roman Brackman provides too much evidence to ascribe to him "wild guesses." That is the territory of other less refined authors.
In 'Bloodlines of the Illuminati', Fritz Springmeier says it's common knowledge that Stalin is secretly Jewish and gives no evidence whatsoever.  

I do disagree with at least one thing Brackman writes - albeit of relative significance.
Maintaining that Stalin's family was Georgian, Brackman argues against the claim that Stalin's family was Ossetian.  Upon very close scrutiny to the facts, the evidence Brackman gives consistently points to Stalin's family as Ossetians living in Georgia in spite of his insistence to the contrary.  

I am convinced from the evidence that Vissarion was not Josef's biological father, but Brackman gives no evidence as to the identification of Josef's biological father.  He only states the priest as a suspect.  The identification of his biological father is to be found elsewhere.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 09:30:25 AM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #74 on: June 29, 2013, 09:48:39 AM »

Also, I did not say that Patriarch Tikhon of Russia himself was a heretic.
I want to correct myself.
Since I posted this, I have come to the understanding that he was indeed.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #75 on: June 29, 2013, 10:30:37 AM »

His book Israel at High Noon: Stalin's Failed Satellite sounds interesting and deals with a subject about which very little has been written.
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-High-Noon-Stalins-Satellite/dp/192963143X

What do you think?
Stalin supported Russian Jewish immigration to form a Soviet satellite in Palestine before his successors later publicly backed Arab states.

Brackman seems quite sympathetic to the state of Israel.  
The most interesting part of the book is likely the earlier chapters.

According to the book's table of contents, Stalin's connection with Zionism is only a fraction of a book which is devoted to pro-Israeli propaganda:
http://romanbrackman.com/Books-sub3.html
I find Brackman's book on Stalin much better.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 10:46:08 AM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #76 on: June 29, 2013, 11:09:27 AM »

His book Israel at High Noon: Stalin's Failed Satellite sounds interesting and deals with a subject about which very little has been written.
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-High-Noon-Stalins-Satellite/dp/192963143X
What do you think?
I think this short article sums up Stalin's support of Israel:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001808.html
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,537



« Reply #77 on: June 29, 2013, 11:10:41 AM »

Also, I did not say that Patriarch Tikhon of Russia himself was a heretic.
I want to correct myself.
Since I posted this, I have come to the understanding that he was indeed.

Oh really? Do tell...
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #78 on: June 29, 2013, 11:29:50 AM »

Also, I did not say that Patriarch Tikhon of Russia himself was a heretic.
I want to correct myself.
Since I posted this, I have come to the understanding that he was indeed.
Oh really? Do tell...

The reason for this is simple.  I came to understand that the Old Orthodox Church is the Church and that the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Moscow fell into apostasy about the year 1666 and ceased to be part of the Body of Christ at that time.  This explains the piety of Old Believers, the unmitigated corruption that has pervaded the Russian church and government, and the abundant contradictions within Orthodoxy since that time and is discussed at length in this thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25531.msg898181.html#msg898181

I gave details relating specifically to Patriarch Tikhon earlier in this thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23812.msg898591.html#msg898591
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 11:39:57 AM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #79 on: June 29, 2013, 12:46:49 PM »

I could imagine drinking a beer Lenin.

I wonder what a beer Lenin would taste like.
... not a beer named Lenin.
I meant to say I could hang out with Lenin and throw down a few beers.

As far as beer, right now Belgian seems as good as any and definitely better than some of the others.
Logged
DuxI
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Macedonian Orthodox Church
Posts: 140



« Reply #80 on: June 29, 2013, 01:08:10 PM »


Josef Djugashvili (i.e. Koba aka Stalin) was also a member of Nicholas II's Okhrana secret police.  He joined the Bolsheviks because he was an undercover cop - not because he believed in it like Lenin and Trotsky.  Roman Brackman's book on Stalin discusses his membership in the Okhrana in great detail.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-File-Joseph-Stalin/dp/0714650501


This was never proven. There are no historical proofs that can verify that Stalin was part of the Okhrana secret police.
One of the best biographies of Stalin, based on documents, testimonies from people is the one written by Simon Sebag Montefiore:

http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-The-Court-Red-Tsar/dp/1400076781

It is based on documents and testimonies.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #81 on: June 30, 2013, 12:04:57 AM »

You are right about Trotsky being intelligent, but it's hard to say he was more intelligent than Lenin.

I think what Trotsky and practically everyone else in the USSR did not see up until the Great Purge of the late 1930's was how far Stalin was going to go in securing his own power. Trotsky did do a good job seeing though how Stalin was getting power around himself and Trotsky was one of the first major challenges to that.

Generally, American and Russian historians portray it as if Lenin died naturally, and Trotsky followed that trend without holding out the uncertainty.
Lenin was intelligent, but I think Trotsky's books sometimes delve a bit deeper than Lenin's, but I do not at all agree with everything Trotsky wrote.  
Trotsky was decidedly wrong when he wrote against:
1) anarchists like Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman
2) the Serapion Society which consisted of the most authentic Russian writers of the 1920's who continued the anti-establishment traditions of writers like Tolstoy and Gorky
3) the Social Revolutionaries who won the national elections outright in January 1918 only to be butchered by the Bolsheviks wall street financed police.  He anticipated Stalin in these things.
4) the ever so brief period of Caucasian independence.  The Bolsheviks continued the oppression the Romanov tsars Nicholas I and Alexander II began when they committed genocide against the Caucasian peoples in the mid-nineteenth century.
5) the Kronstadt Soviet.  

(After Maxim Gorky [who represents the better part of Bolsheviks] requested American food aid for a famine in 1922, I find it amusingly characteristic of Bolshevism generally that when famine became excessive in parts of Eastern Russia that reports of cannibalism of recently dead bodies had surfaced, when Herbert Hoover replied affirmatively and sent his representative Walter Brown to initiate aid from the US, Maxim Litvinov was so suspicious of American treachery that he angrily laid down rules by which Russia would accept millions of dollars of aid to starving people.  When Brown understood and outlined a plan, Litvinov shouted "No, no, no!" Many of Trotsky's words and actions have that same spirit of idiocy.)

Although Bukharin realized the truth about Stalin fairly late in the game, his writings lack the condescending tone that Trotsky often employs. Bukharin's books are great, but I find Trotsky especially boring and wrong when he writes about the Russian revolution.  Trotsky's writing does not become worthwhile until late in his life when he's writing in the 1930's about things like Nazism, British history, America, or the Spanish civil war.

Lenin's books are too dry for me, but he was perhaps more open minded than Trotsky.  Lenin was friends with Kropotkin and had read some of his books.  Lenin even spoke with Kropotkin in person on two occasions after the revolution and listened to the anarchist's criticisms and suggestions even though Kropotkin opposed the Bolshevik revolution.  That is a lot more than I would expect from many people today who have become unforgiving even to tactical enemies who have the same goals.  I am not aware of Trotsky being so inclined.  Lenin's character goes a long way to explain his international popularity far beyond his circle of Bolsheviks.  The same goes for Kropotkin's popularity far beyond his circle of anarchists of the pacifist variety.
 
Lenin was the middle ground of the Bolsheviks between Trotsky on the left and Bukharin on the right.  

As far as assassination goes, I think you have to read the pertinent lines in both Trotsky's and Brackman's biographies of Stalin to appreciate my opinion.  It is the knowledge of facts contained therein that gives me the confidence to assert that Stalin poisoned Lenin.  

There are no historical proofs that can verify that Stalin was part of the Okhrana secret police.
If you have already read Roman Brackman's book about Stalin and still believe that, then I would be impressed and interested to hear your refutation - not to refute it, but rather to learn from your understanding.  However, if you are unaware of the facts cited in Brackman's book before making such a denunciation of one of its central themes, then I would say you have a right to your opinion, but I'm not impressed.  

I read several reviews of the Montefiore's biography of Stalin and discerned that it actually avoids Stalin's early years and contains hundreds of pages on trivial details of everyday life of the Soviet elite in the 1930's and 1940's like what Molotov preferred for desert and other useless soap opera rubbish.  

Roman Brackman was born and lived in the Soviet Union while Stalin was in power.  Simon Montefiore, on the other hand, is a British guy born several decades later whose reviews indicate he writes long drawn out ('War and Peace' length) popular books on people like Catherine the Great containing loads of mind numbingly boring, trivial, useless details.  

Thanks for recommending Simon Montefiore, but I'll pass because I don't think he writes the kind of books that I read.
I don't mean to sound overly critical, but I sincerely believe that I would become less intelligent if I took the time to read Montefiore's books.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2013, 12:33:39 AM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #82 on: June 30, 2013, 01:46:16 AM »

SUCCINCT CHRONOLOGY OF STALIN'S POISONING OF LENIN

Lenin saw through Stalin earlier than others and wrote a stern reprimand to Stalin on 5 March 1923.  Lenin planned to remove him from office at the next Party Congress.  Kamenev heard about this from Krupskaya and told Stalin.  Lenin suddenly had a severe stroke on 7 March 1923.  Lenin mostly recovered by July 1923 and continued improving throughout the rest of the year.  
In spite of Lenin's improving health, Stalin ordered all visits to Lenin stopped on 16 Decembre 1923.  

On 18 Decembre 1923, Stalin wrote an article in Pravda saying any leadership without Trotsky was unthinkable.  Trotsky suddenly became very ill the next day.  Five doctors recommended Trotsky go to the Caucasus for his health, and he ultimately decided to depart Moscow by train on 18 January 1924.  

Gavril Volkov was Lenin's cook.  While in prison, he told Elizabeth Lermolo how Lenin was poisoned which she repeated in her 1955 book 'Face of a Victim'.  Lenin wrote down a note to his cook Volkov on 21 January 1924 stating:
"Gavrilushka, I have been poisoned ... Go fetch Nadia [Krupskaya] at once ... Tell Trotsky ... Tell everyone you can."
Volkov called Lenin's sister Maria Ulyanov who arrived in time to see him silently crying.  He died that day at 6:50p.m.  

En route to the Caucasus, Stalin called to tell Trotsky that Lenin died but he should continue on to the Caucasus because he would not make it back in time for the funeral anyway, but he lied since he was in fact the funeral planner and held it six days later which would have been plenty of time for Trotsky to return.  
« Last Edit: June 30, 2013, 02:05:28 AM by Dionysii » Logged
rakovsky
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,211



WWW
« Reply #83 on: June 30, 2013, 01:36:25 PM »

On 18 Decembre 1923, Stalin wrote an article in Pravda saying any leadership without Trotsky was unthinkable.  Trotsky suddenly became very ill the next day.  Five doctors recommended Trotsky go to the Caucasus for his health, and he ultimately decided to depart Moscow by train on 18 January 1924.  

En route to the Caucasus, Stalin called to tell Trotsky that Lenin died but he should continue on to the Caucasus because he would not make it back in time for the funeral anyway, but he lied since he was in fact the funeral planner and held it six days later which would have been plenty of time for Trotsky to return.  
One of Trotsky's biographers, Payne, described Trotsky as having a long history of illness. However, the chronological coincidence you describe is noteworthy, and it's remarkable he survived. He should have gone back to Moscow.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #84 on: June 30, 2013, 02:53:58 PM »

On 18 Decembre 1923, Stalin wrote an article in Pravda saying any leadership without Trotsky was unthinkable.  Trotsky suddenly became very ill the next day.  Five doctors recommended Trotsky go to the Caucasus for his health, and he ultimately decided to depart Moscow by train on 18 January 1924.  

En route to the Caucasus, Stalin called to tell Trotsky that Lenin died but he should continue on to the Caucasus because he would not make it back in time for the funeral anyway, but he lied since he was in fact the funeral planner and held it six days later which would have been plenty of time for Trotsky to return.  
One of Trotsky's biographers, Payne, described Trotsky as having a long history of illness. However, the chronological coincidence you describe is noteworthy, and it's remarkable he survived. He should have gone back to Moscow.

Trotsky recounted this in his biography of Stalin.
Brackman states that Trotsky was naïve at this time to not consider Stalin may have poisoned Lenin.

It reminds me of a comment that Charles Luciano made about Meyer Lansky in his memoirs saying that he finally got wise in his old age to the fact that as the "Caesar" of the mob that Lansky had been Luciano's "Brutus" (i.e. assassin, or undoing).  Luciano's arrest and spending WWII in prison, his postwar deportation to Italy, Dewey's prosecution of mobsters in the 1930's, and the FBI's devastating 1957 sting - Lansky was behind all of it.  Like Trotsky, Luciano got wise to the truth very late in the game.  According to Douglas Valentine's history of the FBN (predecessor of the DEA), Luciano was poisoned in 1962 through medicine he was receiving from the US.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,629


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #85 on: June 30, 2013, 04:15:33 PM »

You are right about Trotsky being intelligent, but it's hard to say he was more intelligent than Lenin.

I think what Trotsky and practically everyone else in the USSR did not see up until the Great Purge of the late 1930's was how far Stalin was going to go in securing his own power. Trotsky did do a good job seeing though how Stalin was getting power around himself and Trotsky was one of the first major challenges to that.

Generally, American and Russian historians portray it as if Lenin died naturally, and Trotsky followed that trend without holding out the uncertainty.
Lenin was intelligent, but I think Trotsky's books sometimes delve a bit deeper than Lenin's, but I do not at all agree with everything Trotsky wrote.  
Trotsky was decidedly wrong when he wrote against:
1) anarchists like Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman
2) the Serapion Society which consisted of the most authentic Russian writers of the 1920's who continued the anti-establishment traditions of writers like Tolstoy and Gorky
3) the Social Revolutionaries who won the national elections outright in January 1918 only to be butchered by the Bolsheviks wall street financed police.  He anticipated Stalin in these things.
4) the ever so brief period of Caucasian independence.  The Bolsheviks continued the oppression the Romanov tsars Nicholas I and Alexander II began when they committed genocide against the Caucasian peoples in the mid-nineteenth century.
5) the Kronstadt Soviet.  

(After Maxim Gorky [who represents the better part of Bolsheviks] requested American food aid for a famine in 1922, I find it amusingly characteristic of Bolshevism generally that when famine became excessive in parts of Eastern Russia that reports of cannibalism of recently dead bodies had surfaced, when Herbert Hoover replied affirmatively and sent his representative Walter Brown to initiate aid from the US, Maxim Litvinov was so suspicious of American treachery that he angrily laid down rules by which Russia would accept millions of dollars of aid to starving people.  When Brown understood and outlined a plan, Litvinov shouted "No, no, no!" Many of Trotsky's words and actions have that same spirit of idiocy.)

Although Bukharin realized the truth about Stalin fairly late in the game, his writings lack the condescending tone that Trotsky often employs. Bukharin's books are great, but I find Trotsky especially boring and wrong when he writes about the Russian revolution.  Trotsky's writing does not become worthwhile until late in his life when he's writing in the 1930's about things like Nazism, British history, America, or the Spanish civil war.

Lenin's books are too dry for me, but he was perhaps more open minded than Trotsky.  Lenin was friends with Kropotkin and had read some of his books.  Lenin even spoke with Kropotkin in person on two occasions after the revolution and listened to the anarchist's criticisms and suggestions even though Kropotkin opposed the Bolshevik revolution.  That is a lot more than I would expect from many people today who have become unforgiving even to tactical enemies who have the same goals.  I am not aware of Trotsky being so inclined.  Lenin's character goes a long way to explain his international popularity far beyond his circle of Bolsheviks.  The same goes for Kropotkin's popularity far beyond his circle of anarchists of the pacifist variety.
 
Lenin was the middle ground of the Bolsheviks between Trotsky on the left and Bukharin on the right.  

As far as assassination goes, I think you have to read the pertinent lines in both Trotsky's and Brackman's biographies of Stalin to appreciate my opinion.  It is the knowledge of facts contained therein that gives me the confidence to assert that Stalin poisoned Lenin.  

There are no historical proofs that can verify that Stalin was part of the Okhrana secret police.
If you have already read Roman Brackman's book about Stalin and still believe that, then I would be impressed and interested to hear your refutation - not to refute it, but rather to learn from your understanding.  However, if you are unaware of the facts cited in Brackman's book before making such a denunciation of one of its central themes, then I would say you have a right to your opinion, but I'm not impressed.  

I read several reviews of the Montefiore's biography of Stalin and discerned that it actually avoids Stalin's early years and contains hundreds of pages on trivial details of everyday life of the Soviet elite in the 1930's and 1940's like what Molotov preferred for desert and other useless soap opera rubbish.  

Roman Brackman was born and lived in the Soviet Union while Stalin was in power.  Simon Montefiore, on the other hand, is a British guy born several decades later whose reviews indicate he writes long drawn out ('War and Peace' length) popular books on people like Catherine the Great containing loads of mind numbingly boring, trivial, useless details.  

Thanks for recommending Simon Montefiore, but I'll pass because I don't think he writes the kind of books that I read.
I don't mean to sound overly critical, but I sincerely believe that I would become less intelligent if I took the time to read Montefiore's books.


 
Kronstadt: Trotsky was right! New material from Soviet archives confirms the Bolsheviks' position
Written by A Kramer Monday, 01 December 2003

http://www.marxist.com/kronstadt-trotsky-was-right.htm

New material that has emerged from the old Soviet archives over the past decade or so have allowed new books to be published on the events surrounding the Kronstadt rebellion in 1921. Far from confirming the criticisms of those hostile to the Bolsheviks, the latest sources show that Trotsky's position was correct and totally justified.

For many years the capitalist press, erudite professors and bourgeois analysts have been going on about the "secrets in the Soviet archives". There was much speculation about the "terrible secrets of the communist regime" that would finally confirm the "evil character" of communism.

After the events that took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s, historians were finally allowed access to the Soviet archives. So one would expect a flow of terribly indicting facts. However the results for the bourgeois historians have been really disappointing. Of course, they did find a large amount of new evidence that confirms the shocking crimes of Stalinism. But we never had any doubt about this. Trotsky and his followers condemned these crimes long before any archives were opened. Trotsky's supporters in Soviet Russia in the 1920 and 1930s had first hand knowledge of these crimes because they were among the first to suffer the consequences of the Stalinist degeneration. Thousands of them died at the hands of Stalin's henchmen.

During the last ten years many new interesting sources about critical moments of the Russian Revolution have been published. Among them are two books about the most tragic act of the Russian Revolution – the so-called Kronstadt rebellion.

It is not necessary to describe here all the aspects of this well-known event. At the beginning of March 1921, in one of the most critical periods of the Soviet Republic's existence, in the naval base of Kronstadt near Petrograd, there was an attempt at a military coup against the Soviet government. The critical state that the Soviet Union was passing through in that moment meant that Lenin and Trotsky were forced to deal with the rebels very quickly
« Last Edit: June 30, 2013, 04:17:37 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,465


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #86 on: June 30, 2013, 06:24:10 PM »

Good point. Let's leave Trotsky out of it.

Then lets just give the question, how deeply faithful do you think the general workers and peasents were? Was it an intimate faith in Christ, or a cultural thing? And do you think that faithfullness contributed one way or the other to the Russian Revolution?

The ones of whom I have some personal knowledge certainly run the gamut.  Some seem to have been only outwardly Orthodox and threw it off after the Revolution in pursuit of advancement under the new regime.  Others, however, in particular one woman, lived as piously as they could, even though churches were cut off, praying quietly and secretly baptizing their grandchildren.  I sense that there were many, many such people.

Try as they did, the Soviet leadership could never successfully stamp out the faith within their territory, and often had to concede to it. 
Logged
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,465


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #87 on: June 30, 2013, 06:26:13 PM »

I could imagine drinking a beer Lenin.

I wonder what a beer Lenin would taste like.

Probably not good.  I am reminded of the quote, when the sewage system under the temporary Lenin mausoleum erupted, when Patriarch (now Saint) Tikhon commented:  "The balm accords with the relics."

Also in Kharkiv you can see the statue of Lenin pointing the way to the future (to the university), although since construction some years ago, he now points the way to the toilet.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #88 on: July 01, 2013, 07:29:59 PM »

in Kharkiv you can see the statue of Lenin pointing the way to the future (to the university), although since construction some years ago, he now points the way to the toilet.
Particularly indicative is the criticism of the Bolshevik's own friends:

Just before the Romanovs were murdered, Maxim Gorky, himself a Bolshevik and personal friend of both Lenin and Stalin, wrote "Everything that I said about the Bolsheviks' savage crudeness, about their cruelty which approaches sadism, about their lack of culture, about their ignorance of the psychology of the Russian people, and the fact that they are performing a disgusting experiment on the people and are destroying the working class - all this, and much more that I said about 'Bolshevism' retains its full force" (from Gorky's book 'Untimely  Thoughts').

"...as the saintly old anarchist Prince P. A. Kropotkin was to declare in a famous letter to Lenin in 1920:
'Really can't there be found around you that such measures [a new terror had just been proclaimed] inevitably return us to the worst times of the Middle Ages and the religious wars - unworthy of people seeking to create a future society on Communist foundations?  Is there really no one amongst you who understands what a hostage is?  That it means that a man is thrust into prison not because he is guilty of any kind of crime but simply in order to threaten your opponents with his death.  *Kill one of ours and we will kill so many of yours.* Don't your comrades really understand that this indifference is nothing but torture for those imprisoned and their relatives?'
It was, alas, too late - and still too early - for Lenin to hear Kropotkin's humanitarian voice."
- 'Black Night, White Snow' by Harrison Salisbury (Chapter LXIII, page 612)
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,629


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #89 on: July 01, 2013, 08:11:06 PM »

in Kharkiv you can see the statue of Lenin pointing the way to the future (to the university), although since construction some years ago, he now points the way to the toilet.
Particularly indicative is the criticism of the Bolshevik's own friends:

Just before the Romanovs were murdered, Maxim Gorky, himself a Bolshevik and personal friend of both Lenin and Stalin, wrote "Everything that I said about the Bolsheviks' savage crudeness, about their cruelty which approaches sadism, about their lack of culture, about their ignorance of the psychology of the Russian people, and the fact that they are performing a disgusting experiment on the people and are destroying the working class - all this, and much more that I said about 'Bolshevism' retains its full force" (from Gorky's book 'Untimely  Thoughts').

"...as the saintly old anarchist Prince P. A. Kropotkin was to declare in a famous letter to Lenin in 1920:
'Really can't there be found around you that such measures [a new terror had just been proclaimed] inevitably return us to the worst times of the Middle Ages and the religious wars - unworthy of people seeking to create a future society on Communist foundations?  Is there really no one amongst you who understands what a hostage is?  That it means that a man is thrust into prison not because he is guilty of any kind of crime but simply in order to threaten your opponents with his death.  *Kill one of ours and we will kill so many of yours.* Don't your comrades really understand that this indifference is nothing but torture for those imprisoned and their relatives?'
It was, alas, too late - and still too early - for Lenin to hear Kropotkin's humanitarian voice."
- 'Black Night, White Snow' by Harrison Salisbury (Chapter LXIII, page 612)

How is that unlike the Czar who plunged his country into World War One for no apparent reason other then to keep up with his cousins. Then he sent troops to the front without guns. They often resorted to throwing stones at the Germans. And that's not return to the middle ages?

So the troops deserted en mass and went home.  The rest is well known
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.202 seconds with 72 queries.