I came back from an extended journey into a book I am writing on another topic only to find myself being slandered in an anti-Stalin tirade apparently coming from some Russian malcontent named Bilenkin who knows little about that which he speaks and is obviously another victim of anti-Marxist (anti-Stalin) propaganda.

         Interestingly enough I am in the process of writing a voluminous tome on this very topic and judging from Bilenkin’s monologue I have no doubt he desperately needs some of the pearls of perspicacity contained therein.  Unfortunately he has been conned by what is undoubtedly one of the greatest lies of the modern era.  He definitely needs to know that Joe Stalin did not set out to "get rid of his opponents."  Let me repeat that for those who are ideologically and/or auditorily impaired.  JOE STALIN DID NOT SET OUT TO GET RID OF HIS OPPONENTS.  In fact, exactly the opposite occurred.  His opponents set out to get rid of him, not only him but his supporters as well.  And if people would engage in a modicum of intelligent thought, without being so willing to swallow the bourgeois line propagated for so many decades, they could easily see as much for the following reasons.

         First, Stalin assumed the leadership of the Soviet Union in Jan. 1924 and the trials of his opponents did not begin until August of 1936.  Now if he was out to get rid of his opponents does anyone seriously think he would have waited nearly 13 years before taking action.  Let’s be realistic.  If he had been out to eliminate his opponents he could have done it in 13 days or at least 13 weeks.  It certainly would not have taken 13 years to get started.

         Second, it never ceases to amaze me that people are unable to see the obvious fact that if Stalin were out to eliminate his opponents he and his supporters would certainly not keep appointing them to key positions.  No less a renegade than Bukharin himself, for example, was appointed the Editor of Izvestia as late as 1934 and Bukharin was constantly complaining about nearly everything Stalin did.  He was against collectivization.  He didn't like the industrialization policy.  He opposed the emphasis on heavy industry etc.  Rykov, Kamenev, Zinoviev were also constant back-biters.  Tomsky was actually the Trade Union President.  The list goes on and on to the point of being ridiculous.  These people were continually denouncing just about everything Stalin and his supporters did.  Yet, they had, and remained in, high positions.

         Third, and very importantly, if Stalin was out to destroy his opponents why on earth would the party keep expelling people like Zinoviev and Kamenev and then readmitting them after they recanted.  This too attained absurd levels.  Stalin’s patience knew no bounds.  The amount of attacks, slanders, and criticisms he endured with forebearance was nothing short of incredible.  It is not for nothing that when one of the anti-Soviet agents of the 1930’s was exposed, Mezhlauk attacked him in a speech to the Plenum of the Central Committee on February 25th 1937 by stating, “You have been tormenting the party over many, many years, and it is only thanks to the angelic patience of Comrade Stalin that we have not torn you politically to pieces for your vile, terroristic work.  We would have done this long ago, two months ago, were it not for Comrade Stalin, were it not that policy dictated by the interests of the working-class predominates in Stalin over his just sense of indignation....”  That comment was by no means hyperbolic.  Stalin, did, indeed, exercise “angelic patience” towards his critics.

         Fourth, why on earth would Stalin be focused on destroying his opponents when they were little more than a disorganized, minor band of vociferous rabble who had pathetically little mass support.  The degree to which they were isolated was readily shown in the 1927 Party Congress when the vote of Party members was 740,000 to 4,000 against a variation of Trotsky’s program.  In short, they had no mass base worthy of serious consideration.   Stalin’s program prevailed not because of behind-the-scenes manueuvering and manipulation of Party membership as his opponents repeatedly allege but because the overwhelming majority of the Party membership could see it was the most sensible and practical policy to follow.  His opponents invariably employ their favorite excuse for his popularity because of their inability to dredge up anything else

         Fifth, the expulsion and exiling of people like Trotsky only occurred when they actually resorted to physical action.  Only when they organized the 1927 demonstrations against the Party, after having given up on obtaining any real support, were they acted upon physically.  Until then, for more than 3 years no less, all their verbiage had been allowed and endured.  Indeed, Stalin had specifically opposed efforts by Zinoviev and Kamenev to have Trotsky expelled from the Party.  But when they took to the streets, that did it.  The Party’s patience was exhausted.  Lenin would never have allowed the situation to have gotten to that stage to begin with because he specifically denounced interparty factions in no uncertain terms.  That was anathema.

         Sixth, the world’s bourgeoisie have spent a tremendous of time, effort, and wealth convincing mankind that Stalin eliminated true communists in the 1930’s which is equally absurd.  To begin with, those put on trial were as guilty as sin and they did not even deny that fact.  The evidence was overwhelming as anyone who has read the entire transcripts can see.  Many western observers at the trials, including the US Ambassador Davies, reporters Walter Duranty, Anna Strong, the English lawyer Collard, the parliamentarian Pritt, etc., told people later that there was no doubt in their minds that those executed were guilty.  Those on trial were not communists.  They were working to bring about the collapse of socialism.  The program of Bukharin, alone, was virtually identical to that of Gorbachov, leaving aside the actual acts he committed.
         Moreover, the Soviet government was being exceptionally accommodating with respect to the defendants, as they did not warrant a trial to begin with, even under bourgeois law.  Why would you have trials of people who have already admitted they did the crimes of which they were accused.  Why try to prove a man guilty of something he has already admitted doing.  In that case, all that should occur is the sentencing.

         Seventh, and extremely important is the fact that there seems to be an underlying assumption that everyone who was killed in the 1930’s died on Stalin’s orders which is utterly vacuous.  To begin with, Stalin could not possibly have kept up with what was going on all over a nation that spanned 11 time zones.  Many acts, arrests, trials, employment dismissals, and other deeds occurred of which he had no knowledge.  Many he definitely would have opposed had he known about them.
         Moreover, people don’t seem to realize that bourgeois agents of every stripe had infiltrated the Soviet government at every level and were intent on destroying the Soviet state.  They reached into the highest levels including the NKVD, the most prominent example being Yagoda.  When these agents once obtained these high positions they systematically set about destroying true communists and replacing them with their own supporters.  That, more than any other reason, is why so many bona fide communists were killed and imprisoned.  Eventually Yagoda was caught and admitted not only his guilt but his collaboration with other high officials who were caught as well.  The degree of the infiltration, sabotage, and subversion was immense.  After all, the Soviet government was opposed by the Trots, the Rights under Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky, the Zinovievists under Zinoviev and Kamenev, the kulaks, the former Whites of Civil War infamy, the world’s capitalists, the Nazis, the mensheviks, the social-revolutionaries, many former Czarists, some intellectuals and the anarchists.  Is it any wonder that all true Marxists like Stalin considered themselves to be under attack and felt a need to be highly concerned with security.  Had they not been, they would not have lasted a day.
         When Stalin and his supporters discovered the degree of penetration, the identity of the perpetrators, and the crimes of each, they were promptly brought to justice.  Again Yagoda, the head of the NKVD from 1934 to 1936 is a prime example.  No one was more concerned with the destruction of bona fide Marxists than Stalin, Molotov, Kaganovich and their allies.  But finding out who was guilty of what; who was on your side and who was not, who was lying and who was not, who was acting and who was not, was a challenge of the first magnitude.  Khrushchov, himself, was a supporter of Trotsky around 1924 and admitted as much.  When Kaganovich wished to appoint him to a higher post he told Stalin of Khrushchov’s former views.  All Stalin wanted to know was whether or not he had seen the error of his ways, and when Kaganovich said he thought so, that was good enough for Joe.  Khrushchov got the position.  Stalin constantly demonstrated his willingness to forgive and forget.  This attitude permeated his philosophy from the very beginning.
         Another factor accounting for the killing of bona fide communists was that many people saw an opportunity to enhance their own status by lying about others.  People would testify that someone, such as their boss or supervisor, was doing or planning some form of nefarious activity and thereby bring about a job opening which they could then fill.  Back-stabbing became widely practiced and frankly the NKVD had neither the time, money, or personnel to check out all the facts in regard to many cases  They had to go with what they had and mistakes were made in the process.  But what commander in any war, be it on the battlefield or in class warfare, could intelligently operate under any other principle.  What is the alternative?  Leave everyone in place, even when others are testifying against them.
         The problem with Yezhov, who took over from Yagoda and headed the NKVD from 1936 to the end of 1938, during the period of greatest activity, is that he went to the other extreme.  On his own authority and in order to impress the Party and gain its favor when he assumed control, he and his colleagues repressed far too many without sufficient justification or evidence.  Stalin and the Party told him to “ferret out all the subversives.”  They did not authorize him and his subordinates to go on an irresponsible “round-up” of thousands without justification or proof.  When Stalin and the other Party leaders discovered the degree to which Yezhov had abused and misused his authority and had caused the deaths of innocent people, he was tried and justifiably executed.

         Eighth, people also conveniently ignore the obvious fact that the killing of people was initiated by the opponents of Stalin and his supporters, not the other way around.  Until Dec. 1, 1934 no party leaders had been killed or assassinated since the murders of Volardarsky and Uritsky in June and August of 1918 by Socialist-Revolutionaries.  No one had used violence of this kind on either side.  But when one of Stalin’s closest allies, Kirov, was assassinated by  the Zinovievist agent Nikolayev that was the final blow.  The supporters of Stalin, Molotov, and Kaganovich investigated the facts, interrogated the perpetrators, and quickly realized that their opponents really meant business.  Why did their adversaries resort to this final nefarious tactic?  Why, because they were rapidly losing what little mass support they had remaining.  By late 1932 and mid-1933 the industrialization process was showing great success and the elimination of the capitalist class in the countryside, the kulaks, was proceeding quite well.  In effect, conditions were so good by 1934 that, not without good reason, they referred to the Feb. 1934 17th Party Congress as the Congress of Victors.  It was becoming quite obvious to the antagonists of Stalin and his allies that by the early 1930’s mass support for the government and its officials was so widespread, so powerful, and so entrenched that getting them out by any other means than direct assassination was little more than a dream.  Everything else had failed and the only viable option by that time was physical violence and no one orchestrated this with more dedication than Trotsky, the person who deserved to be put on trial more than anyone else, as Bukharin and other defendants clearly stated.
         I always find it amusing when people accuse Stalin of being the most brutal of leaders and try to back it up by absurd figures that I can never find sustainable in any documentation, while completely ignoring the fact that Stalin never sent in tanks to crush a mass uprising even though every one of his supposedly more moderate and reasonable successors (Khrushchov, Brezhnev, Gorbachov, and Yeltsin) did send in tanks to quash opponents.  Moreover, Stalin ruled the Soviet Union through the most difficult period of its existence when times were toughest and war was destroying the landscape, the very time when you would think dissension would be highest.
          In addition, the Soviet Union was always gaining in strength under his rule and always deteriorating under the rule of his successors, despite the fact that he led nearly as long as all three of his immediate successors combined.
          I can't help but chuckle at the fact that Khrushchov and Gorbachov thought they would be really loved by the Soviet citizenry for letting people "do their own thing," when they ended up being hated, and Stalin, that symbol of control and repression who is now desired by millions, always sought accuracy over the limelight of popularity.  He obtained the latter and they did not, even though they sought it and he did not.  Why the reversal?  Very simple!  When you let everyone "do his own thing," you end up with all the wealth that matters falling into a few hands through competition and theft while the overwhelming majority of population is exploited, crushed, and all but destroyed as is apparent today in the former Soviet Union.  What the capitalists forget to tell you is that with all that lovely competition, which they applaud no end, a small clique eventually wins and stabs all the others in the back.  And tens of millions are, indeed, now [2001] being stabbed in the back.  Of that there can be no doubt.  When you turn the carnivores loose on the land, it is a foregone conclusion that tens of millions will be gobbled up.
         Gorbachov, the very symbol of glasnost and “perish”stoika, got less than 1% of the vote in a national election recently.  How’s that for really being loved by the masses!  And yet he is supposed to be Mr. Free Speech, who brought “openness” to the Soviet Union.  Were it not so serious the entire situation would be laughable.

         And finally, if Stalin set out “to get rid of his opponents,” then why in the world was the first trial of Zinoviev and Kamenev conducted in a manner wholly inconsistent with this thesis.  Kirov was assassinated in Dec. 1934 and shortly thereafter the killer, Nikolayev, and his accomplices were caught and punished.  But before that occurred they provided evidence to prove Zinoviev and Kamenev were their “guiding lights” and ideological catalysts.  Subsequently these two individuals were also put on trial and sentenced for moral and ideological complicity for their involvement.  But they were not tried for murder or conspiracy to murder.  Now if Stalin and his supporters had been out to “get rid of their opponents,” this would have been a golden opportunity to issue death warrants.  But they didn’t.  In fact, the sentences were rather lenient and consisted of only a few months in jail.  Only later, after subsequent investigation, did the authorities discover that Zinoviev and Kamenev were not just morally and ideologically to blame but actually participated in and planned the dastardly deed.  Not until nearly 20 months later in Aug. 1936, nearly two years, were they actually put on trial for organizing the murder itself.
         Stalin was an incredibly astute and capable leader with an overall vision of the world scene second to none.  He had an uncanny ability to see and acknowledge reality as it was and remain ideologically sensible and practical throughout trials and tribulations that would have overwhelmed the bulk of humanity.  Stalin, like Lenin, is one of those unique figures in history who simply should not be allowed to die.  He should not be granted that option as his talents and skills are far too scarce and valuable.
         Under Stalin’s leadership the Soviet Union went from a backward, semifeudal, destitute, beaten, trammeled, exploited, poverty-stricken basket case of pitiful peasants with a horrendous illiteracy rate enduring medical conditions that were little short of appalling to unquestionably the second most advanced nation on earth.  By the time of Stalin’s demise in 1953 the Soviet Union was an economic, political, and military powerhouse.  In fact it had advanced so far so rapidly that the United States became very alarmed and instituted a period of fascist repression euphemistically called the McCarthy Era to silence its domestic supporters.
         In virtually every category the improvement in the lives of the Soviet people was little short of fantastic when you consider the obstacles they overcame and what they had to work with.  And they did it despite the devastation brought upon the Soviet Union by WWI, the Civil War, the Intervention to save the Whites, and the horribly destructive Fascist invasion by approximately 240 divisions.  Fourteen allied powers and the whites destroyed what they could during the Civil War and the Intervention and the fascists destroyed or stole everything they could from Stalingrad to Leningrad in WWII.  And the Soviet people made all these advancements without draining the mass of humanity and other countries for everything they could get.  That is an achievement almost beyond belief.
         When critics mention that people standing in lines existed in the Soviet Union they should note that the majority of mankind would be happy just to have a queue to stand in.  And 10% of the capitalist world does not stand in queues because the other 90% does.  The Soviet Union made all of its gains, especially under Stalin's superb leadership, WITHOUT stealing everything they could obtain in the process from other nations.  On the other hand, for even one capitalist nation to live well, approximately 9 others have to live little better than animals, a ratio that is an excellent rule of thumb.  That is why, for example, the entire Western Hemisphere of this planet south of the Rio Grande is little more than a sewer in which you run from oasis to oasis through a sea of garbage, excluding Cuba, of course.
         Failure to realize the accomplishments of Stalin and the incredible number of lies that have been devised against him is a tremendous mistake.  Indeed, what man in history has had more lies, half-truths, innuendos, insinuations, accusations, and slanders written about him than Koza.  All with good reason of course, because the bourgeoisie are well aware of the fact that one would have a tremendous task trying to find a man who did more to successfully combat world capitalism.  When you look back over the 20th century a couple of facts stand out boldly.  With the exception of Cuba, the socialist world gained every square foot under Stalin’s leadership and has not gained a square foot since he died.  That fact in itself speaks volumes.  Indeed, the trend has been in precisely the opposite direction ever since his demise giving rise eventually to the Soviet Union’s collapse.
         Contrary to what is alleged by many, the world's Left is not in its current abysmal condition because people followed Stalin but because they left him.  What marks the Left today is the pathetic situation in which it finds itself as a result of having jettisoned Stalin/Lenin's philosophy.   From a world wide powerhouse encompassing 1/3 of humanity at the apex of Stalin's leadership it has deteriorated to a small group of powers and organizations trying to merely retain what they already possess, nearly all of which was gained while Stalin was leading or was obtained from those who Stalin aided.  That is an incredible record of which any man who ever led a nation could be proud and one that puts to shame Stalin’s detractors, nearly all of whom haven't accomplished anything more stunning than leading a strike.
 In any event, as I mentioned earlier, I am in the process of writing a book about this entire era and certainly can not put all the data in a mere email message.  About all that can be addressed at this time are a few salient points from hundreds available.

         One of the few books of which I am aware that does a commendable job of exposing this sequence of injustices is entitled “Another View of Stalin” by Ludo Martens.  Although Ludo is to be praised for compiling his information, I think his work could be improved in two major respects.  First, he quotes many good sources but in some instances does not adequately meld his sources with the general drift of the narrative.  Secondly, Stalin has far more points to his credit and arguments in his favor than are mentioned.  In other words, Stalin’s case is considerably stronger than is illuminated.
 For that reason I am in the process of writing a text to substantiate the acclaim to which Stalin is long overdue.  Whether it will be published or I will have to be content with merely posting it on the Net remains to be seen.
         Another very good book in this regard is “Trotskyism or Leninism” by Harpal Brar.