Collectivization in the USSR

Stalin is accused of intentionally starving several million people in the Ukraine starting in 1928, under the process of collectivization of agriculture. The INTENT of collectivization was to grow more food so that people wouldn't starve. The intent was to farm more efficiently, using more scientific methods and so forth. Collectivization was begun because there had already been several near-famines in the USSR, and because it was clear that the other European countries weren't going to help in case of an emergency. They had a system in place to help each other in case of famine, but when people in the Soviet Union began to starve, they said, Oh, that horrible monster Josef Stalin, starving his own people! and, amazingly the charge has stuck to this day.

The Ukraine was the biggest source of food for the USSR. Farmers in the Ukraine reacted to collectivization by burning whole fields of crops, and slaughtering livestock and letting the meat rot, by not growing food to begin with, etc. In short, collectivization was a huge failure. And as a result of this -- and as a result of other nations not helping, when they had food surpluses and could have helped -- several million people starved. Other European countries stood by and watched (and hypocritically blamed Stalin).

You can blame Stalin of lying about collectivization being a huge success, when it was failing. Yes, he did lie about that. But I don't see how you can blame him for famine, when he didn't have the food to feed people. And, again, other European countries DID have the food to feed them. And they did nothing to help. Because they preferred to take the opportunity to falsely accuse Stalin of intentionally starving millions of his own people. The INTENT of collectivization was to PREVENT famine.

 

"McBain To Base: Under Attack From Commie Nazis!"

The Huffington Post showed this photograph of a billboard in Iowa as an example of right-wing nutjobs comparong Obama to Hitler:

The Huffington Post clearly takes issue with such comparisons. It's not at all clear, however, whether they mind a bit when someone compares Lenin to Hitler. Well, I object to it. And I think Stalin was much, much worse than Lenin, but I also object when someone compares Stalin, or Mao, to Hitler. (Comparisons of Pol Pot and Hitler are valid. If you can find a Marxist or a Leninist who thinks Pol Pot was just great, please let me know. If you know of any Stalinists still living, that also would be news to me.) If you think Stalin was as bad, or worse, than Hitler, I've said it before, I'll very likely say it again: get Stalin: A Political Biography by Isaac Deutscher, the 2nd edition from 1966, read pages 566 through 569and then get back to us, and if you haven't changed your mind, tell us where you think Deutscher is wrong. (Go ahead and read the whole book while you're at it, and other things by Deutscher, it will do you no harm.) If you think either I or Deutscher is praising Stalin as a glorious hero and role-model, well, you just haven't been paying attention, and I'm mostly likely going to shift my attention to people who are paying attention.

And if you're one of those people who believe that Communist regimes have murdered 100 million people -- or if you believed it a decade ago and have revised that round number upward since then -- read this.