Talk:Sven Linderot

Stalinism

The purge in 1929 was a was exactly the same thing as was happening in the Soviet Union at the time. In Sweden it started in 1927, when Ture Nerman and others refused to sign a paper condemning Trotsky as a counterrevolutionary, by orders from Moscow. Two years later the Stalinists were strong enough to expel all members of the party who didn’t agree with the new Stalinist course. And Sven Linderot was one of the leading Stalinists in Sweden. Bronks 28/2 2006

No, that describtion of history is not 100% accurate. The majority of the party membership was expelled by Comintern, but they were not exactly anti-Stalinists (from what I presume is your definition of 'Stalinist') themselves. Note especially the early period of the Kilbom/Flyg Party as they intensively worked to regain recognition from Comintern. --Soman 21:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, I don’t agree with you. First of all, you write “party split”, that’s not true. People were expelled against their will. It was a coup within the party in which the minority occupied the party headquarters and there was even a real battle taking place, with at least one gun involved. Yes, with support from Moscow, the minority took over and expelled those in the party, the majority, who had started to question the new Stalinist development within Russia and the Comintern. Sure, they didn’t just expel the people who had started to question the stalinist development, they expelled many more, including people who didn’t understand what the conflict was about. But the stalinist needed to get rid of al the people they didn’t trust, most of all, they needed to get rid of all the original leading members of the party. It was the same thing that happened within all communist parties all over the world at this time. Bronks 1/3 2006

Well, we simply disagree. First it cannot be described as a coup. And if it was a coup, it was a coup instigated by the Kilbom/Flyg faction. The party was at the time affiliated to Comintern, and the ECCI had the force to make expulsions from Comintern. Expulsion from Comintern automatically meant expulsion from any of the national sections.

Secondly, I think its important not to simplify the issue. There were similar splits and developments in other communist parties at the same time, but the Swedish situation was in many ways special.

Thirdly, who were the 'Stalinists'? The expulsion, IMHO, occured partially because the circle around Stalin suspected a section of the party of aligning/being able to align with opposing faction within Comintern. In retrospect those suspiscions were largely unfounded. Linderot personally had close sympathies to Bukharin, whereas there were people amongst the expellees who were indeed loyal to Stalin and the USSR (up to the point by which they were expelled). Thus making the 1929 split an issue of a conflict between 'Stalinists' and non/anti-'Stalinists' becomes misleading. --Soman 12:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• You can’t call it a “split”. That’s not true. It would mean that there were two fractions that decided to go separate ways. That’s not what happened. They were expelled and it was a huge fight. The minority occupied the headquarters, they even called the police to help, which the police did. And as a result, after this event, the Swedish Communist Party became Stalinist, lead by people like Linderot and Sillén. Bronks 1/3 2006

• Split' still holds as a correct word. 'Split' implies that an organization is divided in two (or more) separate parts. The word itself does not make any implication towards the cause of the split. --Soman 13:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Stalinist road

I remove a passage in my latest edit. It does not take into account differences between Sillén and Linderot. In fact the political project of Linderot (Mass Line) was quite different from that of Sillén (Class against Class). Read the history of the party as described by KPML(r), and you'll see that they are critical towards Linderot. --Soman 13:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)