I believe in socialism, but I feel Stalin shouldn’t be idolised due to things like the Gulag.
I would like more people to become socialist, but I feel not condemning Stalin doesn’t help the cause.
I’ve tried to have a constructieve conversation about this, but I basically get angry comments calling me stupid for believing he did atrocious things.
That’s not how you win someone over.
I struggle to believe the Gulag etc. Never happened, and if it happened I firmly believe Stalin should be condemned.
Not worthy of his role. Not nearly smart enough, surely not intellectually honest enough to reject a lifelong position of leadership as a mean to pursue world equality.
Somebody Lenin himself did not want to see in that position.
This is ahistorical.
First, Stalin evidently was intelligent. He wasn’t a genius, but he was consistently proven to know what he was talking about. See his interview with H.G. Wells.
Secondly, Stalin did try to reject his position, even desiring to have his position itself permanently liquidated. Archival evidence and records show he tried to resign no fewer than four times, all rejected.
Thirdly, there is no actual evidence that Lenin was opposed to Stalin, the anger Lenin felt towards Stalin towards the end of his life was due to Stalin’s treatment of Lenin’s wife. Additionally, Stalin was democratically elected, the Soviet Union was not a monarchy. Regardless of who Lenin may have wished to succeed him, Stalin was elected, and furthermore one of his attempted resignation attempts was over this spat with Lenin over treatment of his wife in Lenin’s final days (which, again, was rejected).
Stalin was no saint, he made numerous mistakes and was frequently socially reactionary, but it is important to place him in a correct historical context and separate fact from fiction. Moreover, you offer no indication how someone replacing him would help “pursue world equality,” whatever that means. Marxism to begin with rails against the idea of equalitarianism, prefering the concept of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work,” and eventually substituting “work” with “needs” as the productive forces become capable of accomodating such organization.
That was my opinion according to the sources I have been exposed to. I’m glad to deepen my understanding on the matter, I’ll just point out that in the history of mankind most leader pushed to stay in power, when they were meant to step down, and stayed in power when the choice was purely up to them.
Isn’t it weird that the rejections were unanimous? Don’t you think there may have been a certain, I don’t know… Hesitation into suggesting they found the head of state not fit for the role?
As I said, I’ll look better into it, but I am not currently convinced Stalin was an exception to the trend that affected most of the highest ruling class through history.
Stalin wasn’t an exception himself, the Soviet system of democracy is, which coincides with other AES states. It allowed more democratic and meritocratic methods of selecting candidates. Stalin personally seemed to want nothing more than to retire to a quiet post, free from the sheer amount of responsibility placed on his shoulders. This does not make him some virtuous figure, he had genuine, selfish desires of living out the rest of his days in a more peaceful manner. This is only further proven by his paranoia. It’s difficult to comprehend the amount of stress he was in.
Moreover, Stalin was not “ruling class.” He was only the “ruling class” with respect to the fact that the proletariat was in control. Such a confusion of government figures as uniquely non-proletarian flies in the face of Marxism itself, which sees class as relations with respect to the Mode of Production. Having a government and central planning is a key aspect of Marxian Communism.
Old habits die hard. I meant people with a lot more power than the other people.
I’m aware, my point is that I believe your analysis of power with respect to ideas of “corruption” don’t actually follow when applied to alternative modes of production. Capitalism naturally selects for those Priests of Capital that best serve its alien interests in profit and accumulation, as those who do not do so end up cast aside. Capital is a fickle god.
On the other hand, under a Socialist system, Humanity becomes supreme to Capital. “Power” in a Socialist system comes with far less excess wealth compared to Capitalist systems, and moreover the ties to accumulation just don’t exist as the driving factor of a centrally planned economy. What this means is that leaders of AES are frequently in it more out of ideological reasons, rather than personal enrichment.
You seem to conflate power with money.
I don’t think there’s many way to be more powerful than holding power in a society where the different access to goods are irrelevant.
You think ambition fueled by money are more powerful than the ones fueled by idealism, purity, rightfullness and, of course, narcissism and domination?
Do you really think it’s all the same to those people, to Stalin himself, if he was farming potatoes or signing the 5 year plan under oh-so-genuine thundering applause of the assemply?
Come the fuck on.
I tie “pursuit of power” to actual, mechanical drives. What is the purpose of power? Why do you believe humans pursue it? I quite specifically mentioned that Capitalism itself selects for those in power within it by selecting the most ruthless and willing to do whatever it takes to accumulate the most, because the system requires it. Socialism does not, ergo you need to justify a “pursuit of power.”
Secondly, I want to know where you are getting the notion that Stalin was not popular among his peers. Rather, he became more popular until the “Secret Speech,” where Kruschev attempted to delegitimize Stalin in pursuit of his own interests. I think you would do best to read some of the books listed here by other comrades.
Luckily for us, we do live under capitalism, so there’s no need to speculate there. As i’m sure you have plenty of chances to verify daily, it’s not as efficient as you make it sounds. It tends to embolden those that are narrowly focused on the accumulation of capital, but even in doing that, it’s an inefficient and rather messy machination.
In a similar way it could be said of power under socialism. It’s possible despite its “best” effort that capitalist adiacent pulsions survived the new structure of… guidance? action? decisiont making? coordination? (it’s still power)
Another point of touch can be personal greed. Capitalism leaves it unchecked by design, but it has always accompanied scarcity. It’s hunger, if you will, and if you could argue such pulsion have been imposed onto the natural man, of conquered by ascetism, none of those equate the background of a pre-1917 Russia.
Some of those people, no matter the books they read, could potentially still thirst and hunger for “more”.
I once again ask you if the simple asimmetry between giving orders and taking orders does not justify, theoretically, a selfish “pursuit of power”.