The point of this OP is not to state the obvious, but rather to prove that Stalinism is not communism.
In essence, Stalinism runs completely contrary to the principles of Marx and Engels, and it is the fact that it runs contrary to these as much as its state-capitalist aspects which means it cannot reasonably be called communism.
The Flaws of Stalinism:*
1. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat
Marx is insistent that the proletarian class must rise up and establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat". However, what he meant by this was a dictatorship in the sense of the ancient Roman Republic, i.e. a leader appointed for a short period of time, who does not practise tyranny, and who makes limited change to the existing order of things.
Indeed, Marx and Engels also attacked those within the Left movement who attempted to establish a form of personal dictatorship in the way that Lenin and Stalin later did, particularly Ferdinand Lassalle. It is obvious from even this that, because they opposed the dictatorial (in the modern sense) principles of Lassalle, that they would oppose the dictatorial principles of Stalin, in particular.
Furthermore, if communism is meant to "emancipate" the working class - and the word "emancipate" crops up at least 4 times in The Communist Manifesto - then surely an iron-fisted dictatorship, which oppresses the working class and causes huge suffering to ordinary people, as in the USSR, runs contrary to Marxist principles of "emancipation of the proletariat" and therefore contrary to communism itself?
2. Socialism In One Country
Socialism in One Country (SOIC) is one of the key tenets of Stalinism, and it is also one of its principles that is most prone to criticism. In layman's terms, SOIC consists of building socialism, and indeed communism, in one country, before spreading this abroad to other countries once the revolution has been successful in the initial country. This was Stalin's view on how the revolution should be carried out, influenced by the failed Soviet invasion of Poland in 1920-21 (which Stalin himself helped to defeat by retaining forces in south-east Ukraine instead of attacking with them).
For a refutation of this, I'll not use my own words, but those of Friedrich Engels, for the simple reason that, as one of the founding fathers of communism, he deserves a look-in.
Friedrich Engels in The Principles of Communism, 1847 wrote:"Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?
No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries—that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany. It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace. It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range."
TL;DR: SOIC runs contrary to socialist principles and is irrational, because all of the major developed Western countries, where the revolution ought to have happened, and not Russia, where it ought not to have happened, were and are closely linked, and as the world is not a vacuum, a socialist state cannot prosper and spread the revolution on its own.
3. The Elevation of the Party Above the Proletariat
This is probably the most glaringly obvious flaw in Stalinism, and it links back to my mention of Lassalle earlier. The whole point of communism is to create a classless society, yet in the USSR, instead of becoming ascendant, as they were in 1917 before Lenin cracked down, the proletariat merely had a new set of masters imposed upon them.
Pre-USSR
Upper class - Tsar and nobles
Middle class
Working class
In the USSR
Upper class - Stalin and Politburo
Middle class - nomenklatura, high-ranking NKVD men, party functionaries
Working class
In essence, instead of emancipating the proletariat, Stalinism merely imposes a new hierarchy on them.
Summary - Why Stalinism isn't communism
At the most basic level, a Marxist communist society:
- Is classless
- Is stateless
- Has no form of money
- Has the means of production owned in common by all people.
Stalinism meets none of these requirements.
1) Stalinism does remove classes - see "kulaks" and "bourgeoisie" - but then creates new ones to fill the gaps while maintaining the pretence of a revolution. In essence, it's as hierarchical as capitalism, if not more so.
2) Stalinism does not remove the state, it greatly expands it and its power, creating totalitarian police states ostensibly to "advance the revolution without the threat of saboteurs" etc. but actually to consolidate the power of the ruling elite.
3) Stalinism maintains currency and ration stamps as an element of coercion - the USSR, particularly in the early 30s during collectivisation, used food, and currency - ration stamps, which ensured access to food - as a weapon against dissent on a near-unparalleled scale. Currency is a key feature and a key weapon of Stalinist states.
4) Stalinism does not have the means of production owned in common by all people, the state instead takes control of the means of production because it cannot trust the workers, whom it allegedly sets out to emancipate, with the responsibility of their workplaces - after all, they might speak out against the Dear Leader, now, mightn't they?
*all arguments in this OP apply equally to Maoism, Hoxhaism and Jucheism.
------------------------------------
*wipes brow*
Phew. That's that done. Please have a read, NSG, and then tell me - what am I missing out? Is this just counter-revolutionary tripe meant to foment dissent against Comrade Stalin's Workers' And Peasants' State? Or am I right? What's your views on the matter? (I think mine are clear from the OP.)
