Stalinism is not communism.

[Chinese Regions]

Stalinism and communism are both forms of socialism. It does not follow, however, that because they are both branches of the same tree, that they are the same branch.

They are twigs on the same branch, seeing as how it always seems to end up that way.

Communism doesn't intend to end in failiure.
The 'failure' of communism, a dictatorship such as the Soviet Union, is probably what Stalin intended, a place where he had control.

[Voerdeland]

Most NSers know that. As I mentioned somewhere, NSG is one of the very few places in the world where this fact is commonly accepted.

Having spent a bit of time here, I beg to differ.

The point is not to state an obvious fact, the point is to set out the ideological and historical reasons why Stalinism isn't communism, to provide (hopefully) a combination of proof and a source of reasons for any debate on the issue.

I've sigged it for a reason.

Essentially, I want it to be a bit like Laerod's "Ultimate Hitler Thread", except it's about Stalinism, and not as expansive.

Yeah, that's a good idea. Though I don't believe that linking to this thread will ever replace the ancient practice of explaining this over and over again

[Jewcrew]

They are twigs on the same branch, seeing as how it always seems to end up that way.

Yes, of course, the totalitarian ideology and the quasi-anarchistic left ideology are almost the same.

I suppose they both have "ism" in their names.

In theory, no.

But theory is not practice.

[Chinese Regions]

You really think Stalin wanted a society where he had no power?

I think any society that runs contrary to the idea of individual liberty (also known as 'Capitalism') is doomed to dictatorial failure.

The USSR wasn't capitalist, but it certainly wasn't communist either.
Did Stalin wish to achieve communism, a classless, egalitarian, anarchic utopia? Or did he want to maintain his status quo as dictator of a vast empire?

[Jewcrew]

I think any society that runs contrary to the idea of individual liberty (also known as 'Capitalism') is doomed to dictatorial failure.

The USSR wasn't capitalist, but it certainly wasn't communist either.
Did Stalin wish to achieve communism, a classless, egalitarian, anarchic utopia? Or did he want to maintain his status quo as dictator of a vast empire?

As I've stated, any society that runs contrary to the idea of individual liberty - aka. 'Capitalism' - is doomed to dictatorial failure. It wasn't Stalin that created the system that set him on the path to power - it was Lenin. Any large-scale attempt at socialism or communism will ultimately fail, and Stalinism was merely communism running its logical course.

[Zaras]

The USSR wasn't capitalist.

Yes, it was state capitalist. Try to keep up.

As I've stated, any society that runs contrary to the idea of individual liberty - aka. 'Capitalism' -

Get off your fucking high horse. Capitalism does not guarantee individual liberty.

[Chinese Regions]

The USSR wasn't capitalist, but it certainly wasn't communist either.
Did Stalin wish to achieve communism, a classless, egalitarian, anarchic utopia? Or did he want to maintain his status quo as dictator of a vast empire?

As I've stated, any society that runs contrary to the idea of individual liberty - aka. 'Capitalism' - is doomed to dictatorial failure. It wasn't Stalin that created the system that set him on the path to power - it was Lenin. Any large-scale attempt at socialism or communism will ultimately fail, and Stalinism was merely communism running its logical course.

That doesn't answer the question and logical course is not the same as intended course.

[Jewcrew]

The USSR wasn't capitalist.

Yes, it was state capitalist. Try to keep up.

I already used a quote showing how this is completely and totally wrong. Stalinist Russia was no more capitalist than a true communist system.

As I've stated, any society that runs contrary to the idea of individual liberty - aka. 'Capitalism' -

Get off your fucking high horse. Capitalism does not guarantee individual liberty.

It's been doing a pretty damn good job so far.

[Jewcrew]

As I've stated, any society that runs contrary to the idea of individual liberty - aka. 'Capitalism' - is doomed to dictatorial failure. It wasn't Stalin that created the system that set him on the path to power - it was Lenin. Any large-scale attempt at socialism or communism will ultimately fail, and Stalinism was merely communism running its logical course.

That doesn't answer the question and logical course is not the same as intended course.

In theory, theory is practice, but not in practice.

[CTALNH]

This whole tread was created to crush me...

Do any of you understand what I want us an end goal and why I classify myself us a communist?

[Zaras]

I already used a quote showing how this is completely and totally wrong. Stalinist Russia was no more capitalist than a true communist system.

STATE capitalist. That's what it was.

It's been doing a pretty damn good job so far.

If you call false consumer choices between a bunch of brands sellable at über-low prices because of starvation, wage slavery and the wholesale exploitation of the third world individual freedom.

[Zaras]

This whole tread was created to crush me...

Do any of you understand what I want us an end goal and why I classify myself us a communist?

Because you ejaculate when thinking of Stalin?

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Get off your fucking high horse. Capitalism does not guarantee individual liberty.

It's been doing a pretty damn good job so far.

...


Yes, of course, the choice between being forced to work for a) capitalists b) the state or a) eking out a living on benefits b) dying of starvation (a is capitalism, b is the USSR) guarantees individual liberty.

This whole tread was created to crush me...

Do any of you understand a) what I want us an end goal and b) why I classify myself us a communist?

a) The death of everyone who opposes you - a Stalinist to the core.
b) Either a lack of reading of Marx or delusion, or both.

[Chinese Regions]

That doesn't answer the question and logical course is not the same as intended course.

In theory, theory is practice, but not in practice.

So? Did Stalin want communism or not?

[Russtania]

A good read, good to see a way of explaining why stalin isn't really communist.

[CTALNH]

This whole tread was created to crush me...

Do any of you understand what I want us an end goal and why I classify myself us a communist?

Because you ejaculate when thinking of Stalin?

Okay first thats offending!
Second anything else?

[Panageadom]

I think the missed point here is when anti-communists (such as myself!) argue that the USSR demonstrates the failure of communism, they mean one of two things:

1) That the USSR, as a communist state, failed, and hence communism is flawed (which you've eloquently shown is a false syllogism here).
2) That the USSR, as a state that tried to be communist, failed, and hence the struggle towards communism is flawed (which I hold is a legitimate argument).

I think it's telling that all the major countries that spring to mind that have ever tried to be communist, by self-declaration of intent at some stage, (admittedly, as something of a layman, the ones that spring to mind are the predictable examples of the USSR, the PRC, Cuba and that phase when Italy had a communist government), have failed to achieve either communist or liberal (in the Hayekian sense) goals, while states that have tried to be capitalist (the West) have at least partially succeeded. It goes to the heart of the primary flaw in the communist argument, which is that although a communist utopia might be preferable to a capitalist utopia (although the tension there is that liberal capitalism is inherently anti-utopian, and I would personally disagree with the premise), attempts to engineer one of the other have such different success rates: capitalist attempts are partial, while communist attempts engineer the precise opposite of what both capitalists and communists would agree is beneficial for society. Thus, it might be said that although a true communism is preferable, trying to create one (as was the declared intention of the USSR, at several stages) counters the goal of creating a true communism. I see no reason why any modern state should fundamentally differ from the USSR, the PRC or Cuba in this aspect.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Because you ejaculate when thinking of Stalin?

Okay first thats offending!
Second anything else?

This whole tread was created to crush me...

Do any of you understand a) what I want us an end goal and b) why I classify myself us a communist?

a) The death of everyone who opposes you - a Stalinist to the core.
b) Either a lack of reading of Marx or delusion, or both.

[Chinese Regions]

This whole tread was created to crush me...

Do any of you understand what I want us an end goal and why I classify myself us a communist?

You just want to fit in but simultaneously like moustaches

[Cancerous Conservatism]

We have gone over this too many times. Most people on NS know that Stalinism is a type of socialism.

[Tunasai]

Stalinism contained one thing that classifies it as Communism, a centrally planned economy. Like it or not Stalinist Russia had a centrally planned economy, key to state communism

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I think the missed point here is when anti-communists (such as myself!) argue that the USSR demonstrates the failure of communism, they mean one of two things:

1) That the USSR, as a communist state, failed, and hence communism is flawed (which you've eloquently shown is a false syllogism here).
2) That the USSR, as a state that tried to be communist, failed, and hence the struggle towards communism is flawed (which I hold is a legitimate argument).

I think it's telling that all the major countries that spring to mind that have ever tried to be communist, by self-declaration of intent at some stage, (admittedly, as something of a layman, the ones that spring to mind are the predictable examples of the USSR, the PRC, Cuba and that phase when Italy had a communist government), have failed to achieve either communist or liberal (in the Hayekian sense) goals, while states that have tried to be capitalist (the West) have at least partially succeeded.

Self-declaration of intent means little or nothing. North Korea describes itself as "democratic", so is it an example of the failure of democracy?

It goes to the heart of the primary flaw in the communist argument, which is that although a communist utopia might be preferable to a capitalist utopia (although the tension there is that liberal capitalism is inherently anti-utopian, and I would personally disagree with the premise), attempts to engineer one of the other have such different success rates: capitalist attempts are partial, while communist attempts engineer the precise opposite of what both capitalists and communists would agree is beneficial for society. Thus, it might be said that although a true communism is preferable, trying to create one (as was the declared intention of the USSR, at several stages) counters the goal of creating a true communism. I see no reason why any modern state should fundamentally differ from the USSR, the PRC or Cuba in this aspect.

It's an interesting point (I forget who raised it) - Stalin never publicly mentioned communism.

Also, as mentioned in my OP, one of the reasons for the failure of "communist" states thus far is the Stalinist/Jucheist/Maoist principle of socialism in one country, which a) is not communist and b) is guaranteed to destroy any revolution.

Stalinism contained one thing that classifies it as Communism, a centrally planned economy. Like it or not Stalinist Russia had a centrally planned economy, key to state communism

As Marx made clear, "state communism" is contradictory, as communism in the Marxist sense does away with the state entirely.

Did you read the OP? My point about stateless communism is in it.

[CTALNH]

Dear me Wow all of you just don't like my ideological views only because I said I am a Stalinist?

Do you actually think that I wouldn't want everyone to enjoy "communism" without the constant vigilance for counter revolutionaries or do you people think that I like Stalin because he killed a lot people?

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Dear me Wow all of you just don't like my ideological views only because I said I am a Stalinist?

Yep.

Do you actually think that I wouldn't want everyone to enjoy "communism" without the constant vigilance for counter revolutionaries or do you people think that I like Stalin because he killed a lot people?

Most of your posts, particularly the ones about "Trotskyites", "revisionists", "liberals" and "Mensheviks" would seem to suggest that you like Stalin for the killing.

[Chinese Regions]

Dear me Wow all of you just don't like my ideological views only because I said I am a Stalinist?

Do you actually think that I wouldn't want everyone to enjoy "communism" without the constant vigilance for counter revolutionaries or do you people think that I like Stalin because he killed a lot people?

But his mass killings are one of his brilliant methods for achieving communism right? Ergo you do like Stalin because he killed people because that was his supposed method of achieving communism.