Stalinism/Communist Dictatorship VS Marxism/REAL Communism

[Aimdar-Goomdar]

Many, many, MANY people consistently mistake Classical Communism, or just plain Communism, with Stalinism, which is pretty much an Authoritarian ideology - unless you can manage it.

Stalinism is the ideology based on the authoritarian regime by Joseph Stalin during his rule in the USSR. It was marked with pure authoritarianism: defectors were killed, the state was all-important, and the State controlled you. It was no different from any other dictatorship, with the exception that defunct Communist organizations within the government still existed, and that the government was, in practice, supposed to support the people and the USSR in helping the country reach or maintain Communism - with a dictatorial state that did many actions simply "in the name of Communism." Examples are ALL current so-called "Communist" countries; they aren't Communist. They're Stalinist. If the state listened (a LOT) to the people, however, and acted upon their will, the USSR may have been a lot more Socialist... but not quite Communist.

Marxism, or what I call Classical Communism, is the actual theory of Communism. Communism is a classless society, often portrayed with the withering away of the state, where the means of production, or the way you get your daily everyday items, is controlled by the working class, with the working class directly controlling the government through direct democracy and the government controlling the economy, thus eliminating Capitalism and allowing for all workers in the working class to be able to control their own lives. Professionals, such as researchers, engineers, doctors, pharmacists, and professors still participate in this classless society, though they are also part of the working class. However, all jobs follow the slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," where everyone's needs are compensated. Doctors don't necessarily get the same salary as a taxi driver.

My question to you is: how does Stalinism and Marxism compare, and could they both work?

My Opinion: Personally, I believe that Marxism works just fine, and would function perfectly in any society. Stalinism could work, but only with the strict guidance of the state by the working class.

[Farnhamia]

Many, many, MANY people consistently mistake Classical Communism, or just plain Communism, with Stalinism, which is pretty much an Authoritarian ideology - unless you can manage it.

My question to you is: how does Stalinism and Marxism compare, and could they both work?

You should provide definitions with a bit more meat to them, and your take on the topic.

[Risottia]

Many, many, MANY people consistently mistake Classical Communism, or just plain Communism, with Stalinism, which is pretty much an Authoritarian ideology - unless you can manage it.

My question to you is: how does Stalinism and Marxism compare, and could they both work?

Erm.

There's an absolute lack of consensus about the definition of "classical Communism" and even of "Marxism" when it comes to policies. Your OP isn't specific enough - nor is your title.

E.g., Stalin, Dubček, Mao, Togliatti, Marchand, Lenin, Gorbačëv, Berlinguer, Fidel - they all considered themselves as "Marxist".

[Aimdar-Goomdar]

Many, many, MANY people consistently mistake Classical Communism, or just plain Communism, with Stalinism, which is pretty much an Authoritarian ideology - unless you can manage it.

My question to you is: how does Stalinism and Marxism compare, and could they both work?

Erm.

There's an absolute lack of consensus about the definition of "classical Communism" and even of "Marxism" when it comes to policies. Your OP isn't specific enough - nor is your title.

E.g., Stalin, Dubček, Mao, Togliatti, Marchand, Lenin, Gorbačëv, Berlinguer, Fidel - they all considered themselves as "Marxist".

All of these dictators have considered themselves Marxist, but that's like calling a serial killer a pacifist. It doesn't work.

[Yugoslav Memes]

Erm.

There's an absolute lack of consensus about the definition of "classical Communism" and even of "Marxism" when it comes to policies. Your OP isn't specific enough - nor is your title.

E.g., Stalin, Dubček, Mao, Togliatti, Marchand, Lenin, Gorbačëv, Berlinguer, Fidel - they all considered themselves as "Marxist".

All of these dictators have considered themselves Marxist, but that's like calling a serial killer a pacifist. It doesn't work.

>dubček
>dictator

[Aimdar-Goomdar]

All of these dictators have considered themselves Marxist, but that's like calling a serial killer a pacifist. It doesn't work.

>dubček
>dictator

...ok, not all of them are dictators, but let's just say that the politicians listed are not all Marxist.

[Risottia]

Erm.

There's an absolute lack of consensus about the definition of "classical Communism" and even of "Marxism" when it comes to policies. Your OP isn't specific enough - nor is your title.

E.g., Stalin, Dubček, Mao, Togliatti, Marchand, Lenin, Gorbačëv, Berlinguer, Fidel - they all considered themselves as "Marxist".

All of these dictators have considered themselves Marxist, but that's like calling a serial killer a pacifist. It doesn't work.

Explain how Dubček, Togliatti, Marchand and Berlinguer were "dictators".

[Aimdar-Goomdar]

All of these dictators have considered themselves Marxist, but that's like calling a serial killer a pacifist. It doesn't work.

Explain how Dubček, Togliatti, Marchand and Berlinguer were "dictators".

THEY weren't, but all of the others were.

[Hexgard]

The USSR was made as a vanguard state for communism. After famine, poverty and so on, Stalin took over with an iron fist, abandoning the path to the fantasy of communism and tried to fix the country, through brutal means sadly.
It stands that communism never existed in a proper sense, but it was tried, and it failed horribly plenty of times. The question is, would communism have been good at all?

[Communist Ylisse]

Classical marxism is dead, to be a classical marxist is silly, as times have changed. Even the left comms don't call themselves classical marxist, as absurdly dogmatic and illogical as they may be.

Lenin's theories were meant to adapt. Marx predicted capitalism would fall very quickly, but Lenin say that it obviously hadn't, and had moved on to the stage of imperialism. His theories were mean to adapt to combating imperialism. Vanguardism provided a more secure path to revolution, and proved effective.

The problem arose during the WWI wave of revolutions. Russia was meant to be inspiration for workers, not the center of socialism. It was semi feudal, and especially after a brutal civil war, where imperialist powers invaded Russia, and the upper classes sabotaged them, Russia was in no shape to build a developed capitalist state, let alone a workers state, that would take on the entire rest of the planet. The revolution needed to succeed internationally. Had the revolution succeeded in places like Italy, Finland, Hungary, Slovakia, and especially Germany, Russia could have been supported, and socialists would have the resources to support international revolution, as well as develop themselves. Instead, Russia was left completely isolated, and in ruins. In this state, there was no international revolution, and democracy would have been extremely difficult. The government had to focus on defending itself, industrializing, and military, rather than focusing on the goal of communism. And with this, the bureaucracy became inevitable.

Once the Stalinist bureaucracy came to power, it's influence corrupted Marxist parties across the world, and parties that remained non-Stalinist were sabotaged, and their leaders assassinated. I don't think all Stalinist leaders are truly evil, people like Thomas Sankara, and perhaps even Castro were well intentioned. But their ideology was bankrupt, and inherently non-socialist. It's focus on socialism in one country, and lack of democracy lead it to failure, corruption, and eventually capitalism every time.

Communism remains attainable, but we must be willing to set aside the history of Stalinism, acknowledge it's failure, and instead fight for democratic, and international socialism. And the first world communists need to get their shit together, and stop fucking around with petty bullshit. We need to fight together, against imperialism, and create actual revolution at home. Socialism can't succeed with occasional revolutions in developing countries, where they will immediately get crushed by NATO.

[Discretospia]

I'm a Trotskyist and I would agree that people do not know what communism is. Hell, most people don't know what socialism is. Pseudo-socialist SocDem Sanders was up in arms throwing the word "socialist" at Scandinavian countries and people started throwing the word "communist" right back at him. Sigh.

I still believe capitalism will fall eventually, whether it be next year or next century. The world has changed quite a bit since Marx's and Lenin's time, but the inherently fundamental and destructive structure of capitalism still remains. We're reaching a tipping point in the global warming crisis, we will have to change. We'll be forced to change. Chances are, smaller scale revolutions in a single country won't be enough. The global economy wouldn't allow it. I'm betting it will be something that sweeps across multiple nations. There will be massive conflict, but we must do something if we want to continue our lives. Right now, I can't see that happening under capitalism.

[Philjia]

Communism, regardless of the particular flavour, is an ideology that would not bring any particular improvements to the Western world. Since all decisions have to be made at a macroeconomic level, expanded production and consumption of Stuff™ will not transfer benefits to individuals efficiently. Further to that, it limits civil rights since all incentives to do jobs will be controlled by the state, preventing people from choosing the particular rewards that are right for them. It's an ideology best suited to nascent societies where the survival of the state is the absolutely most important goal; civil rights can come later, when security has been established. From that point it is essentially pointless to force everyone to follow the orders of the state in all matters, since the state will be able to preserve itself without difficulty.

[Discretospia]

Communism, regardless of the particular flavour, is an ideology that would not bring any particular improvements to the Western world. Since all decisions have to be made at a macroeconomic level, expanded production and consumption of Stuff™ will not transfer benefits to individuals efficiently. Further to that, it limits civil rights since all incentives to do jobs will be controlled by the state, preventing people from choosing the particular rewards that are right for them. It's an ideology best suited to nascent societies where the survival of the state is the absolutely most important goal; civil rights can come later, when security has been established. From that point it is essentially pointless to force everyone to follow the orders of the state in all matters, since the state will be able to preserve itself without difficulty.

Communism ------------>







Your understanding of communism ------------>

[Conscentia]

One of these threads on NSG? Did I go back in time? Is it 2012 again? Great Scott! - I have to warn everyone about 2016!

[Pandeeria]

Many, many, MANY people consistently mistake Classical Communism, or just plain Communism, with Stalinism, which is pretty much an Authoritarian ideology - unless you can manage it.

My question to you is: how does Stalinism and Marxism compare, and could they both work?

Erm.

There's an absolute lack of consensus about the definition of "classical Communism" and even of "Marxism" when it comes to policies. Your OP isn't specific enough - nor is your title.

E.g., Stalin, Dubček, Mao, Togliatti, Marchand, Lenin, Gorbačëv, Berlinguer, Fidel - they all considered themselves as "Marxist".

I'm pretty sure as long as you subscribe to Marx's various theories such as that of Class Society, Class Struggle, and the various implications of Dialectical Materialism, you are a Marxist.

[Chestaan]

Many, many, MANY people consistently mistake Classical Communism, or just plain Communism, with Stalinism, which is pretty much an Authoritarian ideology - unless you can manage it.

My question to you is: how does Stalinism and Marxism compare, and could they both work?

Erm.

There's an absolute lack of consensus about the definition of "classical Communism" and even of "Marxism" when it comes to policies. Your OP isn't specific enough - nor is your title.

E.g., Stalin, Dubček, Mao, Togliatti, Marchand, Lenin, Gorbačëv, Berlinguer, Fidel - they all considered themselves as "Marxist".

Proponents of communism generally agree on the definition as a stateless, moneyless society where the means of production are owned by the workers.

[Republic of Canador]

Former Stalinist here.

To me, Stalinism was its own form of Communism, one that would not become corrupted by the involvement of western capitalist powers. Under Stalinism, the state is made to be so powerful that there is no realistic way that the people cam be subjected to any outside intervention. Those who sought to destroy collectivism would be punished so as to not allow them to contaminate the people.

Think of the Stalinist state as the walls of an aquarium. In order for the aquarium to hold what is inside of it, it must be built with strong walls to protect the fish in it so that they can live their lives without being prayed upon by a cat.

If the walls of our metaphorical aquarium were too weak, they would implode, and the fish (aka the people) would go flying out and end up as dinner.

[South Park Labourite]

I'm not gonna lie, I'd rather live under the Stalinist dictatorship then the idealised communist society.

[Pandeeria]

I'm not gonna lie, I'd rather live under the Stalinist dictatorship then the idealised communist society.

Why?

[Chestaan]

Former Stalinist here.

To me, Stalinism was its own form of Communism, one that would not become corrupted by the involvement of western capitalist powers. Under Stalinism, the state is made to be so powerful that there is no realistic way that the people cam be subjected to any outside intervention. Those who sought to destroy collectivism would be punished so as to not allow them to contaminate the people.

Think of the Stalinist state as the walls of an aquarium. In order for the aquarium to hold what is inside of it, it must be built with strong walls to protect the fish in it so that they can live their lives without being prayed upon by a cat.

If the walls of our metaphorical aquarium were too weak, they would implode, and the fish (aka the people) would go flying out and end up as dinner.

Tbh I think a lot of the features of Stalin's USSR were more as a result of mental illness rather than any coherent plan.

[South Park Labourite]

I'm not gonna lie, I'd rather live under the Stalinist dictatorship then the idealised communist society.

Why?

It's late and I'm about to sleep. I'll deliver a more in-depth explanation tomorrow but essentially I have more faith in Marxist-Leninism then other forms of communism in terms of delivering both the best outcomes for the people and stability/efficiency of government as opposed to, say, an implementation of council communism or anarchist communism.

[Pandeeria]

Former Stalinist here.

To me, Stalinism was its own form of Communism, one that would not become corrupted by the involvement of western capitalist powers. Under Stalinism, the state is made to be so powerful that there is no realistic way that the people cam be subjected to any outside intervention. Those who sought to destroy collectivism would be punished so as to not allow them to contaminate the people.

Think of the Stalinist state as the walls of an aquarium. In order for the aquarium to hold what is inside of it, it must be built with strong walls to protect the fish in it so that they can live their lives without being prayed upon by a cat.

If the walls of our metaphorical aquarium were too weak, they would implode, and the fish (aka the people) would go flying out and end up as dinner.

Tbh I think a lot of the features of Stalin's USSR were more as a result of mental illness rather than any coherent plan.

I think a lot of it has more to do with unfortunate circumstance.

[Republic of Canador]

Former Stalinist here.

To me, Stalinism was its own form of Communism, one that would not become corrupted by the involvement of western capitalist powers. Under Stalinism, the state is made to be so powerful that there is no realistic way that the people cam be subjected to any outside intervention. Those who sought to destroy collectivism would be punished so as to not allow them to contaminate the people.

Think of the Stalinist state as the walls of an aquarium. In order for the aquarium to hold what is inside of it, it must be built with strong walls to protect the fish in it so that they can live their lives without being prayed upon by a cat.

If the walls of our metaphorical aquarium were too weak, they would implode, and the fish (aka the people) would go flying out and end up as dinner.

Tbh I think a lot of the features of Stalin's USSR were more as a result of mental illness rather than any coherent plan.

Of course, and that's what turned me away from the ideology and made me the Anarcho Capitalist I am now.

Stalin's policy was to ensure that Stalin stayed in power.

[Chestaan]

Tbh I think a lot of the features of Stalin's USSR were more as a result of mental illness rather than any coherent plan.

I think a lot of it has more to do with unfortunate circumstance.

That too, what with the war and Russia being chronically underindustrialised. But the gulags and the purges seem to be a result of a completely irrational paranoia.

[Pandeeria]

I think a lot of it has more to do with unfortunate circumstance.

That too, what with the war and Russia being chronically underindustrialised. But the gulags and the purges seem to be a result of a completely irrational paranoia.

The purges and general mass repression of basic freedoms were completely unnecessary. The dekulakization (they were hording food during a famine) and refusal to transition over to Socialism (the Soviet work force was simply not literate and technically-experienced enough to handle Socialism, and the upcoming world war would make such a fundamental change in society disastrous).