Active Users:182 Time:19/05/2024 12:39:17 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Not sure it would change my perceptions. Joel Send a noteboard - 11/10/2011 03:41:08 PM
1. Proletarian dictatorship was achieved. Stalin just didn't trust the result, but after his death it was a proletarian dictatorship. If you had the right class background you could join the Party, and the Party was more participatory than a lot of people in the West would like to believe. If you look at Russian non-criminals, the numbers get up into the high 30%s. It's not democracy, but they were never aiming for that. "Democratic centralism" was the watchword.

Had proletarian dicatorship been achieved, whether Stalin or any other one man mistrusted it would have been irrelevant. If 30% of the USSR represented the entire proletariat even after Stalins harsh drive for industrialization we are back to "how can you have Marxism in a country where 2/3 of the people are dirt farmers?" Of course, even among that 30%, Stalin could and did have anyone shot if they annoyed him; look at what happened to Molotov (at least he was not executed, eh?)

2. Collectivization was achieved. Stalin didn't own tractors and really didn't give a shit about owning them. Peasants had an allotment to give to the state and the remainder was for them. Stalin wasn't about owning anything - he owned virtually nothing. He just controlled the State that owned everything. But he sure didn't walk around with jewels and nice clothes and fancy cars and live in mansions - he had a modest dacha and dressed in a military outfit all the time.

I did say, "control," but, as you say, Stalin had no need for personal ownership since the state he controlled absolutely owned everything in the name of the people. Hitler and Mussolini preferred uniforms to regalia, too; it is difficult to maintain ones image as a hero of the common man in foot high tiara. That Stalin cared more about power than the trappings of opulence proves he was smart, not a communist.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Is communism the true economy of democracies? MrFarstrider - 10/10/2011 01:35:24 AM 734 Views
Sorry, not following this..... trzaska2000 - 10/10/2011 03:33:11 AM 550 Views
Re: Sorry, not following this..... MrFarstrider - 10/10/2011 03:54:45 AM 464 Views
Um, a LOT of places have mixed "free" market and state rule. Joel - 10/10/2011 05:43:49 AM 572 Views
WTF? Canada, Western Europe, and Japan are democracies, not state-rule like China - *NM* trzaska2000 - 10/10/2011 05:53:17 PM 203 Views
Think he means we all have public sector enterprise. Stephen - 10/10/2011 06:24:10 PM 405 Views
Yeah, I thought it was clear as well. Tom - 10/10/2011 06:32:02 PM 441 Views
Yeah, Stephen pretty much covered it. Joel - 11/10/2011 06:10:38 AM 478 Views
They are not similar. MightyYT - 10/10/2011 04:01:59 AM 425 Views
Re: They are not similar. MrFarstrider - 10/10/2011 04:47:26 AM 500 Views
That's why Lenin came up with the soviets, though that was pretty naïve, too. Joel - 10/10/2011 05:54:37 AM 370 Views
Lenin died in 1924. The Civil War was over in 1920. He died after several strokes. *NM* Tom - 10/10/2011 05:30:58 PM 174 Views
Sorry, did not realize he survived it that long. Joel - 11/10/2011 04:21:05 AM 479 Views
There is no evidence that Lenin was poisoned. Tom - 11/10/2011 04:50:28 AM 405 Views
That is hardly the only way to kill; in Lenins condition, neglect would have sufficed. Joel - 11/10/2011 06:28:31 AM 435 Views
Let's see...you're asking if property theft by the state is compatible with freedom? No. Tom - 10/10/2011 04:58:14 AM 420 Views
I'm curious how you distinguish "full socialism" from "full communism." Joel - 10/10/2011 05:32:53 AM 395 Views
You obviously don't understand the definitions of socialism and communism. Tom - 10/10/2011 02:41:39 PM 474 Views
OK, I see what you mean now, thanks. Joel - 11/10/2011 04:29:35 AM 405 Views
In theory, but economics is not politics, making social contracts a bit more dubious. Joel - 10/10/2011 05:18:39 AM 558 Views
No, but socialism is. Dannymac - 10/10/2011 06:09:55 AM 478 Views
No. A thousand times no. Vodalus - 10/10/2011 07:46:22 AM 564 Views
Guess I count myself among those fools, though I pretty much agree with Danny. Joel - 10/10/2011 10:52:11 AM 466 Views
I don't usually answer your scattershot rants, Joel, but you have overextended yourself. Tom - 10/10/2011 05:28:07 PM 508 Views
That still looks like Stalin and Mao rationalizing away the impossibility of their stated goals. Joel - 11/10/2011 05:59:06 AM 515 Views
No time to today, but you're very wrong. Tom - 11/10/2011 02:32:38 PM 402 Views
OK. Joel - 11/10/2011 03:08:17 PM 388 Views
You really should read more about the Soviet Union. Tom - 11/10/2011 03:19:32 PM 471 Views
Not sure it would change my perceptions. Joel - 11/10/2011 03:41:08 PM 377 Views
In a single word: No. A Deathwatch Guard - 11/10/2011 08:26:36 AM 398 Views
Nope, because free-market democracy totally permits communism already Isaac - 12/10/2011 12:50:36 AM 458 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes