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.
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”.
The concept of hierarchy itself within democratic institutions does not justify a corrupting pursuit of power. Capitalism forces the pursuit of power via its zealots, the ones most efficient at accumulation remain, selecting for the greediest among us, while Socialism has no such drive that makes pursuit of power sustain itself. Additionally, I don’t depict Capitalism as “efficient,” the priests of Capital merely guess at what Capital wills, and the ones closest survive.
Of couse it doesn’t “justify” it. It sure builds a nice playground for whomever loves doing it though.
That’s why every democracy has an attempt to prevent exploitation, such as a limit to the terms of their leaders, popular referendum, separation of powers…
But of course you know that. It seems you are convinced that, by virtue of messiatic powers, somehow the Communist (transitional) apparatus was immune to that corruption.
When I say “justify,” I mean “justify the existence of.” You hint at an almost supernatural drive for power that is not materially supported by real economic and democratic structures. You claim it “builds a nice playground” with no further elaboration as to how or why it does so.
Communism is not immune to corruption. Communism lacks the economic foundations for corruption directly selected for within Capitalist frameworks, yet you seem to be posturing as though the opposite is the case without providing a materialist explanation of how or why.