Was Stalin truly a communist?

[emikaijuin]

We had some discussion about this in class... what do you think? Officially, yes, on paper, yes, but in practice?

[laneolaneo1]

A Marxist-Leninist, yes.

Does this count as communist? Does the Chinese Communist Party count as communist? We need to be careful with our definitions.

I certainly believe he did what he did because he thought it was the best for Russia.

A good question, for sure.

Edited August 7, 2008 by laneolaneo1

[catatouille]

Throughout history I don't think there ever has been a true Communist. Marxist theory is very specific about the conditions a country has to be in to achieve the proletariat revolution and make it to having a true communist government. Neither Russia or China had the right conditions, so Lenin, Stalin, and Mao all developed their own versions of Marxism, which of course didn't work.

Edited August 8, 2008 by catatouille

[blindpet]

Communism, like capitalism was never supposed to be anything 'evil'. It's an ideology and ideologies always work perfectly in theory - just not in the real world. After reading Utopia by Thomas Moore you realize that Utopia is perfect in every way. Again, in an idealistic world everything works as it should. Communism isn't evil, all the power hungry maniacs gave it a bad name.

^my two cents.

[laneolaneo1]

But Communism, like cat says, has never been reached.

I don't subscribe to this view that because we live in a 'contaminated' (real) world, then a utopia should not be sought. Communism, or any other Utopia you care to mention, works as an endgame. The fact that our present world is not ready for a utopia should not stop us trying to achieve one.

M 2x.

[blindpet]

I'm sorry you feel that way laneo, perhaps your youth still deludes you into being an idealist. I, on the other hand, am a realist. There are several problems intrinsic to human nature that make utopia unlikely and probably impossible. One is freedom others are some of the deadly sins (no i'm not religious). You can't alter humans to remove their ontological properties without creating a completely controlled world in which everyone is brainwashed or completely retarded.

What you say is similar to what my friend said in ToK class once, "we should strive to find the perfect political system" to which i replied "how do you know what it'll look like if you've never seen it?" Perfection exists only in imagination and in nature, man-made things cannot be perfect - sorry .

[Rentle]

Stalin was a dictator which abused all of the goods from capitalists and communists. We cannot say that he had a straightforward head for one of the paths. In fact, no one in the world has actually succeeded in making effective communist regime so far.

[xsandralee]

frankly, i believe that communism, socialism, and such ideologies are wonderful, yet merely ideologies. but they cannot be successfully integrated into today's world/society. why? because of human nature. take for instance, lenin, stalin, mao, kim ilsung (whom, however, i consider a pure dictator), and Marx himself. They all have the correct ideas, of dividing land and resources, and making everyone equal, but each individual on this earth cannot comply to such restrictions. there will always be one, more greedy than another, or one, more selfish than another, and these type of individuals are inevitable. whether, the greedy becomes the leader or not, communism cannot prevail.

like how lenin stated, that your perceptions are influenced by your economical means - meaning, if you're rich, then of course you do not want communism, for then you will lose everything, however, if you're poor, of course you want communism, to at least gain something, no?

to say, however, that stalin was truly not a communism is hard. he was a great leader in many ways, but also a violent/paranoid one - true, perhaps he can be categorized as a dictator, but i'm not sure

[laneolaneo1]

Late reply for blindpet:

I'm certain that the argument "I am a realist, you are a deluded idealist" never got society anywhere.

We have to remember that whenever we try to contemplate the 'perfect' society it will be through our own eyes, which are invariably tainted by the less-than-perfect society we live in currently. I could not live in a communist society because I am a greedy, selfish consumer of the 21st century, but had I been born into the communist system, then I would think the way the system works. You can't paste our own imperfections onto a perfectly running society.

So a perfectly running society can, er, run perfectly. And our job, as best we can over a long period of time, is to identify and aim for it. Just accepting the world as it is right now is to consign yourself to the belief that the human race will forever be one built on greed, oppression and war.

That was about 4 cents.

@xsandralee:

Greed wouldn't exist in a perfect communist society. Who would be greedy in a society that is fundamentally opposed to the very concept? We cannot just say that because people in the 21st century are greedy they would also be in a utopian society.

Edited August 27, 2008 by laneolaneo1

[heronumbazero]

I agree when people said that history has not produced a "real" communist.

Communism was an ideology that was greatly riveted - however, has it been put in practice? Was Russia/ SU ever a communist country? What about China today?

These are "flawed" communist societies. Then, you could say Stalin was a "flawed" communist.

Or maybe, he wasn't a communist at all. Maybe he was the problem with the Russian/SU society and what truly kept it from becoming the ideal communist society.

If you look in the terms Marx set out when he wrote the Communist Manifesto, I do not personally believe Stalin adheres to being a communist. But in this flawed world we inevitably live in, Stalin could be said to be a communist.

[Cutetare]

I believe none of the single party states that ever existed even intended to be communist. If it's a single party state, it has a leader, if it has a leader it is socialist, not communist. There's a big diffrence. Even in paper the soviet union wasn't communist. Union of the Soviet SOCIALIST Republics (USSR).

I think all of these leaders were obsessed with power, and went crazy when they didn't know exactly how to manage it. Perhaps if socialist had more than a single person in power it could have better chances of moving on to communism, however, this has not been tested in History yet, so we can't be sure.

I think Stalin was much more of a personal propaganda genious than a communist (or even socialist). His measures were always to be 100% sure that all the ones (who lived) loved and worshiped him, just like Mao. I believe that the one who was most concerned about social equality was Lenin, who was much more worried about with the reputation of russia than his own.

[Bee =3]

one must begin by defining communism.

there has always been this discussion and it has been the cause of much strife between countries, such as USSR and China, or between USSR and its satellite states.

i don't know exactly what communism is, or, rather, i really can't be bothered to write a whole essay on it,

but i'd say that stalin was a STALINIST.

in other words, his power came before anything.. (i.e. khruschev's secret speech has an element of truth, maybe)

but newais, if its a question you have to answer for an essay or something, remember to raise all these issues

g'luck

Bee

[heronumbazero]

Well, I think if we go back to what communism was, we must take Marx's definition - since he pretty much solidified it.

And the position Stalin held was TEMPORARY in order to overthrow them bad boy oppressors

Well... it wasn't temporary. As Marx put it, it became a "dictatorship of the proletariat"

So, he was never a true communist.

Was anyone?

[Vvi]

Well, I think if we go back to what communism was, we must take Marx's definition - since he pretty much solidified it.

And the position Stalin held was TEMPORARY in order to overthrow them bad boy oppressors

Well... it wasn't temporary. As Marx put it, it became a "dictatorship of the proletariat"

So, he was never a true communist.

Was anyone?

I agree with this, Stalin's version of Communism was taken from Lenin. And Lenin had altered the principles of what Marx set out in his manifesto. The revolution was not supposed to start at the higher tiers of society and trickle down; Marx said the peasants would start the revolution against capitalism.

Also, Stalin's state ended up looking an awful lot like a capitalist state at the end of it all. Although there was collectivization of farms and industry was nationalized, the class system still existed in a very rigid form and there was large income inequalities between the officials and peasants.

Basically, Stalin thought he was Communist but really was just subverting the ideology to fit his own needs. He always put himself before the party and the country anyways.

[heronumbazero]

totally agree with you!

I think it was that whole concept of "some people are more equal than others"...

[laneolaneo1]

I agree with this, Stalin's version of Communism was taken from Lenin. And Lenin had altered the principles of what Marx set out in his manifesto. The revolution was not supposed to start at the higher tiers of society and trickle down; Marx said the peasants would start the revolution against capitalism.

That's why Lenin had to alter Marxism to fit Russia: The proletariat were always supposed to do the uprising, but in Russia there was still the problem of the peasantry, which was large and unruly. Marx had not accounted for them, and the Russian working class was still too small and the rise of capitalism not yet completed.

Lenin came, I think, about 10 years too early.

[Vvi]

Fascism also has the same problems as Communism, with the ideology playing out differently in Italy and Germany compared to Franco's Spain. Mussolini's ideology was forever changing, with his ideas ranging from Socialism to Nationalism within a few years. I don't think there has been a leader that has ever been a "true" communist. Some historians argue that Castro was a dictator in search of an ideology, and went Communist because it suited his position.

Basically, Communism has only ever been perfect on paper because it's sets out prerequisites that don't exist in the same form everywhere; revolution depends on the organizational structure of the country and what traditions it has in terms of power handling, national identity, sharing the land, etc. Karl Marx wrote his manifesto to fit his perception of the the Western World, and yet Communism took form only in the East and Latin America. No wonder their leaders have never fit the stereotype.

[Leen]

Communism & Fascism, ironically hated each other, are different in theory but in practice, they are exactly the same.

What's interesting is that Karl Marx predicted the world evolve into a socialist world in which there are no class struggles.

Ironically, that's exactly what the Western world is trying to do, the direction it seems to be heading into.

I mean with what the distribution of wealth, nationalization of health care and so on, who knows what the world would be like in the next 200 years?

.. Kidding, I'm taking it too far. But yeah, socialism (not communism) is becoming a dominant player in the world.

But, no Stalin was not truly a communism imo. I think, like all other dictators, he was striving for power and saw that being Lenin's successor would be a smooth way to go.

[Scade]

Was Stalin a communist? No. There's a quick answer to the actual question.

Now to other issues. People here, and elsewhere, seem to be very confused with terms. That is, imo, largely due to the fact that they are overused. To my knowledge, there does not exist a communist state, following the original Marxist definition. Simply because people over the time have been accused to be communist while not really being, does not change the original (and in my opinion real) definiton of the term. Although we could have a fruitful discussion whether the original meaning, or the one that is used most often, is the correct one.

Similarly when it comes to fascism, people seem to be confused. In the strictest terms Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were not fascist. Fascism was something created in Italy, and had its roots in ancient Rome. Fascism was derived from the latin word fasces, which was a symbol of discipline and order in ancient Rome. Fascism was the ideology adopted by Mussolini, aiming at the recreation of the Roman Empire. In this sense, Hitler was not a fascist. However, if the term is considered in its broader terms, the right-wing authoritarian dictatorships that arose between the two world wars can be called fascist. However, I believe that is inaccurate use of terminology.

[filmjolk]

Define a communist?

For me a communist does not exist. It is not the individual who is communistic, but the collaboration of several individuals.