017631 Posted October 27, 2008 Report Share Posted October 27, 2008 (edited) I agree with you.A communist is a group of people rather than a single dictator.The whole communist government is actually a good idea in theory, yet when a communist government is formed there seems to always be a dictator which in a way goes against the whole purpose of having a communist government...So no, Stalin is not a true communist.Communism should be run by a group of people or the entire nation, having a dictator is not because communism is meant to make everyone equal...(in my opinion anyway..) Edited October 27, 2008 by 17631 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Debater Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 I think the problem with communism is the fact that one party has so much power over the rest of the people; I personally do believe in communism, but the leader of a communist state will inevitably succumb to the human instinct that is greed. It's a sad fact, but that's it. My humble, uneducated opinion. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
King112 Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 Well, I guess Stalin was communist in the sense that he wanted the USSR as a whole to be better. However, if you mean on the individual level, he was a ****ing bastard who slaughtered. And, he instilled a lot of fear, but he also created jobs etc. So it's a bit like, "was hitler good for Germany?" if you know what i mean Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackcurrant Posted March 20, 2015 Report Share Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) Stalin murdered all the intellectuals and true communists right after Lenin's death. He used the concept of "communism" (in its distorted form) to gain control of government and later, when forced, to advance Russia industrially. So Russia turned out to have some outward features of communism, but little of the philosophy or spirit. Stalin himself was not communist and did not espouse the ideals except insofar as they served his need for total, absolute control. Can you be called a communist for this? North Korea is not communist either. It is just "called" communist to describe a despotic bureaucracy headed by a family. It suits America and the West to call anything antithetical to its own ideology "communist" (or socialist, if you make no distinctions whatsoever) so the word sticks. Forcible collectivism does not constitute "communism" to my mind. Nor collecting workers into massive industrial projects. Workers, by the way, were not in charge of the means of production. Nor did they live in the classless society envisioned by Marx, Engels, Lenin and others. Maybe you've read _Animal Farm? so you get the idea. Edited March 20, 2015 by Blackcurrant Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.