Literally this guy i knows EXACT argument every time we discuss this. Then I describe how capitalism inevitably becomes corporatism because of HOW IT WORKS.
You said “communism becomes stalinism”, one is a coherent political ideology the other just a scare-word capitalists made up. What this reads as is “any attempt at throwing off the capitalist shackles will lead to le ebil gommulism vuvuzela no iphone 100 gorillion ded”
The famine of the 1930s was caused by weather conditions and made worse by mismanagement particularly of the Ukrainian communists, who hid how bad the famine was getting from the politburo, delaying aid. Further, the overwhelming majority of those executed during the purges were convicted of crimes such as sexual assault, murder, or were Tsarists, former white army soldiers, Nazis, etc. Opportunists were expelled from the party but not really executed.
I wonder how famine in Kazakhstan was caused by Ukrainian communists as well.
Holodomor was high stake politburo mistake, most likely unintentional. It was a mistake of planning as the 1931’s yield was extrapolated to 32 and 33 years.
You can’t blame systematic problems like this on individuals in regions. If you are to defend Stalin’s regime, you’ll never learn from it.
The famine of the 1930s was caused by weather conditions
I opened directly with the cause of the famine, weather conditions and disaster. Mismanagement played a part everywhere, but management also alleviated issues. The Ukrainian comminists hiding how bad the famine was getting weren’t the only problems.
Just like you can’t blame widerange problems purely on individuals, you also can’t blame individuals for problems like the weather or for mismanagement at different levels, Stalin did not cause the famine. I defend socialism because socialism helped end food insecurity, outside of wartime the 1930s famine was the last major famine in soviet history thanks to the collectivization of agriculture.
Why would you blame individuals for the weather? Is Stalin supposed to be Zeus? You can blame individuals for their mismanagement, but you seem to be attributing problems with other people specifically to Stalin, or attributing problems with management to socialism in general. It’s faulty.
Secondly, no, the 1930s famine could not have been prevented by excellent management, it was largely caused by weather disasters. Perfect hindsight may have helped, but that would have meant collectivizing even earlier so as to develop industrial agriculture that could withstand weather fluctuations. In a region where famine was common and regular pre-socialism, ending famine is an achievement. That’s a major force for why life expectancy doubled from pre-socialism, along with safety nets like free healthcare.
Finally, I don’t call it holodomor because holodomor is the debunked idea that it was an intentional genocide, a stance that isn’t really relevant outside of far-right anti-communists.
“Stalinism” largely refers to specific economic choices by Stalin during his time as general secretary, it isn’t a mode of production. Capitalism, on the other hand, naturally builds up monopolies that use the state in their own interests. The state isn’t distinct from the ruling class in society, it’s an extension, so as fierce competition gives way to monopolist syndicates, tech giants, and imperialism, this is a natural trajectory.
Stalinism only seems different because it’s named after the dude, maybe fascism is a more generic term. All the person your responding to is saying is that it’s as natural an argument to say that communism leads naturally to fascism (honestly in a really similar argument to yours by saying the state isn’t distinct from the ruling class and that power naturally condenses to the top in the system.)
I could make a million arguments getting into the nuance of it, as I’m sure you could too. That’s just what the person is saying.
“Stalinism” isn’t really a thing outside of specific policy positions in the early USSR, it isn’t an ideology. Marxism-Leninism was synthesized by Stalin, sure, but he didn’t divert from Marx or Lenin, merely outlined “Marxism-Leninism.” Fascism on the other hand is best characterized by its specific conditions, chiefly being arising from capitalism in decay. Liberalism is closer to the “positive” face of capitalism, and fascism is the “negative” face.
In socialism, power doesn’t consolidate in the top. The socialist state has more power than the capitalist state, but that’s because there isn’t such power in private hands. The working class has expanded power in socialism.
It’s disingenious to say that USSR achieved communism in 5 years between it’s inception and Stalin taking over. Especially since no one at the time have claimed achieving even socialism. Stalin took over country that attempted to build socialist society and struggled economically, and then led it in very different direction.
Early USSR was ruled by communists, sure, but that’s far from it being communist country, and even further from the country achieving communism.
The USSR was still socialist under Stalin, and Stalin’s influence wasn’t absolute. You are correct that the USSR never made it to communism, but that’s also because you can’t really have communism in one country, only socialism.
I specifically spoke of the USSR before what could be construed as Stalinism, whatever that would mean. I’m also on a fence whenever direct state ownership of the capital could be fairly described as socialism, as it was the case under Stalin from what I understand, but I won’t pretend I know all too much about that part. From what I’ve gathered, that would stand against the idea that the capital is democratically controlled by the workers working it, as it would instead by controlled by the outside force not completly dissimilar to the capitalist investors (in this case, the state, directed individually by some administrators). That always stood out for me when it comes to describing USSR as socialist country.
Pre-Stalin, the New Economic Policy was in place (as well as War Communism, which was its own thing). The NEP had controlled bourgeois ownership, and was there to build up the productive forces, kinda like what the PRC is doing now. Under Stalin, the NEP was considered complete, and collectivization of the economy occured. The economy had expanded worker democracy compared to the NEP as a consequence.
Further, socialism is not simply “worker democracy.” Socialism is a mode of production by which collectivized production is the principle aspect of the economy, which absolutely applies to the USSR. The state is not its own class, but an extension of the ruling class, in the USSR’s case the proletariat. Marxism has always been about collectivizing property into the hands of the state until classes disappear and the state, itself more of an instrument of class oppression, dies out of itself over time. Capitalism functions entirely differently and is run directly for the profits of the few, while in the USSR the economy was run to satisfy the needs of the people as best as possible.
Literally this guy i knows EXACT argument every time we discuss this. Then I describe how capitalism inevitably becomes corporatism because of HOW IT WORKS.
And communism becomes Stalinism… that’s a bad faith argument, comrade
stalinism is not an actual political ideology, just something to make stuff sound scary
Yet you are well aware of what I mean by it: holodomor and mass imprisonments and killings of communists
You said “communism becomes stalinism”, one is a coherent political ideology the other just a scare-word capitalists made up. What this reads as is “any attempt at throwing off the capitalist shackles will lead to le ebil gommulism vuvuzela no iphone 100 gorillion ded”
Oh on the topic of the holodomor and mass imprisonments the very same channel has a wonderful video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbKQwafzHfQ
LOL
The famine of the 1930s was caused by weather conditions and made worse by mismanagement particularly of the Ukrainian communists, who hid how bad the famine was getting from the politburo, delaying aid. Further, the overwhelming majority of those executed during the purges were convicted of crimes such as sexual assault, murder, or were Tsarists, former white army soldiers, Nazis, etc. Opportunists were expelled from the party but not really executed.
I wonder how famine in Kazakhstan was caused by Ukrainian communists as well.
Holodomor was high stake politburo mistake, most likely unintentional. It was a mistake of planning as the 1931’s yield was extrapolated to 32 and 33 years.
You can’t blame systematic problems like this on individuals in regions. If you are to defend Stalin’s regime, you’ll never learn from it.
I opened directly with the cause of the famine, weather conditions and disaster. Mismanagement played a part everywhere, but management also alleviated issues. The Ukrainian comminists hiding how bad the famine was getting weren’t the only problems.
Just like you can’t blame widerange problems purely on individuals, you also can’t blame individuals for problems like the weather or for mismanagement at different levels, Stalin did not cause the famine. I defend socialism because socialism helped end food insecurity, outside of wartime the 1930s famine was the last major famine in soviet history thanks to the collectivization of agriculture.
Well you can? Why have then
If these very problems could be solved with proper management?
The famine, which you refuse to call holodomor, was a challenge that highlighted the price of a mistake in the Soviet union.
Yes, clap-clap, the famine was the last one, that was a huge achievement of the soviets.
Why would you blame individuals for the weather? Is Stalin supposed to be Zeus? You can blame individuals for their mismanagement, but you seem to be attributing problems with other people specifically to Stalin, or attributing problems with management to socialism in general. It’s faulty.
Secondly, no, the 1930s famine could not have been prevented by excellent management, it was largely caused by weather disasters. Perfect hindsight may have helped, but that would have meant collectivizing even earlier so as to develop industrial agriculture that could withstand weather fluctuations. In a region where famine was common and regular pre-socialism, ending famine is an achievement. That’s a major force for why life expectancy doubled from pre-socialism, along with safety nets like free healthcare.
Finally, I don’t call it holodomor because holodomor is the debunked idea that it was an intentional genocide, a stance that isn’t really relevant outside of far-right anti-communists.
“Stalinism” largely refers to specific economic choices by Stalin during his time as general secretary, it isn’t a mode of production. Capitalism, on the other hand, naturally builds up monopolies that use the state in their own interests. The state isn’t distinct from the ruling class in society, it’s an extension, so as fierce competition gives way to monopolist syndicates, tech giants, and imperialism, this is a natural trajectory.
Stalinism only seems different because it’s named after the dude, maybe fascism is a more generic term. All the person your responding to is saying is that it’s as natural an argument to say that communism leads naturally to fascism (honestly in a really similar argument to yours by saying the state isn’t distinct from the ruling class and that power naturally condenses to the top in the system.)
I could make a million arguments getting into the nuance of it, as I’m sure you could too. That’s just what the person is saying.
“Stalinism” isn’t really a thing outside of specific policy positions in the early USSR, it isn’t an ideology. Marxism-Leninism was synthesized by Stalin, sure, but he didn’t divert from Marx or Lenin, merely outlined “Marxism-Leninism.” Fascism on the other hand is best characterized by its specific conditions, chiefly being arising from capitalism in decay. Liberalism is closer to the “positive” face of capitalism, and fascism is the “negative” face.
In socialism, power doesn’t consolidate in the top. The socialist state has more power than the capitalist state, but that’s because there isn’t such power in private hands. The working class has expanded power in socialism.
It’s disingenious to say that USSR achieved communism in 5 years between it’s inception and Stalin taking over. Especially since no one at the time have claimed achieving even socialism. Stalin took over country that attempted to build socialist society and struggled economically, and then led it in very different direction.
Early USSR was ruled by communists, sure, but that’s far from it being communist country, and even further from the country achieving communism.
The USSR was still socialist under Stalin, and Stalin’s influence wasn’t absolute. You are correct that the USSR never made it to communism, but that’s also because you can’t really have communism in one country, only socialism.
I specifically spoke of the USSR before what could be construed as Stalinism, whatever that would mean. I’m also on a fence whenever direct state ownership of the capital could be fairly described as socialism, as it was the case under Stalin from what I understand, but I won’t pretend I know all too much about that part. From what I’ve gathered, that would stand against the idea that the capital is democratically controlled by the workers working it, as it would instead by controlled by the outside force not completly dissimilar to the capitalist investors (in this case, the state, directed individually by some administrators). That always stood out for me when it comes to describing USSR as socialist country.
Pre-Stalin, the New Economic Policy was in place (as well as War Communism, which was its own thing). The NEP had controlled bourgeois ownership, and was there to build up the productive forces, kinda like what the PRC is doing now. Under Stalin, the NEP was considered complete, and collectivization of the economy occured. The economy had expanded worker democracy compared to the NEP as a consequence.
Further, socialism is not simply “worker democracy.” Socialism is a mode of production by which collectivized production is the principle aspect of the economy, which absolutely applies to the USSR. The state is not its own class, but an extension of the ruling class, in the USSR’s case the proletariat. Marxism has always been about collectivizing property into the hands of the state until classes disappear and the state, itself more of an instrument of class oppression, dies out of itself over time. Capitalism functions entirely differently and is run directly for the profits of the few, while in the USSR the economy was run to satisfy the needs of the people as best as possible.
Here you just circumvent the rules of the language game.
No, it’s called using terms accurately instead of the propaganda that’s designed to mush it all into one un-discussable bogeyman.