• Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    I urge you to pick up a history book on the Soviet Union if you think Stalin made up the entire political apparatus. Even the CIA disagrees with you there, because it was obvious.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Initially governing as part of a collective leadership, Stalin consolidated power to become dictator by the 1930s; he formalized his Leninist interpretation of Marxism as Marxism-Leninism, while the totalitarian political system he established became known as Stalinism.

      Stalin’s Soviet Union has been characterised as a totalitarian state,[673] with Stalin its authoritarian leader.[674] Various biographers have described him as a dictator,[675] an autocrat,[676] or accused him of practising Caesarism.[677] Montefiore argued that while Stalin initially ruled as part of a Communist Party oligarchy, the Soviet government transformed from this oligarchy into a personal dictatorship in 1934,[678] with Stalin only becoming “absolute dictator” between March and June 1937, when senior military and NKVD figures were eliminated.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

      I mean we talked if it was a totalitarian dictatorship or not. Sure does seem like it was.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Can you explain mechanically how he was a totalitarian dictator, yet did not have totalitarian control nor was he the sole director?

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          But he does seem to have had a total control of the state through his position, control of tools such as NKVD, fear, intimidation, cult of personality, purging of opponents and so on. Unless you think it doesn’t count unless you have an official position of dictator and has been named as such by the Roman senate, of course.

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              It seems most historians disagree with your thought here, as shown in the earlier quotes. You claim he was often contested, did not have the ability to make anything happen and so on, but that doesn’t seem to have been the reality. Even this document you shared just says it was “exaggerated”, not that he didn’t have those powers. But most considering his rule seem to have labeled him as a dictator and it’s very easy to see why.

              If you don’t agree with Soviet records

              Soviet records on if their leader was a dictator or not? Buddy.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                2 months ago

                I never said he was powerless, I said he did not have sole control nor all-encompassing power. He was the head of state, of course he had power. The CIA is directly contesting your mythology here. The majority of evidence points towards Stalin not being an absolute and all-powerful demigod dictator, but a head of state in a large system with lots of moving parts that frequently went against what he personally wanted.

                Soviet records on if their leader was a dictator or not? Buddy.

                Soviet Records on democratic processes and political structuring.

                • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I never said he was powerless

                  Stalin was often contested, and did not have the ability to make anything happen

                  “Did not have the ability to make anything happen” would make him seem very powerless.

                  The CIA is directly contesting your mythology here

                  The majority of evidence points towards Stalin not being an absolute and all-powerful demigod dictator, but a head of state in a large system with lots of moving parts that frequently went against what he personally wanted.

                  My mythology of just the normal historians’ view on Stalin, as in, him being a dictator.

                  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    “Did not have the ability to make anything happen” would make him seem very powerless.

                    The stress is meant to be placed on anything, ie he couldn’t snap his fingers and magically have his will be done. He played a large role in directing policy, especially during WWII.

                    My mythology of just the normal historians’ view on Stalin, as in, him being a dictator.

                    What constitutes a “Normal Historian?” The CIA didn’t agree with you and neither does historical evidence.

              • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                2 months ago

                Soviet records on if their leader was a dictator or not? Buddy.

                Okay you’re just a deeply unserious person. A government modifying its own internally kept records for the purposes of propaganda? Baby brained premise chasing.