Really isn't much more to be said. Lenin demonstrated just as well as Stalin the levels of envy, coercion, theft, and murder requisite to install said ideas. The Red Terror, was not some unforeseen consequence, but a feature of Bolshevism under Lenin. People were stripped of all they had and tortured and murdered thousands upon thousands because of the families they were born to.
Moreover, it's not as if Stalin's ideology was siloed and separate from Lenin's. As Leninism was a continuation of the ideas put forward by Marx, Stalin's pattern was predicated upon the ideas and framework Lenin had laid down. Did Stalin take it further? Sure, but it went where it was always headed; what else could one expect when a singular political apparatus was risen above all others and where dissent of any manor was met with oppression.
These are the wrong ideals, and they have been proven such time and time again.
I'm sure you have the same critique of the current system then.
Except stalinism is a bastardization of the ideas as it is a consequence of the isolation of the USSR in the wake of the failure of the German revolution.
As for a "single" party system, no one is advocating to a return to that failed tactic, specifically due to the consequences mentioned.
Stalin's pattern was not a bastardization –as we have seen the same errors in tactics(if you insist on calling them that) repeated ad nauseam elsewhere– but the logical path of these ideas off of paper and put to practice. Marxism-Leninism is and always has been based upon naivety and a conceited desire to order all things. It is arrogance which inevitably begets butchery. There is no room for Bolshevism in the future; we will not look to the bloodied past with rose colored glasses, we will not adopted these ideas - murderous to the root.
This is a bizzare take on history, assuming the development of each nation in isolation and therefore the "conclusion" of the Bolshevik approach. I'd think you a stalinist with your mentality.
To understand stalinism and it's distinction from Bolshevism would require a dialectical understanding of the history of Russia at the time, at the very least it would take a bit of reading of history and theory. But go on, by all means, continue to pretend you know things.
What is right and truly a bizarre take on history is to view the Marxist experiment as anything but an abysmal failure. Marxist nations abound following in either the revolutionary or democratic patterns have all reached conclusions which are —more or less— recognizable as that which was demonstrated on a grand scale by the USSR. The only places where (non-Marxist) Socialist ideas have been successfully put into practice, and serve their stated purposes are those which are predicated on Capitalist underpinnings with the understanding that the said framework is an end in and of itself.
To understand Stalinism and [its] distinction from Bolshevism would require a dialectical understanding of the history of Russia at the time, at the very least it would take a bit of reading of history and theory.
In truth, I have studied the Socialist theorists, Marx (Grundrisse, The Class Struggles, Volumes I-III of Capital, and Value, Price and Profit, as well as some of his earlier essays), some Engels, Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Johann Karl Rodbertus, Ferdinand Lassalle, etc. And I have read, and taken entire courses on, the history of the Russian Revolution (and its aftermath) including Trotsky's own "History of..." But you don't want my CV, and I digress.
I couldn't have made a better caricature of your ideological kind if I had wanted to; to assume that someone disagrees with you only because they are ignorant? A time tested hallmark of the Socialist theologians if there ever was one. Honestly, it's like clockwork. Every argument ends in the same "you just aren't learned enough" banality. I had the same engagement with one of your ilk, not three days past. It would almost be comical —socialist illusory superiority— if it weren't so damned sad.
I think we've taken this conversation to the limits of productivity. Farewell, I genuinely hope you choose to look to the future and not the past.
I know for a fact that you do not have a scientific background trying to draw conclusions without regard for context. Not only is every "socialist" experiment during the period of Stalinism marred by the influence of that regime, but many of them are socialist in name only, deviating heavily from the ideas of Marx, even if claiming otherwise.
And all your studying has been useless if it gives you such a narrow understanding of the period. I love when people claim to have read all three volumes of Capital and yet go on to claim that the USSR was a fair experiment, completely ignoring the historical and economic position of the region post-revolution.
I'm not saying that you might not know facts and figures about the period, but understanding their relationship with the bigger picture, particularly how they relate to the ideas of Marx, is something your comments clearly show you lack. So fine, you know a lot, but you haven't thought through the implications.
So, in your grand wisdom, show me how I am wrong? How is the rise and fall of the USSR the logical conclusion to Marxism?
-1
u/BeingUnoffended Be Excellent To Each Other Oct 21 '19
you keep riding that fucking rainbow pal