this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
19 points (64.2% liked)
Socialism
5265 readers
21 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We don't, actually. Your conclusion doesn't follow. Stalin was not a perfect and untainted figure. The point is that Socialism does not mechanically support corruption in the same way Capitalism does out of necessity, and you seem to be ignoring that at every turn.
But he never stepped down or reformed the system to account for these issues. Hence my opinion of him.
I didn't see your edit: I guess my point is Stalin did not act under socialism, or surely not in an environment where corruption, if not coming from necessity, would hinder or be neutral to one growth within society.
He tried to resign no fewer than 4 times, and what "issues" are you talking about? How could he have "reformed the system" in your eyes to be better?
I already mentioned that trying to resign and being met with unanimous rejection doesn't say much, other than possibly the obvious fact that he was in fact a human and not a robot.
To reform the system he could have rejected the idea of a single head of state in favor of a shared position, he could have set up the lenght of time by which a person can be head of state...
The possibilities are endless and history has made this kind of necessities abundandly clear to guarantee decision makers hold their position selflessly.
You specifically said that him resigning was something you wanted him to do. He tried 4 times. Would you have had him abandon his post? Absurd. You can't have your cake and eat it too here, either resigning doesn't actually matter to you or you would have rather had him put people in danger by abandoning his post and going AWOL.
Secondly, he tried to have his position eliminated. He was of the belief that it was superfluous, and that too was rejected. When his resignation was rejected several times, he countered with the idea of eliminating his position altogether, citing previous times where no such position was in place. This, too, was rejected. Read the transcript of December 19, 1927, where Stalin makes the case of its redundancy as opportunism and opposition had already been weeded out in his eyes, and specifically states that his power can be spread to those under him and nothing would fundamentally change other than a removal of what he calls "distortions."
We have archival evidence that what you proposed he could have done, but didn't, was actually tried by him and rejected. He wasn't a dictator with absolute control, but an elected official. He was no saint, but the idea that he didn't hate his position flies in the face of him outright telling everyone that he lacked the strength to continue and would rather live out the rest of his days in a quiet part of the country doing menial party work. Either you reject the archival evidence, or you reframe your thinking.
At the end of the day of course the solution to forming the most accurate opinion of Stalin is to study Stalin.
I'll point though that apparently my stance has some merit since Stalin himself with his "What was I to do?" is at the very least considering his situation as problematic.
As a last contribution to the discussion, which I've been glad to take part of and that I'm grateful you invested time and effort in, even in recent time we have instances of head of states that ultimately grow exhausted with their role and honestly desire to step down. That's not always possible, especially when so much of the state is directly tied to their person (kings, for example), and does not prove they previously chased, and/or held, that position with selfless disposition.
Thanks again for the thoughtful and well sourced contribution.