jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (51 posts)

If Stalin was a Dictator Who Removed All Threats to His Authority

  1. Comrade Joe profile image90
    Comrade Joeposted 5 years ago

    Why did Khrushchev come to power after Stalin's death?

    It makes no sense that on the one hand Josef Stalin was an overarching dictator who controlled every aspect of life in the Soviet Union, he supposedly "purged" his political enemies, yet on the other hand, after Stalin's death he was replaced by Nikita Khrushchev.  After all Khrushchev is the man who slandered the name of Stalin by making false claims against him at the 20th congress of the CPSU.  If Stalin was so in control of Soviet politics and was as ruthless as we are told then he would have liquidated Khrushchev long before his rise to power.  Not only did Khrushchev attack Stalin as a person, but he deviated ideologically.  Thus a leading party member with a personal dislike of Stalin and a conflicting ideology managed to not only remain a free man but ended up being general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

    It is rather odd that in a so called police state, enemies of the dictator remain free, members of the same party and end up leading the country.

    1. edmob1 profile image61
      edmob1posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Your going back a long way comrade. The Kremlin like any seat of government had kingmakers to and I cannot remember who it would have been that helped smooth the way for Krushchev.
      Certainly his close links to Marshal Georgy Zhukov who held the Red Army even after Lavrentiy Beria's smear campaign got Stalin to remove him. On the poliitical wing Krushchev had Leonid Brezhnev who he had brought to the kremlin machine.
      Krushchev's crittical speech at the CPSU did not happen until 1956 three years after Stalins death and Krushchev had brought Zhukov back to command the red army .

  2. innersmiff profile image74
    innersmiffposted 5 years ago

    Perhaps it is like America or the UK where despite the Republicans and Democrats or Conservatives and Labour's grumblings about each other, neither one of them will affect national policy in the long run if they get elected. They are puppets to be used when suitable, and not worth destroying if they happen to suit your agenda. How different was Kruschchev to Stalin anyway?

    Here we are in the west, and despite the apparent 'differences' between the candidates, we've been heading in a consistent direction towards tyranny and against liberty for hundreds of years.

  3. Eric Newland profile image60
    Eric Newlandposted 5 years ago

    The phrase "after Stalin's death" sounds like a clue to me.

  4. Comrade Joe profile image90
    Comrade Joeposted 5 years ago

    Khrushchev was different to Stalin in so many ways.  These include the fact that Khrushchev made many false accusations against Stalin, it was Khrushchev who came up with all this 'cult of personality' nonsense.  It was also from Khrushchev's falsification of history where most westerns criticisms of Stalin spring from

    Some of his political differences include that Stalin was committed to the Leninist doctrine of the inevitability of war which was based on Lenin's work on Imperialism.  In contrast, Khrushchev's position was of peaceful co-existence with capitalism.  Likewise Stalin held the orthodox position that proletarian revolution must be violent, again this carries on from Marx and Lenin, in the State and Revolution for instance, Lenin tells us that if the state is an instrument of class oppression then only the destruction of the bourgeois state can raise the proletariat to political power.  In contrast, Khrushchev spoke of a parliamentary road to socialism, something which is an abomination of Marxism and often spoke as so by Stalin.  Likewise, Stalin favoured socialist production, naturally as a Marxist, yet Khrushchev directed state enterprises to run by profit motive. 

    These are but some of the differences between Khrushchev and Stalin, which show that on almost every major issue Khrushchev was anti Marxist and opposed to Stalin, yet never was he 'purged'.

    1. innersmiff profile image74
      innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      From your explanation, I guess you're trying to defend Stalin, but if he's for violence and war I'd rather pick Kruschchev if I had the choice.

      1. Comrade Joe profile image90
        Comrade Joeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        It's not that Stalin was for violence and war, but that he recognized that under capitalism and the age of imperialism war was inevitable as the imperialist states squabble over resources and control of the globe.  Stalin was saying what does happen as opposed to what ought to happen.

        1. innersmiff profile image74
          innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I would argue that Kruschchev had it right on one hand because socialist ideas is what we're getting in the west through democracy, no violence required.

          1. Comrade Joe profile image90
            Comrade Joeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            What we get is welfarism.  For Marxists the basic definition of socialism is the end of exploitation of man by man, as a transitory stage on the road to communism.  This is evidently nothing like the social democratic welfarism existent in the west. Welfare represents reformism, reforming the bourgeois system in order to maintain it, for Marxists, nothing but revolution and the utter destruction of the bourgeois political state and it's replacement with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is enough.

            1. innersmiff profile image74
              innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              And this is something you advocate too?

              1. Comrade Joe profile image90
                Comrade Joeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Do I advocate the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?  Absolutely.  As Stalin himself tells us
                "Can such a radical transformation of the old bourgeois order be achieved without a violent revolution, without the dictatorship of the proletariat? 

                Obviously not.  To think that such a revolution can be carried out peacefully, within the framework of bourgeois democracy, which is adapted to the rule of the bourgeoisie, means that one has either gone out of one's mind and lost normal human understanding, or has grossly and openly repudiated the proletarian revolution".

                1. innersmiff profile image74
                  innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  And what moral justification do you have for that?

                  1. Comrade Joe profile image90
                    Comrade Joeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the rule of the formerly exploited majority against the exploiting minority.  I don't believe any further moral justification is required.

        2. Eric Newland profile image60
          Eric Newlandposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Then he's the bloodiest pacifist the world has ever seen. I'd hate to see what would have happened if he had FAVORED violence.

  5. Comrade Joe profile image90
    Comrade Joeposted 5 years ago

    You misunderstand the implications, that if Stalin was all controlling and intruding in Soviet life he would be aware of tall of the political beliefs of the leading cadres of the party such as Khrushchev.  And if those leading cadres were so anti-Stalin, the dictator would have had him purged.

    So you see the fact Stalin's character was attacked after his death is irrelevant. As it is inconceivable that in a an overarching intrusive and dictatorial police state, the dictator would not know the beliefs of those around him.

    1. edmob1 profile image61
      edmob1posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It is not at all irrelevant.Zhukov and Krushchev had both been marginalised at different times by Stalin.However,the power held by them and there compartriots staved off the ultimate sanction.
      Working together they were able to replace or woo people in prominent postions to their side using their own fear of Stalin's retribution.
      On Stalin's interpretation of Marxism you have to remember within the party many still held to Lenin and Trotsky's interpretation. Stalinism did what he needed it to do keep him a the top of the party.

      1. Comrade Joe profile image90
        Comrade Joeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        My words were meant to be in response to "The phrase "after Stalin's death" sounds like a clue to me." by Eric Newland.

        But on your point, I will never accept the bracketing of Lenin and Trotsky together.  For Trotsky was no Leninists.  It was under Stalin that the CPSU adhered to a Leninist line, after Stalin's death Leninism in he USSR ended..

        "Zhukov and Krushchev had both been marginalised at different times by Stalin.However,the power held by them and there compartriots staved off the ultimate sanction."  - Thank you this proves my point exactly.  Stalin was  not an uncontrolled dictator, as you recognize by saying Khrushchev and Zhukov held power of their own.

        1. edmob1 profile image61
          edmob1posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Just wish I could remember who the kingmaker would have been back then, in answer to your original question of how Krushchev avoided the ultimate sanction.

  6. A Troubled Man profile image60
    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago

    Khrushchev supported Stalin's purging of his political enemies and continued to do so when Stalin sent him to govern the Ukraine.

  7. maxoxam41 profile image78
    maxoxam41posted 5 years ago

    Khrushchev may have been a more liberal man than Stalin, it doesn't mean that he was less intelligent (hiding his real political views). After all he was also a communist, it's not as if he was part of the radicals that opposed Stalin!

    1. Comrade Joe profile image90
      Comrade Joeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Indeed it is correct that he wasn't involved in the Bukharinite murder plots.  But I cannot accept that he was a communist when he repudiated the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (he declared the USSR a classless state for all - totally contradicting Marxist theory), advocated peaceful co-existence and a parliamentary road to socialism.

      Marxist Professor V Singh has described Khrushchev's ideology in this way "the ideology of classless scientific-technical advance", and i think that is fairly accurate.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image78
        maxoxam41posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I am against any form of dictatorship from the bourgeoisie or from the proletariat. A classless society would be more equalitarian, a classless society would not have privileges... but it would be an utopia.

        1. Comrade Joe profile image90
          Comrade Joeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          "the ideology of classless scientific-technical advance" is recognition that under Khrushchev, class was not a part of ideology, thus he was no Marxist.  And you may well be against the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is fine as you (to my knowledge) unlike Khrushchev  do not claim to be a communist.

  8. lovemychris profile image77
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Many places in America are like that too. Someone here once showed pictures of our dams as compared to a country in Europe....it was as if we in America were back in the 1950's, and Europe a sleek, futuristic vision of beauty.

    Capitalism produces a ton of abuse and neglect, too.

    Too much worry about profit at the top, not enough about basic needs at the bottom.

    We have people in squalor, and people in absurd wealth. The experiment has failed, or needs a tune-up Big Time.

  9. Greek One profile image76
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    People keep picking on Stalin because they are mean and have no love in their hearts... it's as simple as that.

    1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image83
      BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly.

      Same with Fidel Castro. Just ask the Wizard of Ozzie.

      1. Greek One profile image76
        Greek Oneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        sometimes, people just want hugs.. be they house moms, sports stars, mass murdering dictators...

        did anyone ever offer Stalin a hug??

        If not, then the fault for his occasional missteps surely lies with a Russian society which had not yet fully embraced the value and benefits of personal contact

        1. Eric Newland profile image60
          Eric Newlandposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          People have forgotten how to forgive. Conservative estimates say that Stalin might have murdered as little as three million, which in the grand scheme of things isn't so much, is it? Haven't we all made mistakes?

          And we are talking big changes here. When you want to implement global peace and equality and unity you can't avoid having one or two or three or a million or ten million or so people get hurt. Change ain't easy.

          Scratch that, you need to get rid of religion so we're ultimately talking about a six-billion-and-some-odd purge. But still, it's for the greater good!

          1. Greek One profile image76
            Greek Oneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            All in a day's work

  10. Greek One profile image76
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    "Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest the comrades think about a way of removing Staling from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite, and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc."

    Lenin, 25 December 1922

  11. Greek One profile image76
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    There are still some people who think that we have Stalin to thank for all our progress, who quake before Stalin's dirty underdrawers, who stand at attention and salute them.

    Stalin acted not through persuasion, explanation and patient cooperation with people, but by imposing his concepts and demanding absolute submission to his opinion. Whoever opposed this concept or tried to prove his own viewpoint, and the correctness of his own position, was doomed to removal from the leading collective and to subsequent moral and physical annihilation.

    Everyone can err, but Stalin considered that he never erred, that he was always right. He never acknowledged to anyone that he made any mistake, large or small, despite the fact that he made not a few mistakes in the matter of theory and in his practical activity



    Nikita Khrushchev

  12. Greek One profile image76
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    One of Ivan the Terrible's mistakes was to overlook the five great feudal families. If he had annihilated those five families, there would definitely have been no Time of Troubles. But Ivan the Terrible would execute someone and then spend a long time repenting and praying. God got in his way in this matter. He ought to have been still more decisive!

    I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how.

    The idea of a concentration camp is excellent.

    I'm finished. I trust no one, not even myself.

    Do you remember the tsar? Well, I‘m like a tsar

    Joseph Stalin

  13. Greek One profile image76
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    When my mother left us, he [Stalin] was left completely alone. And I think what came next, in the late 30s and after the war in the 40s - I think that was a result of his complete loneliness on top of the world. Nobody would argue with him anymore.

    Stalin's Daughter

    Every crime was possible to Stalin, for there was not one he had not committed. Whatever standards we use to take his measure, in any event — let us hope for all time to come — to him will fall the glory of being the greatest criminal in history. For in him were joined the senselessness of a Caligula with the refinement of a Borgia and the brutality of a Tsar Ivan the Terrible.

    Yugoslavian Communist Milovan Đilas,

  14. Comrade Joe profile image90
    Comrade Joeposted 5 years ago

    In response to EmpressFelicity.  The US has Guantanamo not because Cuba is cooperating but because the US military is occupying it illegally. 

    The base was leased to the US by the Batista dictatorship.  The lease gave the US permission to use the base for Naval + shipping purposes, but it also states that these are the only uses, and that no commercial entertprises may be hosted there. Obviously detention and torture is not naval and shipping, and the base also hosts things like fast food resturaunts.  The US has thus broken the deal, and legally has no right to it, but like the bully it is, it continues to occupy the base.

 
working