Dictatorships are when almost the entire population supports the government. Democracy is when corporations own all candidates and the electoral college designed by slaveowners almost 300 years ago decides all presidential elections. I am a critical thinker.
Democracy under socialism is simply structured differently. You need to study it properly.
Several countries that you support today still use a system very much like this. Cuba and Vietnam for example. A solid video on Cuban democracy is here: https://youtu.be/2aMsi-A56ds
Ignoring everything else wrong about your one sentence, a dictatorship needn’t be helmed by a single person. Brazil was a dictatorship from the 60s to the 90s, and had 6 different presidents during that time.
Okay, what about the whole soviets and sharing power with trade unions thing? What about their innovations in participatory democracy. The USSR were hyperdemocratic, even on war footing, at least until destalinization happened and the bureaucracy started taking hold.
Cuba follows a really similar system to the soviets system and it is probably as close to a democracy as you can get in a capitalist world, so how is it that the USSR was undemocratic? Did the evil russkies implement council democracy but forgot to actually do it??? Just like they implemented the Washington Consensus post-breakdown but forgot to do the American-“democracy”??
His sentence isn’t wrong. Stalin did try to resign multiple times (four actually). When his fourth resignation was rejected by the party he then attempted to abolish his own position entirely.
So is it not like the west where you need to run for each term but more like a normal job with periodic reviews? i.e. in the west, leaving the position at the end of the term is sort of the “default” in terms of the mechanics (with staying requiring being opted-into).
The positions are elected by a vote at the supreme soviet assembly, those positions are elected by the soviets (councils) below the assembly, and those are elected by the soviets below that, and so on down to the lowest level where the local constituents vote.
In the party it’s generally considered a “duty” though, especially among those that participated in the revolution like Stalin who treated loyalty to the organisation, self-sacrifice and subordination to it as a significant and necessary part of what made the revolution succeed. Thousands of people literally sacrificing their whole lives for the goal.
As such, Stalin wouldn’t break a decision of the assembly just as he wouldn’t want anyone else to. If they said they still needed him in his post he did his duty and stayed despite not wanting to.
He largely held equal powers to everyone else on the Council of Ministers, the position of Chairman didn’t have special powers. The General Secretary role of the party was invented by Lenin with the intention of it being used to break opposition in the party (perform purges). Once Stalin had successfully performed his purges and prevented split in the country/civil-war he saw the position as having completed its purpose and wanted rid of it, he didn’t like the cult of personality around himself and wanted people to view the government in a collective capacity rather than an individual leader kind of way. That’s obviously not what ended up being the perception though. Lots of hero worship got in the way.
This article was taken from the Russian newspaper Glasnost devoted to the 120th Anniversary of Stalin’s birth, was the last speech at the CC [Central Committee] CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union] before Stalin died. The text was being published for the very first time in the Soviet Union…
…MOLOTOV – [Glasnost -] coming to the speaker’s tribune completely admits his mistakes before the CC, but he stated that he is and will always be a faithful disciple of Stalin.
STALIN – (interrupting Molotov) This is nonsense. I have no students at all. We are all students of the great Lenin.
[Glasnost -] Stalin suggested that they continue the agenda point by point and elect comrades into different committees of state.
With no Politburo, there is now elected a Presidium of the CC CPSU in the enlarged CC and in the Secretariat of the CC CPSU altogether 36 members.
In the new list of those elected are all members of the old Politbiuro – except that of comrade A. A. Andreev who, as everyone knows now is unfortunately completely deaf and thus can not function.
VOICE FROM THE FLOOR – We need to elect comrade Stalin as the General Secretary of the CC CPSU and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.
STALIN – No! I am asking that you relieve me of the two posts!
MALENKOV – coming to the tribune: Comrades! We should all unanimously ask comrade Stalin, our leader and our teacher, to be again the General Secretary of the CC CPSU.
Same attempt (A. I. Mgeladze, Stalin. Kakim ia ego znal. Strannitsy nedavnogo poshlogo. p. 118):
At the first Plenum of the CC [Central Committee] of the CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union] called after the XIX Congress of the Party (I had been elected member of the CC and took part in the work of this Plenum), Stalin really did present the question of General Secretary of the CC CPSU, or of the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. He referred to his age, overwork, said that other cadres had cropped up and there were people to replace him, for example, N.I. Bulganin could be appointed as Chairman of the Council of Ministers, but the CC members did not grant his request, all insisted that comrade Stalin remain at both positions.
You’re moving the goalposts. Obviously a succession of dictatorships is possible, even with a preservation of an overarching dictatorial system. However, you can’t have a dictatorship where the so-called dictator doesn’t even have the authority to resign unilaterally. Try “oligarchy” next time and you’ll get more interesting responses.
The USSR was a dictatorship, but not a fascist dictatorship.
Dictatorships are when almost the entire population supports the government. Democracy is when corporations own all candidates and the electoral college designed by slaveowners almost 300 years ago decides all presidential elections. I am a critical thinker.
No it wasn’t. This is propaganda. Even the CIA admits that it is propaganda in this document:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf
Democracy under socialism is simply structured differently. You need to study it properly.
Several countries that you support today still use a system very much like this. Cuba and Vietnam for example. A solid video on Cuban democracy is here: https://youtu.be/2aMsi-A56ds
All the socialist countries built on this system.
Stalin tried to resign 3 times and wasn’t allowed to. Weird thing for a dictator to not be allowed to do.
Ignoring everything else wrong about your one sentence, a dictatorship needn’t be helmed by a single person. Brazil was a dictatorship from the 60s to the 90s, and had 6 different presidents during that time.
Okay, what about the whole soviets and sharing power with trade unions thing? What about their innovations in participatory democracy. The USSR were hyperdemocratic, even on war footing, at least until destalinization happened and the bureaucracy started taking hold.
Cuba follows a really similar system to the soviets system and it is probably as close to a democracy as you can get in a capitalist world, so how is it that the USSR was undemocratic? Did the evil russkies implement council democracy but forgot to actually do it??? Just like they implemented the Washington Consensus post-breakdown but forgot to do the American-“democracy”??
His sentence isn’t wrong. Stalin did try to resign multiple times (four actually). When his fourth resignation was rejected by the party he then attempted to abolish his own position entirely.
So is it not like the west where you need to run for each term but more like a normal job with periodic reviews? i.e. in the west, leaving the position at the end of the term is sort of the “default” in terms of the mechanics (with staying requiring being opted-into).
The positions are elected by a vote at the supreme soviet assembly, those positions are elected by the soviets (councils) below the assembly, and those are elected by the soviets below that, and so on down to the lowest level where the local constituents vote.
In the party it’s generally considered a “duty” though, especially among those that participated in the revolution like Stalin who treated loyalty to the organisation, self-sacrifice and subordination to it as a significant and necessary part of what made the revolution succeed. Thousands of people literally sacrificing their whole lives for the goal.
As such, Stalin wouldn’t break a decision of the assembly just as he wouldn’t want anyone else to. If they said they still needed him in his post he did his duty and stayed despite not wanting to.
He largely held equal powers to everyone else on the Council of Ministers, the position of Chairman didn’t have special powers. The General Secretary role of the party was invented by Lenin with the intention of it being used to break opposition in the party (perform purges). Once Stalin had successfully performed his purges and prevented split in the country/civil-war he saw the position as having completed its purpose and wanted rid of it, he didn’t like the cult of personality around himself and wanted people to view the government in a collective capacity rather than an individual leader kind of way. That’s obviously not what ended up being the perception though. Lots of hero worship got in the way.
October 16, 1952 (http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1954-2/succession-to-stalin/succession-to-stalin-texts/stalin-on-enlarging-the-central-committee/):
Same attempt (A. I. Mgeladze, Stalin. Kakim ia ego znal. Strannitsy nedavnogo poshlogo. p. 118):
The only thing he got wrong is that Stalin tried to resign four times. Delete your account.
You’re moving the goalposts. Obviously a succession of dictatorships is possible, even with a preservation of an overarching dictatorial system. However, you can’t have a dictatorship where the so-called dictator doesn’t even have the authority to resign unilaterally. Try “oligarchy” next time and you’ll get more interesting responses.