You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
Can you explain mechanically how he was a totalitarian dictator, yet did not have totalitarian control nor was he the sole director?
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.
He did not have total control. If you don't agree with Soviet records, then let the CIA themselves explain in an internal, never meant to be revealed document. Stalin was often contested, and did not have the ability to make anything happen. He had power as the head of state, but it was neither absolute nor all-encompasing.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
I think it would've been clearer to say "everything" than "anything". Because now it just sounds like he couldn't do anything
What constitutes a "Normal Historian?"
Just historians who've looked into Stalin, Soviet Union, the sort. Historians meaning people who've studied history.
The CIA didn't agree with you
It's one review from CIA. Do we know anything else from this document, its significance, whether it was the consensus in the CIA, any of this sort of things?
neither does historical evidence.
Historians seem to disagree.
I think it would've been clearer to say "everything" than "anything". Because now it just sounds like he couldn't do anything
Fair and valid point.
Just historians who've looked into Stalin, Soviet Union, the sort. Historians meaning people who've studied history.
There are numerous pro-Soviet historians as well, you're not referencing anything, just calling upon the mystical and undefined idea of "Normal Historians."
It's one review from CIA. Do we know anything else from this document, its significance, whether it was the consensus in the CIA, any of this sort of things?
It's one document, and yet more than anything you've provided beyond vibes. Do you have any actual evidence?
There are numerous pro-Soviet historians as well, you’re not referencing anything, just calling upon the mystical and undefined idea of “Normal Historians.”
I'm not really talking about pro or anti-Soviet historians. just the majority of the prominent ones who have studied the subject. Preferably you'd want to trust historians who avoid thinking of historical stuff as some pro-anti thing as you've framed it.
It’s one document, and yet more than anything you’ve provided beyond vibes. Do you have any actual evidence?
Sources for the Wikipedia article are linked with as [1] that. I can paste them here if that's what you want, for easier access I guess.
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.