You're viewing part of a thread.
I was under the impression it was the claims we were discussing, which Khlevniuk's book seem to support, not what or who deserves our respect. For that reason it might be worthwhile to check that out too. Totally up to you of course.
Respect, as in accept the opinions. Nothing you have shown has supported the idea that Stalin could not be opposed, and was not opposed, nor that he was all-powerful.
We were talking about whether Stalin was a dictator or not. Khlevniuk's Stalin: A New Biography of a Dictator makes that case.
Stalin could not be opposed, and was not opposed, nor that he was all-powerful.
Even Hitler wasn't a dictator on those grounds. And I think he is considered the epitome of a modern day dictator.
What is a dictator, in your opinion? What separates a dictator from a regular head of state?
Power. But for meaning of the word, I'd just go with something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator. Fair few mentions of Stalin there, but definitely second to Hitler.
What level of power? Like, is it just a vibe? If the vibes are off, or if they're alright? By your definition linked, the idea of Absolute Power, Stalin was not a dictator as we have shown.
If you take it literally, neither was Hitler. And at that point you might need to reconsider how you define it. But as commonly defined and used, most seem to consider them both dictators for similar sort of merits.
My point is that using "Stalin was a dictator" as a reason for why the USSR was bad is like saying "The US is bad because Biden is stinky." I am asking for actual, genuine, measurable issues, of which there are plenty, so that we can compare with other countries and see what should have been done instead. You haven't provided any of that.
The discussion was if Stalin was a dictator to begin with.
I am asking for actual, genuine, measurable issues, of which there are plenty, so that we can compare with other countries and see what should have been done instead. You haven’t provided any of that.
I did mention the purges, murders and sending political opponents to concentration camps. It's a side-effect from the dictator thing and I'd personally consider that a bit "stinky".
The question posed isn't whether or not Stalin was a good or bad person. I do not care about long-dead men, I care about structures. Stalin did not individually cause or carry out purges, how could he have done so?
The Soviet Model is one that had numerous growing pains. There were horrible crimes committed by the Soviet State, but at a far lesser extent than contemporary States such as the US, especially with the international aspect. Stalin's role was not as some Great Man (not Great as in Good, but Great as in influential), but as a steward of the USSR like any other would have been.
I do consider Stalin to have in many ways been reactionary, but also as a Marxist, and one that more often than not carried forward the will of the Working Class. I do not believe the claim of him to have had absolute power or control has weight.
Does this make sense?
The question posed that I started the discussion with was if he was a dictator.
Stalin did not individually cause or carry out purges, how could he have done so?
I mean it's not like Hitler did the gassing himself. But rather as a leader ordering it. Doesn't diminish the responsibility. And nobody claimed he personally killed these people.
Stalin’s role was not as some Great Man (not Great as in Good, but Great as in influential), but as a steward of the USSR like any other would have been.
I think that's the thing we disagree about, how much control he had.