Successful Communism

[Traitorfish]

Sadly, dictatorship of the proletariat was indeed a part of Marxist theory. It's not deformed communism. It's the practical outcome of a theory (of the dictatorship) put into practice. Can you actually name the difference between the ideal and the reality that did not conform to Marx's guidelines for his socialism stage?

Well, Marx himself suggested that the socialist stage was something akin to the tragically short-lived Paris Commune (although with a bit more centralisation and coordination between collectives; it was the Commune's over-anarchic nature which ultimatley brought it down, after all). Stalinist Russia bears little resemblence to the Marx-Leninist model, which was, by necessity, far more authoritarian, essentially dissavowing internatuionalism and direct collectivism in favour of state oligarchy. There's a reason that the Trotskyites opposed it from the early days, and have conducted a lot of analysis as to it's particular failures and deformations; they hold the Soviet Union to have constituted a "degenerate worker's state", and it's various sattelites to have been "deformed workers states" (opinion is, I believe, divide as to the classification of Cuba and Vietnam).

And Cheezy has already mentioned the particular definition of Marx's "dictatorship". You do well to realise that words have meanings beyond their contemporary English-language, dogmatic ideological usage.

We're in a world where some countries are rich and some are poor. The "poor" in the rich countries are what would be middle class in the poor countries. That global society of proletariat never came into being, because there is no longer an "under" proletariat in the rich world. Everyone is at least in "upper" proletariat now. It's not that the international proletariat is growing slower than Marx thought. It's that the proletariat has been doing the opposite: shrinking. And as the developing world progresses, is there any reason to think they will not follow suit and get past the stage of class warfare?

That assumes that the "middle" and "lower" classes are socially, political or economic absolutes, when in fact they are social constructs, with very specific connotations of social and economic status. They are not merely a measurement of wealth. Furthermore, the majority of members of the modern first-world "middle class" are truly proletarian, but allow the constructs in which they immerse themselves to cloud their vision. Class is ultimately defined by the relationship to the means of production, not by income or social status, and those segments of the middle class which do not constitute the petite-bourgeoisie are, ultimately, productive as opposed to exploitative, and therefore proletarian.

Besides, there's no reason to assume that the "middle class" must necessarily expand. The Western one has reached the size it has because capitalist neo-colonialism has allowed it do so; to where will the workers of China and India outsource their labour? Automation? Since when has that offered anything in the way of political or economic enfranchisement? This is an issue of power, not of wealth. It is democratic self-governance, not a mere higher standard of living, which drives the socialist cause.

Epilogue: Holy crap, I'm turning into a Marxist.

 

[Alassius]

Dictatorship of the Proletariat simply means a situation where the proletariat is in charge. It does not denote what we consider today to be a "dictatorship." See Karl Kautsky's pamphlet by the same name for further explanation.

Theoretically it's different. In reality it's still a dictatorship, but not of the proletariat. It's of the representatives of the proletariat. Saying that it's not supposed to be a real dictatorship does nothing to change the fact that it was a real dictatorship.

You don't know what you're talking about. This whole paragraph is hogwash.

I dare you to explain why. Do you deny that everyone in the rich world enjoy welfare capitalism? Or are you going to claim that an average modern American worker has anything similar in his living condition to a 19th century British coal miner?

Of which anyone can join, simply by will.

Yeah, right, but why would the political elite want to join the rationing when they already have near unlimited freedom?

There you go again, building the strawman than the collective is greater than the individual. That's not what anyone here has argued.

It's not a strawman. It was the actual argument used in communist countries. What you think Lenin meant is irrelevant, if it's not what actually happened.

Cute. But I am not amused.

Nor were the millions of people who suffered under those dictatorships. You're in good company.

If society can suppress individuality so that individuals are absolutely better off then the political economy fails as long as society does not head there. Why would individuals not want to be better off?

I think what you fail to realise is individuality is endogenous to individual benefit. That is, people value individuality and therefore don't find it to their benefit to suppress to it to a significant extent. Certainly there can be societies where conditions are so bad that suppression of individuality may be one of the least of the people's problems, and if that is so and the suppression of individuality will help individuals become better off, then why shouldn't they do that?

Honestly, I'm slightly baffled about having to say this to someone who surely knows his market economics.

And while you deny that individuality and individual benefit has anything to do with each other, you seem quick to equivocate individuality with individualism.

Need I say more?

I think individualism means the sovereign of individuality, in other words whether the individual is ultimately more important than the collective. Individual well-being means what you have, mostly taken to mean physical possessions. Individualism may be one way of achieving better individual well-being because it motivates people - I'm not arguing against that, indeed for classical liberals individualism is the best way. But it is not necessarily the only way.

Communists think of individuality not as a condition for individual well-being, but as a consequence. It was asserted that only by freeing oneself from material needs, one can realise his full potential. The tricky part was then how to achieve individual well-being first. From there it was easy to come up with scenarios where suppression of individuality will help other individuals in the collective become better off, which is when the sum of individual well-being should override individuality. In theory, it's a tradeoff between the benefits of the individual and that of the collective; between the incomplete expressions of individuality at present, limited by material conditions, and the unbounded individuality in the future, the collective being the way of achieving that future. This is all very fine, and in fact, in its ultimate goal, achieving both individual well-being and individuality, not very different from capitalism, which is why both sell.

The problem is again the difference between theory and implementation. Most crucially, who gets to say who should be the sacrificing individual? Whose individuality should be suppressed? Marx thought that people speak according to their class, hence if classes are abolished, which would put, say, both me and JerichoHill in the same class, I would be making largely the same decisions as JerichoHill would, even if I'm an amatuer who never read a proper economics book, and he's a professional economist, simply because we would both do what is the best for our class*. Based on that assumption, he didn't think it was necessary to lay out in details how a government, or any other social organisation, would work in either the utopian communism or the intermediate socialism stages**. Because of this oversight, Soviet bureaucrats were able to claim whatever they do represented the benefits for the mass. Whenever they asked for sacrifices to either individuality or individual benefits, it must lead to greater benefits for the collective, and therefore would increase individual benefits. Too many honest workers bought that, just like Boxer did in Animal Farm.

* Which apparently is obvious. Note his assumption that division of labour would go with classes. Also note the disregard of professional expertise by communists on this board, say Karalysia.
** Why would we need elections and votes, if we're going to agree anyways? Elections can therefore be no more than a bourgeois gimmick to make you think you're participating, etc. etc.

 

[Merkinball]

to where will the workers of China and India outsource their labour? Automation? - Traitorfish

Africa.

 

[Alassius]

Well, Marx himself suggested that the socialist stage was something akin to the tragically short-lived Paris Commune (although with a bit more centralisation and coordination between collectives; it was the Commune's over-anarchic nature which ultimatley brought it down, after all). Stalinist Russia bears little resemblence to the Marx-Leninist model, which was, by necessity, far more authoritarian, essentially dissavowing internatuionalism and direct collectivism in favour of state oligarchy. There's a reason that the Trotskyites opposed it from the early days, and have conducted a lot of analysis as to it's particular failures and deformations; they hold the Soviet Union to have constituted a "degenerate worker's state", and it's various sattelites to have been "deformed workers states" (opinion is, I believe, divide as to the classification of Cuba and Vietnam).

Please explain in what ways internationalism and direct collectivism would have differed from Stalinism? What different policies would Trotsky enact, suppose he magically got his international revolution? What would've been true Marx-Leninist policies? Why would those policies not invoke the kind of failures and deformations under Stalin?

That assumes that the "middle" and "lower" classes are socially, political or economic absolutes, when in fact they are social constructs, with very specific connotations of social and economic status. They are not merely a measurement of wealth. Furthermore, the majority of members of the modern first-world "middle class" are truly proletarian, but allow the constructs in which they immerse themselves to cloud their vision. Class is ultimately defined by the relationship to the means of production, not by income or social status, and those segments of the middle class which do not constitute the petite-bourgeoisie are, ultimately, productive as opposed to exploitative, and therefore proletarian.

Besides, there's no reason to assume that the "middle class" must necessarily expand. The Western one has reached the size it has because capitalist neo-colonialism has allowed it do so; to where will the workers of China and India outsource their labour? Automation? Since when has that offered anything in the way of political or economic enfranchisement? This is an issue of power, not of wealth. It is democratic self-governance, not a mere higher standard of living, which drives the socialist cause.

Epilogue: Holy crap, I'm turning into a Marxist.

Social classes are not absolute, which is how lefties use it as an excuse to call not-so-poor people the "poor". Whether one benefits from welfare however is absolute. It's wrong to say "welfare capitalism only provides for the 'upper' proletariat", unless you agree that everyone is at least an "upper" proletarian now.

The first world middle class has very little to do with Marx's proletariat. This may sound harsh, but seriously, if you think they have the same social and economic status, you haven't read enough Marx. They are closer to petite bourgeois than to proletarians. For one thing, most (older) people in England would own a house, and not uncommonly they have savings. For another, if a Briton loses his job, he could survive on welfare. A proletarian would have neither, hence he has to keep working in order not to starve, no matter what kind of job offer he gets. That in turn makes it possible for capitalists to suppress wage, to such an extent that your wage can hardly keep you fed. This is plainly not the case in Britain.

Marx imagined that petite bourgeois would lose the viability in whatever trade they are in, through expansion of machinery (which replaces manual labour) and concentration of capital (which makes monopolies more competitive), eventually reducing them into wage labour, or proletarians, in a process called proletarianisation. What happened in reality is the opposite of that. Proletarians became petite bourgeois instead. The very same thing is happening in China. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty, and now own flats, appliances, even cars. That is economic enfranchisement. This progress does not come from colonial exploitation. It's simply the result of a billion people working hard and somewhat efficiently. Even political enfranchisement is happening too if you look closer. The worst Beijing does to a (high profile) dissident these days is house arrest, for example. Chinese people can move more freely within their country, can decide more freely what they are going to eat, and can marry without getting permission from their boss, compared to 30 years ago. That is democratic self-governance.

 

[Traitorfish]

Africa.

And eventually she swallowed a horse, yes. That doesn't really respond to my fundamental point.

 

[Merkinball]

And eventually she swallowed a horse, yes. That doesn't really respond to my fundamental point.

Which is?

You're suggesting that there needs to be an inexhaustible supply of exploitable labor on this earth in order for it to function. Well, I happen to believe that so long as humanity adequately educates itself that this is an irrelevant conclusion. If we educate ourselves, and embrace it fully, then there will simply be no need for low end jobs. The vast majority of which can be done in a more sustainable and efficient fashion with advancements in technology. Our world will gradually become more service oriented, and more specialized as time marches on. And it will be a good thing when Asia, and then Africa, manage to transcend their poverty problem, become educated, and can help the rest of the world move towards a more sustainable and prosperous future.

 

[aelf]

I think individualism means the sovereign of individuality, in other words whether the individual is ultimately more important than the collective. Individual well-being means what you have, mostly taken to mean physical possessions. Individualism may be one way of achieving better individual well-being because it motivates people - I'm not arguing against that, indeed for classical liberals individualism is the best way. But it is not necessarily the only way.

Communists think of individuality not as a condition for individual well-being, but as a consequence. It was asserted that only by freeing oneself from material needs, one can realise his full potential. The tricky part was then how to achieve individual well-being first. From there it was easy to come up with scenarios where suppression of individuality will help other individuals in the collective become better off, which is when the sum of individual well-being should override individuality. In theory, it's a tradeoff between the benefits of the individual and that of the collective; between the incomplete expressions of individuality at present, limited by material conditions, and the unbounded individuality in the future, the collective being the way of achieving that future. This is all very fine, and in fact, in its ultimate goal, achieving both individual well-being and individuality, not very different from capitalism, which is why both sell.

The problem is again the difference between theory and implementation. Most crucially, who gets to say who should be the sacrificing individual? Whose individuality should be suppressed? Marx thought that people speak according to their class, hence if classes are abolished, which would put, say, both me and JerichoHill in the same class, I would be making largely the same decisions as JerichoHill would, even if I'm an amatuer who never read a proper economics book, and he's a professional economist, simply because we would both do what is the best for our class*. Based on that assumption, he didn't think it was necessary to lay out in details how a government, or any other social organisation, would work in either the utopian communism or the intermediate socialism stages**. Because of this oversight, Soviet bureaucrats were able to claim whatever they do represented the benefits for the mass. Whenever they asked for sacrifices to either individuality or individual benefits, it must lead to greater benefits for the collective, and therefore would increase individual benefits. Too many honest workers bought that, just like Boxer did in Animal Farm.

* Which apparently is obvious. Note his assumption that division of labour would go with classes. Also note the disregard of professional expertise by communists on this board, say Karalysia.
** Why would we need elections and votes, if we're going to agree anyways? Elections can therefore be no more than a bourgeois gimmick to make you think you're participating, etc. etc.

All that talk and, sadly, no answer to my objection. No, that individuality motivates people is not an answer. Again, individuality - what you call the sovereignty of the individual - is endogenous to individual well-being. This means it's not that it merely motivates individuals to acquire material wealth for their well-being, but that it's necessary for individual well-being. Funnily enough, I seem to be giving more credence to people's psychological needs than you do here.

The other thing is individuality and individualism are, again, different things. However, for some reason you seem to insist on lumping the two together. Could this be a weak link in the argument? Perhaps by means of such equivocation, people like you seek to argue for individualism by simply taking on the much easier task of defending individuality? Well, not so fast, buddy.

 

[Traitorfish]

Please explain in what ways internationalism and direct collectivism would have differed from Stalinism?What different policies would Trotsky enact, suppose he magically got his international revolution? What would've been true Marx-Leninist policies? Why would those policies not invoke the kind of failures and deformations under Stalin?

You asked me where Stalinist departed from Marxism, and I did. I was not under the impression that alt.hist hypotheticals would be demanded, nor, to be honest, I am the one to give them. I merely noted that any adherent of Marxism or it's derivatives (up to and including the bastard child that is Maoism) will tell you that Stalinism does not and has never represented Marxism, any more than Napoleon's empire represented radical republicanism.

Social classes are not absolute, which is how lefties use it as an excuse to call not-so-poor people the "poor". Whether one benefits from welfare however is absolute. It's wrong to say "welfare capitalism only provides for the 'upper' proletariat", unless you agree that everyone is at least an "upper" proletarian now.

Again, you neglect to acknowledge the world outside of the developed; the "upper proletariat" to which I refer is almost the entire proletarian class of the developed world (noting that the lumpenproletariat is a distinct class), yet only a small minority of that in the developing world.

The first world middle class has very little to do with Marx's proletariat. This may sound harsh, but seriously, if you think they have the same social and economic status, you haven't read enough Marx. They are closer to petite bourgeois than to proletarians. For one thing, most (older) people in England would own a house, and not uncommonly they have savings. For another, if a Briton loses his job, he could survive on welfare. A proletarian would have neither, hence he has to keep working in order not to starve, no matter what kind of job offer he gets. That in turn makes it possible for capitalists to suppress wage, to such an extent that your wage can hardly keep you fed. This is plainly not the case in Britain.

You misunderstand the nature of the proletarian class; it is not one of social and economic status, but of relationship to the process of production. A proletarian can be a wealthy individual with bountiful security, what defines him is his productive, rather than exploitative nature. What you describe are the contemporary realities of Marx's day, but not the atemporal realities of the social classes he divide.

Marx imagined that petite bourgeois would lose the viability in whatever trade they are in, through expansion of machinery (which replaces manual labour) and concentration of capital (which makes monopolies more competitive), eventually reducing them into wage labour, or proletarians, in a process called proletarianisation. What happened in reality is the opposite of that. Proletarians became petite bourgeois instead.

You misunderstand the concept of the petite-bourgeoisie; again, it is based on relationship to the production process. The petite-bourgeoisie are essentially a class of small, independent businessmen and professionals who own their means of production, yet fulfil a productive role within it; the owner and head chef of an independent restaurant, say, or the head of an engineering firm. They are economically enfranchised, but politically disenfranchised or partially enfranchised.

The very same thing is happening in China. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty, and now own flats, appliances, even cars. That is economic enfranchisement. This progress does not come from colonial exploitation. It's simply the result of a billion people working hard and somewhat efficiently.

Wealth is not equivalent to economic enfranchisement, any more than holding a privileged but subservient position in a feudal position is political enfranchisement. Ultimately, this wealth depends entirely on the generosity of the capitalist class, and so enfranchisement is lacking.

Even political enfranchisement is happening too if you look closer. The worst Beijing does to a (high profile) dissident these days is house arrest, for example. Chinese people can move more freely within their country, can decide more freely what they are going to eat, and can marry without getting permission from their boss, compared to 30 years ago. That is democratic self-governance.

"China is democratic" is an altogether different proposition, and I'm not sure if it's one which can be effectively dealt with here.

Which is?

You're suggesting that there needs to be an inexhaustible supply of exploitable labor on this earth in order for it to function. Well, I happen to believe that so long as humanity adequately educates itself that this is an irrelevant conclusion. If we educate ourselves, and embrace it fully, then there will simply be no need for low end jobs. The vast majority of which can be done in a more sustainable and efficient fashion with advancements in technology. Our world will gradually become more service oriented, and more specialized as time marches on. And it will be a good thing when Asia, and then Africa, manage to transcend their poverty problem, become educated, and can help the rest of the world move towards a more sustainable and prosperous future.

Again, the proletarian class is defined by it's relationship to the production process, and encompasses the majority of the fictional Western "middle" and "lower" or "working" classes. My point was that these fictions rely on the exportation of direct production to prop up the myth that capitalism has superseded the class system and to prevent the emergence of a proletarian class conciousness. This cannot, by your own acknowledgement, be maintained indefinitely; when the whole world reaches a "middle class" way of life, the true nature of the class system will become evident, and the artificial divisions within the proletarian class will suffer as a result. And then "sense and worth o'er a' the earth shall bear the green an' a' that", as the Bard so aptly put it.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Theoretically it's different. In reality it's still a dictatorship, but not of the proletariat. It's of the representatives of the proletariat. Saying that it's not supposed to be a real dictatorship does nothing to change the fact that it was a real dictatorship.

Strawman strawman strawman.

The "Dictatorship" of the Proletariat is democratic empowerment of the working class. It is the anarchistic power that replaces the liberal Capitalist plutocracy.

From the pamphlet I asked you to read, which you obviously did not:

Socialism as a means to the emancipation of the proletariat, without democracy, is unthinkable.

I dare you to explain why. Do you deny that everyone in the rich world enjoy welfare capitalism? Or are you going to claim that an average modern American worker has anything similar in his living condition to a 19th century British coal miner?

Of course not. Do you know why? Because he has fought for those rights. It was not glorious capitalism that gave workers rights and better pay: it was the blood and audacity of socialists and anarchists who so made the plutocracy tremble that they were given no other choice and feared for their heads.

Yeah, right, but why would the political elite want to join the rationing when they already have near unlimited freedom?

Because they will have ceased to be the political elite. They will join us or they will die. Socialism is governed by a "those who work, eat" philosophy: if the bourgeoisie will not work side by side with their proletarian brothers, then they will not reap the benefits thereof, and they will starve.

It's not a strawman. It was the actual argument used in communist countries. What you think Lenin meant is irrelevant, if it's not what actually happened.

You seem unable to grasp the idea that extant socialist countries are ultimately about as comparable to the socialism that would arise from a mature capitalist society as unleavened and leavened bread.

At any rate, no, it wasn't the argument that was used in "communist" countries. It was the argument that Western propagandists used against communism. I'm not really surprised to find you dull-mouthing their slogans and nonsense.

Nor were the millions of people who suffered under those dictatorships. You're in good company.

You spoke to them with the same tone? Oh my, you are the rude one!

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Partially. By unlimited resources I meant the raw land resources, but there is still effort to get them and the labor being sold. It does create more competition, which is bad for the major suppliers, but the same competition gives the consumer more choices. Isn't that the basis of the free market? The consumer makes the choices that benefit them?

I concur.

Scarcity of natural resources (Land, in economic terms) means that their use is in violation of the Lockean Proviso, and thus a form of theft unless those deprived access to the resources are adequately compensated. This calls not for a Marxist/Socialist but a Georgist/Geoist/Geo-Classical Liberal/Geo-Libertarian solution.

 

[Merkinball]

Again, the proletarian class is defined by it's relationship to the production process, and encompasses the majority of the fictional Western "middle" and "lower" or "working" classes. My point was that these fictions rely on the exportation of direct production to prop up the myth that capitalism has superseded the class system and to prevent the emergence of a proletarian class conciousness. This cannot, by your own acknowledgement, be maintained indefinitely; when the whole world reaches a "middle class" way of life, the true nature of the class system will become evident, and the artificial divisions within the proletarian class will suffer as a result. And then "sense and worth o'er a' the earth shall bear the green an' a' that", as the Bard so aptly put it. - Traitorfish

Ok, I guess I don't see the inherent problem with this. Also, as we become more educated (that is to say of the underclasses in the west actually begin to embrace education), then you will see more cooperation between people. There will be less ruling class versus underclass. It will become a necessity. I really don't understand why what you're talking about is worth complaining about. I really doubt that as we become more middle class across the globe that people will give two craps about it. For better or worse I guess...

 

[Ahovking]

Communism is still young

Democracy has been around sense Ancient Greece and in history is and 50ist yuor old man but communism is a new form of Gavermant born just over 100 years ago its still young 3 year old and like a 3 year old will try to stange try new thing Democry has a over 1000 year

 

[amadeus]

Of course not. Do you know why?

$$$ Supply and demand! $$$

 

[luiz]

You asked me where Stalinist departed from Marxism, and I did. I was not under the impression that alt.hist hypotheticals would be demanded, nor, to be honest, I am the one to give them. I merely noted that any adherent of Marxism or it's derivatives (up to and including the bastard child that is Maoism) will tell you that Stalinism does not and has never represented Marxism, any more than Napoleon's empire represented radical republicanism.

That's not quite true, is it?

The overwhelming majority of adherents of Marxism in the 30's, 40's and 50's considered Stalin to be a model Marxist. Pablo Neruda wrote poems praising him, Bernard Shaw compared him to Jesus (really).

Until today, Oscar Niemeyr considers him to be a perfect Marxist, and with all respect, he has much better Marxist credentials than you.

This notion that Stalin deviated from Marxism was only spoused by the Trotskyist minority, and merely because of their power struggle, not for because of actual theory. And now of course most people will try to distance themselves from Stalin since his crimes became well known. But that does change the fact that he was loved by Marxists worldwide.

 

[Tee Kay]

That's not quite true, is it?

The overwhelming majority of adherents of Marxism in the 30's, 40's and 50's considered Stalin to be a model Marxist.

And considering that the majority of adherents of Marxism within and outside the Soviet Union in the 30s, 40s and 50s only know about what was happening in the Soviet Union through what Stalin's people told them, do you think Soviet propaganda during that period might have a little to do with it?

 

[luiz]

And considering that the majority of adherents of Marxism within and outside the Soviet Union in the 30s, 40s and 50s only know about what was happening in the Soviet Union through what Stalin's people told them, do you think Soviet propaganda during that period might have a little to do with it?

Not entirely true. Many westerners visited the USSR, saw the massive crimes as they later admited, but but still praised Stalin

 

[Tee Kay]

Not entirely true. Many westerners visited the USSR, saw the massive crimes as they later admited, but but still praised Stalin

Which one? I wonder how much of the crimes the majority would've seen if they were on tours organized by the Stalinists.

 

[amadeus]

I'm guessing Walter Duranty was one of them.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That's not quite true, is it?

The overwhelming majority of adherents of Marxism in the 30's, 40's and 50's considered Stalin to be a model Marxist. Pablo Neruda wrote poems praising him, Bernard Shaw compared him to Jesus (really).

That doesn't make him a "model Marxist" simply because people sang in praise of him. At any rate, his Trotskyist program is evidence enough of his Marxist deviation.

Until today, Oscar Niemeyr considers him to be a perfect Marxist, and with all respect, he has much better Marxist credentials than you.

It seems a rather foreign idea to you to that people praised Stalin for defending socialism where all else had failed (meaning the Hungarian SSR and failed European revolutions), not because he was the vision of Marx's wet dreams.

This notion that Stalin deviated from Marxism was only spoused by the Trotskyist minority,

And by orthodox Marxists around the world.

It would be strange for the Trotskyists to denounce Stalin for being a Marxist deviant, as theirs was the source of much of that deviancy. Surely you mean a socialist deviant, as they condemned his "irresponsible despotism of the bureaucracy over the people," to borrow the horse's words himself.

and merely because of their power struggle, not for because of actual theory. And now of course most people will try to distance themselves from Stalin since his crimes became well known. But that does change the fact that he was loved by Marxists worldwide.

That Stalin's and Trotsky's ideas were so similar was because the latter stole the former's economic program after destroying his name and reputation. Stalin had no program before he got rid of Trotsky, Bukharin, and the others (I mention them because they are the primary sources of most of it). The only parts of his program unique to himself were those carried out by Yezhov and Beria. And they are the defining characteristics of Stalinism. That is why we denounce it so.

 

[luiz]

Which one? I wonder how much of the crimes the majority would've seen if they were on tours organized by the Stalinists.

Amadeus alrady mentioned one famous case; I could add Louis Fischer, who admitted he lied about what he saw. I could even add Jorge Amado, famous writer and communist, who visited the USSR in the 30's and came back saying it was paradise, but would much later admit that he was disguted by much of what he saw.