37 Answers

  1. A world revolution in the years when J. V. Stalin came to power in the USSR was impossible, and an attempt to implement it in those historical conditions would have been a disastrous adventure for the young Soviet republic surrounded by enemies and full of unresolved problems. It was decided (far from individually) to build socialism (and not communism) in a single country, based on long-term considerations.

    The conditions for building socialism were far from “laboratory” and it was necessary to build it “from improvised means”, and not in Skolkovo with unlimited financial and political credit from Putin. The race for the survival of the Country of the Soviets was not for life, but for death with a constant eye on the neighbors who were ready to tear you apart and holding a stone in their bosom and not just a fig in their pocket of an internal scam of outspoken enemies/detractors and crooks who got stuck.

    An idea is also an idea that can exist in objective reality only by refraction and taking the form of concrete phenomena, deterministic or probabilistically random, but not in its original form. Even when it takes possession of a particular consciousness, it is interpreted by this consciousness because of its individuality, and it is wrong to blame anyone for this – this is an inherent property of any consciousness.

    Marxist ideas that are identical to those that were not even ideas, but published texts, no longer exist and can not be in reality, since the original texts will be perceived and interpreted by our minds according to our individual perception. After all, it has long been known: “The word spoken is a lie.”

  2. )) To listen to you, you might think that the story began with the fact that there was an idea in a vacuum, and matter began to arise from it, and all concrete things only then appeared due to someone's mistakes, and initially there was one pure, immaculate idea. This is the very “idealism” in the worst sense that the Marxists opposed.

    In practice, if you stand in front of a crowd of people, say, and tell them how to live “according to the Idea”, they shrug their shoulders and disperse. Then, let's say you start a revolution and appear before the same crowd in the rank of someone who should be obeyed, and again explain how to live. They pretend to understand, diverge, and each to the best of their abilities try to stick to the new rules, at least outwardly. But what if the rules themselves were not thought up perfectly, hastily, or distorted when communicating to people? And if not, is it so easy for any person to live in a new way? The church has taught us something all my life, but it's no use… And so that the country doesn't fall apart at all, you can't just kill everyone who doesn't understand the new law, and there's no time to really understand it – we are not in a vacuum, we are in the middle of a real external and internal war and intervention, and if you don't do something right now, there will be no society. Let's say you have a few assistants who work pretty well, but some of them are ass-licking people – what should I do with them? Shoot them just for that? But what about the merits? And most importantly-and where to get new equally intelligent people who are already in the know at least? This is human nature, and if you choose between the fact that there will be no country or socialism at all, and the fact that you will be worshipped by a cohort of assholes-what will be better, that is, what will be the lesser evil?

    Communism is the work of CONSCIOUS people, which means that they must be able to consciously distinguish between the inevitable imperfection and the essence of the idea. If you thought that this is just another myth, like any other, that you can just spread it and lead people along – no, it doesn't work that way. Communism is a matter of reason.

  3. To begin with, the “cult of personality” is not Stalin, it is Khrushchev. Stalin was really loved by the people, he was the same symbol of the country as the coat of arms, Red Square.

    Stalin distorted the idea of communism in only one way. If Marxism said that a one-time world revolution is needed, that until capitalism is destroyed all over the world, a communist cannot sleep in peace, then Stalin supported the idea of transforming Russia at such a level that the whole world would want to live in the same way. And this idea was ultimately correct – indeed, in order to prevent a revolution based on the Russian principle, the capital countries went to a significant easing of working conditions, to create “capitalism with a human face”.

    And officials under the ruler – under any head of any organization-always officially support the head. It shouldn't be any other way.

  4. The fact that the author of this question is an amateur can be seen immediately. Does not know the true meaning of the word “cult” and sculpts it anywhere-also obvious. In a figurative sense, a cult is an excessive worship of someone, something, the exaltation of someone, something. A person, if he is mentally healthy, cannot exalt himself and worship himself. The cult is created by the environment, close associates, and in our time (to a greater extent ) the media. The author apparently does not know that Stalin refused many things that were offered to him as his services to the country, which clearly contradicts the statement in the title. We must do at least a millionth part of what Stalin did, both in theory and in practice, to have the right to judge him so peremptorily !

  5. Power is a drug and a person addicted to it turns into a bloodthirsty animal. Stalin, like Lenin, dreamed of world domination and developed only heavy industry, not caring about the welfare of the people, so in the USSR it was difficult with food and consumer goods. Stalin's dream, pathological cowardice and excessive conceit led to the fact that he destroyed the best people from his entourage (smart people have their own opinion), took on the leadership of the country and the army himself, and failed the whole thing. He had a party that presented his shortcomings to the people as achievements, so today many people perceive the data of false Soviet statistics as the truth.

  6. Stalin is just fine. Under the slogans of communism, he turned Russia, ravaged by world War II and civil war, into a powerful Soviet Union. The second most important country in the world. Everything was distorted by its receivers.

  7. The cult of personality at that time in one form or another developed in countries with a very different socio-economic structure and very different political traditions. Communism here accidentally fell under the distribution.

  8. There was nothing to distort the idea of communism, because it was and is a primitive bastard idea that can only be realized in a concentration camp. The slogan “From each according to ability, to each according to need” is either the delirium of a madman, or the ultimate cynicism of a complete scoundrel. Man is so organized that his needs are unlimited, they cannot be fully met, they are constantly increasing. Otherwise, it is not a person. You can meet his needs, which are formulated not by him, but by other people, superiors. Needs for sleep, clothing, warmth, and food. But these will be minimal needs at the level of survival. And it will work according to its ability, i.e. at the limit of its physical strength, in a concentration camp. This will be true communism.

  9. Stalin personally has absolutely nothing to do with it. Totalitarianism is an essential feature of “socialism”. In all” socialist ” countries, authoritarian regimes were formed with “leaders” at the head.

    Not a single socialist country with a democratic regime was formed. Well, “socialism” was not at all what Marx and Engels wrote about.

    And the reasons for this are elementary: if everything is state-owned, then the most powerful state management apparatus is required to manage everything state-owned. And the state, unlike capitalism, combines both general administrative and economic functions. It becomes a monster that manages and controls all aspects of society. And quite naturally, mnostrom is centralized, with a rigid “vertical of power”. And the one who stands at the head gets the opportunity to impose his rule for an indefinite period. Well….polizy are always found. And licking w … py is more pleasant to everyone than criticism.

  10. Author, what makes you think that the idea of communism was distorted by Stalin? After all, this idea directly refers to privileges for communists and the destruction of all others who disagree )) It directly refers to the training and zombification of a new person, with one need – to work for the benefit of the communists ))

    It explicitly refers to the forced socialization of ownership of the means of production instead of the competitive victory of such “general” (in fact, nomenclatural, feudal) gygy enterprises over private ones, which Stalin did in favor of himself and his friends, and so far in the Russian Federation everything remains so ))

    Just stupid commies and did not realize that automation will make production cheap (although stupid Marx already knew about Luddites) and destroy the proletariat, and the main world GDP will be mental services. And the heads of clever people will not be socialized, even Stalin could not gygy ))

    Therefore, the commie case died both practically and ideologically.

  11. Stalin was a practical man. He quickly realized that running a government according to any pre-selected theory is a road to nowhere. And formally adhering to a certain ideology, he acted extremely pragmatically.

  12. For starters, there are no “cults” in theory. There are no officials there either. That's not what it's about. If it comes to that, then “about officials” – ” Theory of State and Law “(textbook for universities), so it is all over the world about the same thing, but in different words.

    The “ass-licking” officials were invented by the “anarchist” (anarchists themselves recognize him as such) Arthur Schopenhauer.

    By the way, he also had “The World as will and representation”: he believed that the world around him is reified by the will of a person, in other words, strictly as the individual sees it.

    That is, if you see “bombs”, “personality cults” and “ass-licking” everywhere in your mind, you should deal with yourself, your fantasies and sexual preferences, and not mindlessly blame the world.

  13. To begin with, you need to answer yourself: isn't J. V. Stalin a person? This is a person and what other size. Here he is long gone and his personality remains because it bothers the minds of people. Another thing is what kind of person in terms of evaluation, positive or negative. And the debate is still going on.

    It seems to me that the legacy of the monarchical regime after the victim without a glorious fiasco (although this is also debatable) has nothing to do with the cult of the Bolshevik leaders. Because these leaders themselves were huge personalities That Ulyanov V. I. that Dzhugashvili I. V.

    First of all, they were highly educated and versatile people. With almost no commercialism, their personal good was what they did. Stalin, like Lenin, did not have any inheritance. And their relatives didn't get rich either.

    Tell me that now V V Putin has a small publicity rating, songs are composed for him. The image of Putin is cultivated everywhere from T-shirts with his image to the media. And even at the international level, is this also a relic of the monarchy? No, these are really personalities.

    Of course, there are still several factors contributing to the promotion of the cult of the leader. I believe that this is our Russian mentality. Being at the junction of European and Asian ethnocultures, we absorbed the Asian worship of han-bai and put it on European rails. It turned out, no, not a chimera, but quite a productive hybrid. The cult of leaders and especially of Joseph Vissarionovich is also connected with his productivity Stalin took the country with a plow and left it as a great power victorious with power plants. Do not forget the main thing in the country of the Soviets was to take care of the citizen. A simple hard worker on which everything that is in the country was kept as it is now. And these promises were kept as far as possible. As they say now, raising the leader's rating.

    Of course, of course, I will not pass by the partially debunked myth of repression. How come how come this is a stumbling block for the modern capitalist and their entourage. So not millions, but thousands suffered in the repression, and there were also innocent people. But miscarriages of justice still occur today. Such actions were especially necessary at that time. There were indeed many spies and traitorous collaborators, and indeed they were fairly arrested on political charges. Well, look at Solzhenitsyn's “pravdorub “”hero”. But after all, the horrors of being incarcerated in the Gulag were not hidden by anyone. This is not a health resort. In the country, children did not eat up, so why should the convict eat from the belly? There was such a time, a cruel time. It was the same all over the world. Why aren't you talking about reservations in the US? Why don't you mention the segregation that took place before the 70s? When apartments were distributed in the USSR. Askance, gentlemen critics. Be more appropriate. Your patriots of Russia, all for some reason, live abroad and not patriots in Russia. I remind you that Solzhenitsyn is one of them. And now about the real patriots, I'll start with Marshal Rokossovsky. During interrogations in the NKVD, both kidneys were damaged. Not a word did he say criticizing Stalin and the Soviet system. So it is necessary. Current situation. Lev Nikolaevich Gumilev. Yes, the son of that Gumilev Nikolai Akmeist, a white officer shot by the Soviets. So everything is bad for him in general, three times according to the execution articles, the White Sea Canal was built. He survived by drinking more than Solzhenitsyn. Gumilev managed after all this nightmare to write a work on ethnogenesis died in the 90's, without writing a word of criticism about the USSR he saw what the USSR is And that he is the son of a white officer naturally falls under suspicion and how else because it was from this environment that spies were recruited. Finally, my grandfather is the winner of two Orders of glory seven wounds and two concussions. And yet in the early 50s was convicted spent a year in prison and eight months died in 1993 But all my life said “Oh Stalin would raise” I'm his Grandfather you were sitting with him and he – ” Well, for the cause to know, for the cause. All that's over there, the better it's my own fault.” You can endlessly list the Real heroes of the Motherland Who, like true knights (without fear or reproach), loved their homeland and understood the necessity and its severity. That was the time. The whole world lived with such concepts. And the USSR was even perhaps the most humane of all. He gathered all the poor countries around him and helped them.

    And Stalin did not distort He was not Khrushchev who promised communism already in the 80th year. Stalin was a realist, he started from reality. Depends on the reality of the current situation. Indeed, immediately after the Bolshevik victory, the illusion of a worldwide workers 'and peasants' revolution was created. but for a number of reasons, this movement has subsided. I had to think about my country, its greatness and its people. and he was thinking. And time proved him right. He was quite flexible in politics. And with ass-licking, he fought periodically replenishing the gulags with them. Yes, it turns out a little replenished. It was from this environment that critics of Stalin's policies later emerged.

    To summarize:1. J. V. Stalin did not distort but corrected the idea based on the current situation. 2. Stalin himself did not make a cult for himself, This is a product of, as you put it, “ass-licking”. Well, he was really outstanding. 3. Stalin did not put “bombs” in the subsequent collapse. It was laid by followers following him and criticizing him, such as N. S. Khrushchev, etc., and the pro-Western leaders, people of a new formation, have already treacherously destroyed it.And the groundwork given by Stalin, in spite of everything, lasted more than 30 years.4. The monarchy could not have had any influence on the further cult of Stalin. Before the October Revolution, there was a February revolution and the abdication of the tsar. it took more than six months and even more than 12 years before the first manifestations of the so-called personality cult.

    This is purely my opinion based on the material I read. Yes, but here I find not one but four topics and the format does not allow me to expand each one in more detail. Bye bye.

  14. The first thing to understand is what communism is. Read Lenin's work ” Three sources, three compilations (or foundations) of Marxism “(as it is called) and find a Person in “communism”. Man is not there-communism is a utopia, no longer French, but of the Jews.

    Second. Stalin was a “stranger” to the terrorists who seized power in 17. In addition, a black cat ran between Stalin and Trotsky during the civil war.

    (the book “The Secret adviser to the leader”).

  15. Stalin did not distort anything… Through educational programs, industrialization, and collectivization, he earned monuments, names of geographical objects, and the respect of his party members, who were not sycophants, as many media personalities are now in relation to Putin!

  16. There was a cult of STALIN's personality, not Joseph Dzhugashvili's.

    The word STALIN means LAW AND ORDER.

    Under Stalin, theft was minimal.Murders and robberies were exceptional. The doors of the apartments were closed in person.

  17. Stalin did not distort anything, he simply understood that building communism requires not a bloody mess in the form of a world revolution, but first of all a strong state strike.
    Stalin did not create a cult of personality, and in general he did not like its existence, the cult was created by the people.
    There were no” Zhopadizovs ” in the upper chamber, this can be understood from what was said about Stalin after his death, which in general could happen because of some personalities in the upper apparatus.

  18. Marx and Lenin were dreamers. Stalin is a practitioner who ruled for many years, won the war, and did not abandon Moscow ( for which I am grateful to him) and created a nuclear weapon of retaliation. Yes, he was a tyrant and executed many innocent people. In the modern world, his methods are absolutely unacceptable, and not necessary. Monarchy is better than tyranny, as Aristotle wrote. Stalin understood this, so he indulged in the cult of the”leader of the peoples”. But he lived quite simply and did not steal like the current kleptocrats.

  19. Stalin did not distort the idea of communism, he carried it out true to the precepts of Ilyich and very consistently. And there was no cult of personality, you need to understand that people in a respectful attitude to their leaders personify the quality of their self-preservation, that is, an objective understanding that each individual can survive only in a community with people like himself. That is why other peoples have such an attitude towards the Oroli, the tsars. to the Presidents, to the General Secretaries

  20. And he did not distort anything, you, as always, did not deign to study the issue and did not create a mind capable of understanding this question, climbs with its short stubs to where there is not just nothing to do with them, but it is deadly in the evolutionary plan., without any enemies it is dangerous.

    What do you want? Have you developed yourself to the level of communism? No, and no again, and you don't even try.

    A more developed system also requires a more developed personality, and this PERSONALITY must be made of itself independently.

    Do you have any idea how to do this? There are no secrets, but you don't even know these words.

    What do you want?

    And even this is not enough, you need to develop up to both understanding and the ability to hold the REAL ESSENCE of not only communism, but also fascism and capitalism, there is nothing cruel and bad there, but you can't even imagine it, let alone understand it.

    So you didn't have any of this, you learned something well, even if exactly the opposite is true, but here the fact and time are important, this is evolutionarily important.

    All that you say has nothing to do with these things, your problem is the struggle itself, but that's another story. So Stalin was forced to build up the process of development of society, everyone and everyone, to the best of his ability, and the questions to the process are not for him, but for himself, because

    A ruler can only do what is allowed to him by his subjects. And that's all, nothing more-you personally are allowed.

    And communism, in short, is the creation of a World around you, and everyone and everyone is more beautiful than they are, more beautiful than you are, and this is without any commerce and similar “culinary feelings” and you ALREADY know it, you just don't want to.

    And you can create the World in this way only under one condition, the only one with which the personality begins

    – to set before yourself all the fullness of freedom, power and responsibility for this World, the whole WORLD, but here you need to be at least a superman, and you call attempts to pass this evolutionary level fascism… very much someone does not want you not to pass it.

    So think – will you pull communism, or will it be like a monkey with a grenade.

    I give you a hint, if you correctly understand the essence of the phrase from one Soviet film, which only a person can understand correctly – you are not hopeless.

    • “When a person has nothing to give to another person – he gives money”
  21. Yes, this semi-literate seminary student-a half-educated and at the same time a criminal by nature spat on the ideas of communism. Having got into the inner circle of power at the suggestion of the fool Lenin, he quickly eliminated possible competitors with his bandit methods under the guise of political struggle, turned the highest party body into a criminal raspberry, and intimidated sixers and paid lackeys proclaimed him a ploughman, leader and teacher, which he very much liked and corresponded to his intentions. He didn't have the brains to create a dynamic economy, so as a distraction, he organized terror under the guise of fighting non-existent enemies. It is clear that in such a situation, he could not adequately prepare for the war and shamefully fucked up its beginning. Of course, there were pluses, but by and large this Georgian nonentity threw the country back about half a century.

  22. Because Stalin was never obsessed with the philosophical ideals of communism and the theory of Marxism, unlike Lenin, Trotsky, Sverdlov, Bukharin, Zinoviev and the rest of the “Jacobins”. Stalin was an ordinary party member and never a theorist. All the articles that Stalin wrote in the early 20s, in fact, Bukharin wrote for him. Stalin began to build his own neo-feudal state named after himself, akin to a landowner over his volosts. Stalin was interested exclusively in private, personal interests and individual domination, despite the well-being of peoples and the development of the state. Today, there is a tendency to call Stalin an ” Effective Manager.” It is hard to imagine a more inefficient manager than Stalin. Stalin accepts a country that, as they say, is looking forward to a bright future. With the peasants who were finally given the land and who were then great craftsmen. With the intelligentsia, which, if you will, capitulated and was overwhelmingly ready to serve the fatherland under new circumstances. Plus-the patriotic upsurge that always happens when the revolution wins. And what does an “effective manager” do? He takes the peasantry – and returns serfdom. He takes the intelligentsia and goes through it like a skating rink. And today they argue: no, no, he did not destroy two million, but only 350 thousand! Yes, even 150! Who did he exterminate! Imagine this queue for the cross, in which all Russian science, all Russian poetry, a part of all the great Russian literature will stand, not to mention all the military leaders of the Civil War! After that, I have only one question: how did the country survive? So-no, no, there was no”manager”.

  23. Hello, Geo P!

    Maybe you should stop asking stupid questions and sit down and read, first traditional sources and then alternative ones…

    Stalin did not distort anything. Stalin was an initiate and knew a great deal, including the goals of the world revolution and communism… Therefore, when he came to power, he began to implement his plan for the fate of Russia.

    The cult of personality and ass-licking officials have always existed-under the tsar, under Lenin… and they are still full of them… It was just that the command was given for a “show flogging”(Stalin annoyed the West too much by not giving Russia to be torn to pieces, but also by taking half the world under his influence – this is not just let down), and this topic was blown to the skies…

  24. Engels wrote back in the 19th century: Either the future communards will secure themselves against their own deputies and officials, or these “Servants of the People” will become their MASTERS. What actually happened in Soviet Russia: the victorious proletariat could not take control of its state apparatus, its general secretaries and tsekashniki. And he paid for it with a complete loss of power.

  25. This is a real story that can be told in tons and kilometers. What we have on his topic. 1. Science knows this concept-the cult of personality. As applied to I. Stalin, this concept was mentioned more than once. Otherwise. No one could do without remembering it. But about whether it was actually written or turned out to be composed? But about whether it was demanded by time or created under the human nature of the leader of nations? But about whether it was a cult or a personality that simply couldn't be cultivated? But what is the socio-psychological genesis of the transition from autocracy to democracy? And so on, and so on. You can't talk here. The topic is not even for an article, but for a series of them. In all cases, it is impossible to answer the question about the distortion of the ideas of communism by the cult of personality without a preliminary analysis. There are reasons for versions.

  26. This is not Stalin's wish, it could not have been otherwise.

    If all the means of production belong to one owner, that owner gains unlimited political power. Under socialism, the means of production belong to one owner, the State. The political opposition under socialism has no right to exist, because political activity requires funding, and in a socialist state there are no legal sources of funding for the opposition. As a result, unlimited power, based on a state monopoly in the economic sphere, destroys socialism from within, in just a few decades.

  27. Once again, the man is sucking epic nonsense out of his finger under the guise of asking questions. Whereas any sane person understands that in fact Stalin successfully implemented Lenin's ideas in conditions of an extremely low level of productive forces. The people were not ready to manage factories and factories on their own. And those who were ready became officials, whom the author calls “ass-licking” based on nothing. Many of these “buggers” later became commissars in the warring army, like Brezhnev. And the author of the questions is still unknown. Maybe as soon as I saw the machine gun , I would have been scared right away.

  28. Stalin is an example of what happens if the minister-administrator from the famous Soviet film gets unlimited royal power. But seriously, Stalin implemented, with the support of the party bureaucracy, the original plan of the Bolsheviks, who represented the new state in the form of a giant corporation managed from a single center. At the end of the Gr.v. Lenin abandoned this erroneous idea, and therefore criticized the creation of the “notorious USSR” by “that Georgian”:”… you can only imagine what a swamp we've run into!” (“On the question of nationalities…”) That is why he insisted on greater autonomy for the republics and guarantees of secession from the USSR : it is better to have a strong ally than a two-faced subordinate. And he insisted on the adoption of anti-official internal party democratic reforms: the division of power into independent components, allowing the proletariat to control its own “Servants of the People” : the general Secretary with the tsekashniki and other deputies with officials who, in the words of Engels, can instantly turn from Servants – into Masters! And which, by then .”.. Burdened by Lenin's heavy, puritanical hand, they diligently sought a new Leader. In your own image and likeness. First among equals!” ( Trotsky). If Lenin's power-sharing plan was adopted at the 12th Party Congress, then the lower and middle ranks of the comm.the parties would receive strong feedback from the top, and they would be able to influence and control it. But Lenin's associates did not want to lose their monopoly on power and made a knight's move: in one fell swoop, they accepted more than 200,000 illiterate, and therefore apolitical, people into the party. Who are easily pressured to make controversial decisions by their authority. Lenin, when he learned about the upcoming “Lenin Draft”, suffered a third and final stroke: he realized that all his plans for democratizing the party were taken care of by his associates, who became his political opponents. As for the very idea of socialism, “For hundreds of years, states were built according to the bourgeois type, and for the first time a non-bourgeois form of state was found. Our machine may be bad, but they say that the first steam engine that was invented was also bad, and it is not even known whether it worked. But that's not the point, the point is that the invention was made. The first steam engine may have been unsuitable in its form, but now we have a steam locomotive. Our state apparatus may be extremely bad, but it has been created, the greatest historical invention has been made, and the state of the proletarian type has been created… ” (vol. 45, pp. 108-109).

  29. It was not Stalin who distorted the idea of communism. It is proved that such ideas are a utopia, and not because it is impossible to overcome the existing formation, but because of the nature of man.

    Lenin's greatest genius is that he was able to create a state for ordinary people, where everything was put at the service of ordinary people. I won't list them all. Although I know that the enemies and hangers-on of Western liberalism, which tramples people into the mud, will blame all sorts of real and fictional shortcomings of Soviet society, but we had a state that existed contrary to all the laws of politics, sociology and other sciences, and a single Soviet people was already formed. But unfortunately, the natural nature of man has proved that, yes, this is utopia.

    Party functionaries degenerated into petty-bourgeois officials, who were mesmerized by their ability to build their lives as in a capitalist society, and the structure and system of the state did not allow it.

    If the USSR had existed for at least another 30 years, then the COMMUNITY OF the SOVIET PEOPLE WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED, then no one would have been able to destroy the country. But WOULD?

    Read what H. Kissinger, an ardent enemy of communism, said: “Modern people have everything and at the same time have nothing. We are not happy about anything, we are not really happy. A Soviet person could genuinely enjoy such simple things as jeans, toilet paper or smoked sausage, and therefore lived fully, breathed deeply. We corrupted him, opened the door to a world where the bright lure of abundance hid the bestial laws of capitalism.

    We only had sex, and they had love. We had only money, and they had sincere human gratitude. And so it is in everything. It is difficult to call me a fan of socialism, I am a Western person with Western thinking, but I believe that a new person was really born in the Soviet Union, you can say — homo soveticus. This man was a step above us and I'm sorry that we destroyed this reserve. Perhaps this is our greatest crime.”

  30. Marx published Das Kapital with money received from Rockefeller. In his work, he tried to prove the inevitability of his victory in the entire world space. His manifesto was published in all European languages except Russian. I. V. Stalin did not distort the principles of communism. He developed them. The theory of building communism in his time was constantly studied and revised, which he constantly pointed out to young scientists until his death. There can be a cult of personality only in the presence of the Personality itself. Stalin I. V. and now remains a Person in world history.

  31. You have absolutely not read Stalin, and you have not the slightest idea of his vision of the situation, or of the development of the communist idea in the world in general. This is where the real idea of communism was distorted and replaced by a low-grade religion, so it was in the post-Stalinist USSR

  32. The Marxist theory itself is untenable on the point of being scientific.Marx imagined that under globalism, the natural development of society would lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth.But it is precisely with the global universal nature of social changes in society.Without taking into account bilingual social principles and laws.In this sense, all ideologies are a mess, because they do not take into account either human nature or really natural social laws.

    And it was not Stalin who “distorted”this Marxist fantasy.And Comrade Lenin.It was Lenin and the Bolsheviks who decided that they could and should build communism in a single country.Which is impossible in principle,according to Marxism, and because of economic laws.This is possible ,but under the Iron Curtain, i.e. in prison,but this is probably not communism,but a prison.And it's not the prison itself that matters,but the economy, which cannot be integrated into a non-communist environment.Like the golden circulation of money.If you put gold into circulation, it will immediately disappear bought up by neighbors and the population, which is why there is no gold money circulation anywhere now.

    True,we must admit that Lenin, taken separately, did not care much about Russia as a construction site.Lenin saw Russia as an experimental testing ground,and a springboard ,and even a Bickford cord for the World Revolution.But one way or another,it was the Bolshevik commie faction that put forward the idea of building communism in a single country.The Cult of Personality was introduced not by Stalin, but by the same Bolsheviks, who exalted Lenin as a flag and a necessary ideological symbol. Stalin followed the course set by the Bolsheviks, and did not particularly distort or invent anything.And it was Lenin who was criticized by Marxists both in Russia and abroad for departing from and distorting Marxism.Lenin, not Stalin.And often because of the cult of Personality introduced by the Bolsheviks,the cult of Lenin's personality,Stalin was criticized for deviating from the divine Leninist principles.And the very question asked here is precisely an echo of this very cult of Lenin's personality.There have been many polemics and references to Stalin's distortion of the Leninist Line.It is not necessary to take political polemics for reality, few people call anyone and how, or what they accuse them of, in order to break through to power. So do not hang all the dogs on Stalin,or attribute other people's sins to him.He has enough of his own.

  33. Because Stalin was a counter-revolutionary and worked (as they say now) under cover for the world bourgeoisie.

    Several times Trotsky raised the question of transferring Stalin to the Revolutionary Military Tribunal for Stalin's counter-revolutionary activities.

    But each time Lenin limited himself to recalling Stalin from the leadership of the fronts and transferring him to clerical work.

    Unfortunately, this did not work out well for Lenin himself, for the entire Leninist government, and for the fate of the entire U.S.S.R. and all Soviet citizens.

  34. First, the Bolsheviks did not fight the monarchy, but carried out a coup against the republic, which had existed since February 1917, first in fact, and then in law.

    Secondly, Stalin did not distort anything in the idea of communism for the simple reason that there was nothing to distort there – the Marxist theory of communism, in terms of content, ends with a call to forcibly seize power and centralize the most important functions of the state.�

    Marx spent all his energy criticizing capitalism, proving how bad it is, and with very few strokes outlined in perspective the joy and happiness that he called communism, or a bright future. Marx believed that it was enough to simply seize power and everything would start working for the common good.

    So did Lenin and his associates, including Stalin: we take power and wait for a world revolution. Meanwhile, the economic foundation of life in Russia was falling apart every day, because it can only be maintained at the expense of private initiative and does not tolerate uniform prices, planning, and restrictions.

    Centralizing the functions of the State means centralizing power and all economic and political life in the country.

    Centralization is unworkable with multiplicity-it requires a single source of will and decisions, and this means leadership.

    Leadership is inherent in the idea of communism, as well as in the idea of fascism. Since, as the Communists believe, their idea is correct, no pluralism is required – neither in thoughts, nor in positions, nor in decisions.

    That is why, immediately after the revolution, the Communists fought each other to destroy each other for the sake of a certain purity of their idea, but in reality for power, that is why the cult of personality was inevitable. It was formed already under Lenin, continued under Khrushchev, Brezhnev and all the others up to the early Gorbachev. The cult of Stalin was the most violent, but it was no exception, as the experience of other Socialist countries has shown, and as the experience of North Korea now shows.

    So Stalin did not plant any bombs anywhere, at least not under the idea of Marx, whose faithful disciple he was all his life.

    The bomb was laid by Marx himself – his whole theory is a bomb that destroys society.

  35. Ideology is only an instrument of power, with the help of which one can carry out one's own policy. Some rulers do believe in it, but most are realists and use this belief to justify their actions to the people and strengthen their power. If there are people who still believe in communism, democracy, freedom, being chosen by the gods, and centuries-old traditions, then the ideology is effective and effective. Stalin did not distort anything, he simply used the idea of communism, as it was done before him and after him, as other rulers do with other ideas.

  36. During the transition, everything happened as it should, but the God-bearing people quickly got tired of it. He was annoyed by the Jews and began to turn this revolutionary shop back to the old ways, then and there.B and went on stage. By nature, Stalin is an introvert, he basically could not stage any world-scale troubles, did not want to and was even afraid. He and Lenin are opposites.

Leave a Reply