Whats the difference between Communism and Stalinism?

[Dunenewt]

I've heard this mentioned in many threads but I don't quite understand. What is the difference between Stalinism and Communism?

[Anathema]

Stalinism is an autocratic system, and communism is supposed to be democratic. According to Edric that is.

[Acriku]

Stalinism is the inevitability of communism, there ;)

[Anathema]

Boy, you're in real trouble when Edric reads that Acriku :D

[Dunenewt]

This could get messy...but go ahead anyway. Are there any modern day examples of either?

[Dante]

No. Because nothing is that extreme. Communism is an ideal that is yet to be realised, which the USSR was supposed to be. But when Stalin took over he shoved it all the way to the other end of the political spectrum and made it right-wing stalinism, which is similar to nazism and almost indistinguishable from facsism.

Since most modern-day countries are in some way capitalist there are few real examples of either system.

[Anathema]

North Korea is more or less a stalinist nation.

[Timenn]

No Lenin was also worse. He may have not been a mass murderer like Staling (although he has many deads on his name) but he was the first leader, and he destroyed communism in the first years.

China has also aspects of a Stalinist nation. If you hear what they are doing to the people of Tibet for example. Or the lack of emancipation for women. Etc...

[Anathema]

Actually one of the better traits of Stalins system was that women were in most aspects treated the same way as men, except for that there weren't all that many women in the party elite. Maos China was kinda like Stalinist Russia, but todays China is certainly not.

[Sneakgab]

Come on Edrico, I know you've been waiting for somebody to post this thread asking this question so that you could explain for the final time.... ;D

Reply Edrico, you know you want to:D

[Caid Ivik]

According to Marx, communism is hard to create. Whole creation goes trough three stages: at first you need capitalism, with strictly dualistical society of "exploiters" and "exploited". Middle ground is an unfit. "Exploited" will start a revolution and hence the second stage, called as socialism - slowly dying state making society equal. Lenin thought about socialism as a proletarian dictature, presented as rule of one Communistic Party. This system is utterly fascistic, we've seen results. Stalin is a logical derivate of it. With Lenin's failure, EdricO is here to find out how to make a socialism able to pave the way to true stateless communism.

[Edric O]

Okay, here's what I'm gonna do: First I'll reply to your posts, then I'll give you my explanation.

Stalinism is an autocratic system, and communism is supposed to be democratic. According to Edric that is.

In a nutshell, yes, this is the basic difference. But it's not according to me - it's according to Karl Marx.

Stalinism is the inevitability of communism, there ;)

There is no recorded case of communism degenerating into stalinism. Russia was a socialist (not communist) country before stalinism took over. As for the other countries of the old Soviet bloc, they were stalinist from the very start.

No Lenin was also worse. He may have not been a mass murderer like Stalin (although he has many deads on his name) but he was the first leader, and he destroyed communism in the first years.

Actually, the civil war destroyed communism in the first years. Lenin's intentions were honourable, and all he wanted was to build a better world. However, he also believed that the end justifies the means. That was why he was ruthless with his enemies.

But Lenin's greatest mistake was his belief that one person could hold absolute power and not be corrupted by it. This was the mistake that allowed stalinism to appear.

According to Marx, communism is hard to create. Whole creation goes trough three stages: at first you need capitalism, with strictly dualistical society of "exploiters" and "exploited". Middle ground is an unfit. "Exploited" will start a revolution and hence the second stage, called as socialism - slowly dying state making society equal. Lenin thought about socialism as a proletarian dictature, presented as rule of one Communistic Party. This system is utterly fascistic, we've seen results. Stalin is a logical derivate of it. With Lenin's failure, EdricO is here to find out how to make a socialism able to pave the way to true stateless communism.

Wow! Of all people, I never expected you to give an accurate description of marxist ideas, Caid. Just goes to show that you know a lot more than your usual arguments seem to indicate. ;)

You are correct, Caid, but I think Dust Scout said it best:

Communism is an ideal that is yet to be realised, which the USSR was supposed to be. But when Stalin took over he shoved it all the way to the other end of the political spectrum and made it right-wing stalinism, which is similar to nazism and almost indistinguishable from facsism.

[Acriku]

There is no recorded case of communism degenerating into stalinism. Russia was a socialist (not communist) country before stalinism took over. As for the other countries of the old Soviet bloc, they were stalinist from the very start.

I was joking, by the way.

[Edric O]

I was joking, by the way.

Oh. Erm... oops... :-

Anyway, here's my short explanation of the difference between stalinism and socialism/communism:

What is communism? It is a system with no state and no private property, in which people live freely in a communal society. The Soviet Union definately had a state, and a powerful one at that. Therefore stalinism wasn't communism. (and, in fact, it never even claimed to be communism - it only claimed to be socialism)

What is socialism? It is the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism, in which all means of production are the public property of all the people. Was that the case in the Soviet Union? Definately not. The means of production were the property of the state, and the people had no say in what the state did with them. Therefore stalinism wasn't socialism, either. (In order for the Soviet Union to have been socialist, it would have needed to be a democracy. That way, the state would have controlled the means of production, and the people would have controlled the state. So, by transitivity, the people would have controlled the means of production)

In conclusion, stalinism was NOT communism and it was NOT socialism. Therefore it was a completely different and separate system, and Stalin was a traitor to the communist cause. (not to mention being a mass murderer)

For a longer and more detailed explanation, read The Revolution Betrayed. (among other things, it explains that stalinism exploits the workers in much the same way as capitalism does - except that the stalinist exploiter class is the Party bureaucracy, as opposed to the capitalist bourgeoisie)

[Caid Ivik]

But you have forgotten the main problem: you need that marxistic capitalism to start the process. Large middle class, even if it there are really many poor, inhibites revolutionar thoughts. Look at South America. You have unrests here, but never taking enough support to be more than just plain looting of few shops.

[Edric O]

Not exactly. The "marxistic capitalism" you're talking about (which Marx absolutely hated, and which is usually known as pure capitalism) is only necessary for a violent revolution. This is because pure capitalism reduces workers to such a level of misery that they have nothing to lose. They eventually reach breaking point, and rise up to overthrow their oppressors and crush capitalism.

But that is the worst case scenario. Huge numbers of people suffer and die at the hands of the ruthless capitalists, and many more die in the revolution. We wish to avoid this at all costs. There are other ways to bring down capitalism and establish socialism. Violent revolution is just one of them.

And since we don't live in pure capitalism (thank God!), violent revolution is not very likely to happen. Other ways to bring down capitalism include: a general nation-wide strike, a velvet revolution (mass protests and rallies, which eventually pressure the government into giving up power), or even a simple victory in elections.

[Caid Ivik]

Even for a velvet revolution you need a strong dualistic society. In 1989 it was easier. From marxist categorisation, both middle class and proletariate were angry against oligarchy, so they formed a much larger force. But middle class won't fight for proletariate, you know. Also, we've seen results of spanish civil war: communists allied with bourgeoise against army and fascists, but their leaders had no problem of declaring that they will bring down bourgeoise after fascists too. And then trust them... So middle class is inhibiting any revolutionar feeling. But I would say it is our common goal, strong and large middle class, don't you think?

[alchemi2]

not gonna start quoting loads of stuff but as i understand it in simplistic terms for communisum to work you must have a well educated and motivated gerneral populace and a strong economy so that you can afford to maintain the social requirements of communism. russia was virtually new to capitalism or imperialic when the revolution came about.

capitalisum broke and its weakest point rather than evolving hence the uneducated masses could be easily controlled by the elite.

i agree that stalinism was more like nazi germany than any utopian state but lennin and the communist party set them off down that road.

[Caid Ivik]

In fact, Morus' Utopia itself was based on one half-isolated island, and its society was a product of centuries. In fact, his Utopians were conceit and xenophobic nation. Marx brought a theory of creating such system in few generations by some radical changes, and, primarily, worldwide. Question of time can be solved by i.e.planned education, but this damages free speech. And putting whole world to a socialistic revolution is possible, but this damages, well, even more...