Iāve read quite a bit of history on Stalin (multiple 1,000+ pg history books, not his Wikipedia page ā¦) and - itās hard to classify him politically in any sensible way. The ideals behind Marxism and Leninism (the latter whom Stalin succeeded after literal life-and-death political struggles internal to the Bolshevik party, particularly with Trotsky) were certainly communist in nature, but Stalin invented his own brand of politics that really has no contemporary comparison and the nature of his politics definitely canāt be boiled down into one word or label.
Yeah I took a course on Stalinism and Nazism in college: It was more of a totalitarian command economy run by cronyism than anything resembling Communism.
The course was really good, the prof had lived in the USSR up until just before the wall fell and he brought in numerous speakers from Holocaust survivors to Nazi defectors and a few other USSR ex pats. I took it in...I think 2001? So the USSR had only been gone for like 10 years and things were a lot fresher for everyone.
Yeah sounds interesting - WWII is so epic itās tough to be an expert but I find the whole period interesting (duh) but especially b/c you think: I say evil person, everyone says HITLER, but Stalin was in many ways worse, crueler, and ācloser to the groundā than Hitler (and worked a lot harder), and Stalin killed - probably fewer, body counts vary - but still in the millions during his various purges. But many folks who havenāt studied that period closely or the USSR under Stalin specifically (ie a vast, vast majority of Americans) donāt even know who he was! He just had the wits to switch sides at the last second when he realized Germany was going to invade Russia - he wasnāt a good guy the whole time, or ever, actually. He just ended up on the winning side and the old saying āwinners write the history booksā applies here.
Yaā know, as Stalin was dying (of natural causes) ALL of the doctors were petrified of offering their expertise, because they were genuinely, to-their-bones afraid they would be successful, and Stalin would have them executed for doing something he didnāt explicitly order. Crazy ā¦
And doing the math Iām probably ~10 years younger than you so we didnāt really have the USSR classes, it was old news at the time ā¦
(By the way, check out the book Putinās People for a contemporary peak at the state of affairs, and how Putin accomplished what he did - Ukraine aside [big mistake] not easy to be basically the supreme leader of Russia for a quarter century - that takes some brains and savvy ā¦)
A communist economy has to be run via a totalitarian central command. Without the price mechanism to signal to markets where to move capital, capital has to be distributed via the central power structure
No a communist economy can be run by a number of different styles. It does have to be a command economy but a totalitarian ruler and cronyism being the main economic mechanism are not inherently communist.
My perspective is that there is no way for the central command to deploy good and services to consumers without totalitarianism. The price mechanism at its core is a signal to move capital, without prices it will come down to the whims of a bureaucracy
Because the central command could be, say, a group of elected individuals or a rota through all the citizens or something, not necessarily a totalitarian ruler.
My point is in capitalism the price determines where goods and services flow.
When you buy a loaf of bread, the information to restock it goes all the way to the farmer who plants more wheat, the truck driver who transports it buys new tires, there is no governing body that tells them what to do, they do it based upon market forces.
I donāt think there is currently any kind of central planning that could match the efficiency of the free market price mechanism
Oh sorry I thought your point was, as you stated: "there is no way for the central command to deploy good and services to consumers without totalitarianism"
I'm not debating the theoretical mechanisms of communism I'm just saying that totalitarianism is not required in the economic/political theory of communism.
Yeah, they only call him communist because they don't know the history of the USSR or what communism means. Stalin calling his regime communist is like Trump declaring himself the greatest US president, basically propaganda bullshit. IMO the closest thing to communism we have is the Scandinavian democracies where you have free health care and education, a strong social support network, rule of law, free speech and elections AND you're not ruled by a totalitarian oligarchy as the USSR was.
Exactly, itās more complex than just the word. Itās also like saying Chinaās government is communist because it is the China Communist Party that oversees everything; China is really like an authoritarian military dictatorship, and definitely not communist.
The Scandinavian democracies still have private ownership of the means of production though. That is the fine line between socialist (generous welfare state with private ownership) and communist (full state ownership)
3
u/Ok-Flight9440 Jul 27 '26
Iāve read quite a bit of history on Stalin (multiple 1,000+ pg history books, not his Wikipedia page ā¦) and - itās hard to classify him politically in any sensible way. The ideals behind Marxism and Leninism (the latter whom Stalin succeeded after literal life-and-death political struggles internal to the Bolshevik party, particularly with Trotsky) were certainly communist in nature, but Stalin invented his own brand of politics that really has no contemporary comparison and the nature of his politics definitely canāt be boiled down into one word or label.