If Communism/Socialism were to dominate the world..?

Whilst I argue that Lenin genuinely did not care about communism, Stalin was (poorly) trying to implement it. Just because it was a stupid attempt, doesnt mean it was not attempted

This is an interesting argument because the orthodox viewpoint is usually the opposite with Lenin as the well-intentioned extremist and true believer and Stalin as the cynical usurper. I can understand (and mostly support) the argument of Stalin being a true believer, in his own megalomaniac way, but I'm curious how you came to that conclusion about Lenin. As far as I can tell, he was exactly the type of communist authoritarian that Marx became worried about towards the end of his life, but still a true believer in his cause.
 
This is an interesting argument because the orthodox viewpoint is usually the opposite with Lenin as the well-intentioned extremist and true believer and Stalin as the cynical usurper. I can understand (and mostly support) the argument of Stalin being a true believer, in his own megalomaniac way, but I'm curious how you came to that conclusion about Lenin. As far as I can tell, he was exactly the type of communist authoritarian that Marx became worried about towards the end of his life, but still a true believer in his cause.
I came to the conclusion after reading Young Stalin. In short, Lenin was a thug who was at every point willing to reject his self professed principles when it suited him. When he came to power, he demonstrated this to the utmost with how he handled Kronstadt, a rebellion which literally just asked for the things he had promised them, seemingly only on the grounds that this would mean less control for him. I do believe a power hungry pragmatist is better than a paranoid zealot, but at least the zealot can pretend to themselves that they are a good person.
 
I came to the conclusion after reading Young Stalin. In short, Lenin was a thug who was at every point willing to reject his self professed principles when it suited him. When he came to power, he demonstrated this to the utmost with how he handled Kronstadt, a rebellion which literally just asked for the things he had promised them, seemingly only on the grounds that this would mean less control for him. I do believe a power hungry pragmatist is better than a paranoid zealot, but at least the zealot can pretend to themselves that they are a good person.

Lenin was most definitely a totalitarian and a megalomaniac. I don't see how that contradicts his beliefs in (his authoritarian version of) communism though. If anything, he's the logical extension of his own philosophy. Why should a professional revolutionary cede any power when he knows his way is best and all that.
 
Lenin was most definitely a totalitarian and a megalomaniac. I don't see how that contradicts his beliefs in (his authoritarian version of) communism though. If anything, he's the logical extension of his own philosophy. Why should a professional revolutionary cede any power when he knows his way is best and all that.
Because what he was asked to cede had been what he had preached. I.e. if I say "You shluld have all the bread you want!" And then I kill you for taking bread, im far more interested in things other than your getting bread.
 
One, two, many generalplan ost's worldwide. Lots of third world peasants who don't want to be russians/americans* or give up their religion for the empire to suppress. Probably at least a billion dead just for direct political reasons, not counting terror famines or even just communist mismanagements.

* I see a red US as more likely to take over the planet than the USSR. Besides the fact that there's a de facto world government OTL, there's the fact that US culture has a missionary streak not even the USSR had.
 
Well here’s another thread full of idealism*1 and people who’ve avoided reading post-Service Soviet historiography.

Gosplan barely influenced sector economic decisions and rarely influenced firm level decisions. Soviet sectors and firms acted like western firms, but with a deep pocketed buyer of last resort: like a permanent bail-out. Gosplan worked. It funded commercial banks to lend to sectors quite well. Sectoral balance was broadly what was chosen*2. What didn’t work was firm labour motivation after 1945, “they pretend to pay us so we pretend to work.”

Now I don’t know what you call a wage labour society where commodities are produced for sale for profit and the value form therefore expands, but there’s a rather old socio-economic analytical tradition that calls that Capital (Engels Ed.; Marx _Capital_).

For this tradition lower and higher communism, or socialism and communism are potential analytical categories to analyse post value-form societies where the working class rule and class are abolished respectively. We have seen socialism in this sense in the Kronstadt commune in 1921, in Catalonia in 1936, Budapest in 1956, developing in Czechoslovakia in 1968 etc. None of these societies relied on people being nice, but on factory seizures, collective selfishness, and convincing the army or militia to side with them. We’ve not seen a classless society.

In contrast we’ve seen Marat or Napoleon clones flailing to claim they act on behalf of the working class while wages are still paid. Now there might be a great way to analyse this phenomena; or, to claim that any autogestation by the proletariat necessarily results in a Mao or Zhao; or that it just won’t work because capitalism is an eternal an unchanged human relationship and the vast increase in productivity from 1760 is a miracle that appeared from Gods arsehole and not associated with a strange new productive reinvestment of money as capital for profit. You can claim all these things and you might have an argument. (But you’d be wrong).

What you can’t legitimately claim is: That workers controlled the Soviet-style societies. That a new economic relationship replaced wage labour. That they failed because people weren’t nice enough: Kronstadt wasn’t nice, and it was defeated by military incompetence. That Gosplan didn’t work (remember: firm level go slows by workers). That Gosplan was socialism (remember: the criteria is workers rule).

This is a tiresome topic. If you’re genuinely interested this critical attack on misallocations to 1940 is a good start: https://www.marxists.org/archive/strauss/index.htm . Then go after Andrle for firm level relations.

Sam.

*1 the belief that ideas and thoughts produce social situations en Toto
*2 light industrial underdevelopment and commercial agriculture (non-grains) in the 1930s; but this was part of the “shadow plan” ala those “tractor” factories
 
Top