• Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    It’s very kind of you to have chosen that as a source but it seems to have been an unfortunate pick.

    Banning of factionalism was done when there were literal fascists and Capitalists trying to infiltrate the party and reinstate Tsarism for their profits.

    It just happens that that was claimed to happen always, so you know, ban was only liften in 1989 as the article mentions lol. Funny how that happens.

    You were allowed to have different ifeas, voice them, and vote on them.

    Not even mentioning the lack of press freedom but Stalin famously purged a shitload of people on the basis of their political opinions. And voting in a strictly controlled single-party state, it does have the sound of a empty formality as the article had it.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      3 months ago

      It just happens that that was claimed to happen always, so you know, ban was only liften in 1989 as the article mentions lol. Funny how that happens.

      Looks like it was true! Millions of people died when the USSR was illegally dissolved afterwards, and the majority of living former-soviets say they prefered the Soviet System.

      Not even mentioning the lack of press freedom but Stalin famously purged a shitload of people on the basis of their political opinions. And voting in a strictly controlled single-party state, it does have the sound of a empty formality as the article had it.

      Liberalism and fascism were banned. Additionally, it is not at all an empty formality, unless you think every human being in a political party shares the exact same opinions, which is laughably false.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s always the case that authoritarian countries use a foreign threat as the reasoning for being so authoritarian. Tale as old as time.

        Liberalism and fascism were banned.

        So you think capitalist countries banning communist parties is all fine and dandy? Because that’s not terribly democratic if you ask me.

        Additionally, it is not at all an empty formality, unless you think every human being in a political party shares the exact same opinions, which is laughably false.

        It’s an empty formality when it’s a single party, loyalty to is is demanded and any real criticism can lead you to be fucking killed. Stalin did not take this shit lightly and lots of people died as a result.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s always the case that authoritarian countries use a foreign threat as the reasoning for being so authoritarian. Tale as old as time.

          Indeed, Socialism has been deemed “authoritarian” by foreign countries.

          So you think capitalist countries banning communist parties is all fine and dandy? Because that’s not terribly democratic if you ask me.

          Of course not. The difference is that Capitalism and fascism are antidemocratic and get lots of innocents killed. You don’t have to defend fascism. It’s the paradox of tolerance.

          It’s an empty formality when it’s a single party, loyalty to is is demanded and any real criticism can lead you to be fucking killed. Stalin did not take this shit lightly and lots of people died as a result.

          This is ahisorical and silly. Even 2 people with the same views are different in numerous other ways, and there is an entire history of change and diverse viewpoints in the USSR.

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Indeed, Socialism has been deemed “authoritarian” by foreign countries.

            I wonder why something like the Soviet Union under Stalin would be called authoritarian. It’s preposterous!

            Of course not. The difference is that Capitalism and fascism are antidemocratic and get lots of innocents killed. You don’t have to defend fascism. It’s the paradox of tolerance.

            It’s just that they banned every other party.

            This is ahisorical and silly. Even 2 people with the same views are different in numerous other ways, and there is an entire history of change and diverse viewpoints in the USSR.

            Not so much tolerance for those viewpoints under Stalin.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

            Weirdly even this site puts it very bluntly: https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/events/terror/index.htm

            Based on the link I would’ve expected something else, but they are pretty upfront about it. Interesting website.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              I urge you to pick up a history book on the Soviet Union if you think Stalin made up the entire political apparatus. Even the CIA disagrees with you there, because it was obvious.

              • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                Initially governing as part of a collective leadership, Stalin consolidated power to become dictator by the 1930s; he formalized his Leninist interpretation of Marxism as Marxism-Leninism, while the totalitarian political system he established became known as Stalinism.

                Stalin’s Soviet Union has been characterised as a totalitarian state,[673] with Stalin its authoritarian leader.[674] Various biographers have described him as a dictator,[675] an autocrat,[676] or accused him of practising Caesarism.[677] Montefiore argued that while Stalin initially ruled as part of a Communist Party oligarchy, the Soviet government transformed from this oligarchy into a personal dictatorship in 1934,[678] with Stalin only becoming “absolute dictator” between March and June 1937, when senior military and NKVD figures were eliminated.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

                I mean we talked if it was a totalitarian dictatorship or not. Sure does seem like it was.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Can you explain mechanically how he was a totalitarian dictator, yet did not have totalitarian control nor was he the sole director?

                  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    But he does seem to have had a total control of the state through his position, control of tools such as NKVD, fear, intimidation, cult of personality, purging of opponents and so on. Unless you think it doesn’t count unless you have an official position of dictator and has been named as such by the Roman senate, of course.

      • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        Looks like it was true! Millions of people died when the USSR was illegally dissolved afterwards, and the majority of living former-soviets say they prefered the Soviet System.

        What a bunch of fucking nonsense, holy shit…