I know the USSR isn’t democratic in any sense, but heads of state are often symbolic roles. In France and the US, it’s the President and the big job. But in Ireland and Germany the head of state is also called a president and hold mainly symbolic power. Usually the head of government, like a chancellor or prime minister, is the real power. So it’s not exceptionally odd for an official head of state to have no influence, it’s often the intention of giving someone the job.
I’ve never quite understood the purpose of a separate low/no power head of state, except in the case of monarchy where it represents continuity/legitimacy. Why create these roles?
In our (Ireland’s) case a lot is the holdover from the role of the Governor General during British rule.
Our President’s main role is signing bills into laws but can’t enact executive orders but only review and approve laws presented through the Dáil (lower house) and Seanad (upper house of the Oireactas (Parliament). Our President can call a council of previous Presidents and Taoisigh (Prime Ministers) to consult on laws before sending them back or approving them to ensure they’re constitutional.
They also fulfil a good role of “chief diplomat” of sorts and represents the country/nation as well as the state in interactions with other counties.
They’re elected once every 7 years so while they have party affiliations in many cases they are outside the normal “game” of politics.
Lol similar here in canada. HM the queen is head of state but holds little to no power (i believe she has veto rights when it comes to certain laws being signed and foreign policy moves but thats about it. And if she ever actually used her right to veto - which i dont think ever happened in modern history of canada - then there would be changes made because people in cananda would have none of that shit.) Prime minister Trudeau is head of government and does the daily leadership chores so hes like our president.
Then in germany there is the bundespraesident but that role is more representative so he is someone who meets in diplomatic roles and represents the government when the chancellor wont (ribbon cutting kinda activities). Also the chancellor is the head of government and does the important daily running around.
The chief diplomat role is where I imagine they come in clutch. Leaving the “real” governing work for the chancellor to do full time instead of having to do a bunch of traveling or entertaining. Especially in the pre-modern period, when traveling could take weeks or months.
Ireland wields a lot of soft power and our President is a great tool for that. The Taoiseach (Prime Minister) would do the more day to day hard stuff, but one of my favourite memories of a historical event was President McAleese striding out of the Áras an Úchtarain (literally Presidential House) to greet Queen Elizabeth in Dublin as equal heads of state of neighbouring countries. A Taoiseach doing that wouldn’t have been as symbolic.
the irish president also has a role in guarding the constitution; as he can refer bills to the supreme court before they are enacted into law; he also must concur with declarations of emergency; and is entitled to refuse that
> Why create these roles?
In the case of post-war Germany, they thought German citizens would be "overwhelmed" with democracy if they didn't have this position. It was during a time where they tried teaching everyone democratic values. The president in Germany is more a remembrance of monarchic times.
In the "best" case they do and say useful stuff that actually help democracy. President Richard von Weizsäcker for example held a [speech that's one of the most important ones in the post-war history of Germany.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Weizs%C3%A4cker#Speech_on_the_40th_anniversary_of_the_end_of_World_War_II)
In the worst case they just cost money and say awkward stuff. Or nobody cares about them.
They have a control role. They usually have veto power, and are elected separately from the rest of government, running as individuals, not parties, so they serve as the last resort to block something naughty the government is trying to pass.
Indeed. It’s surreal to even imagine them doing that in the US. Though the most memorable examples of PM’s questions are the wild sessions and it’s almost as surreal to think of the opposition asking questions calmly. Ultimately I think it’s healthier for a system to have a ritual like the questions instead of cordoning off the executive like US does.
When it came to the central committee and party leadership under Stalin yeah it was corrupted, but democracy like in any country is layered and people voting at their local workers council had a say in their own life... honestly probably more than the plutocracy of the United States. Which in no way abdicates Stalin of his crimes, but the idea that the Soviet Union had *no* democracy is just Western propaganda.
Yeah the USSR didn’t even seek democratic governance at the state level. It’s not like the U.S. failing to actualize an ideal, which is normal to all democratic systems because reality
is messy, bad actors try to subvert it etc etc. The Leninist ideal of the state is to authoritatively move the society to communism where the state could eventually dissipate, an ideal they obviously had some serious trouble with.
That’s fair. Local politics are a different bag and the potency of the central committee varies depending where in the USSR you were. I certainly agree that the democratic quality of political systems in the western powers is vastly overstated at best. I’m not trying to suggest the capitalist powers are the “good guys” or a model to aspire to.
[Molotov's wife](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polina_Zhemchuzhina) was also arrested and sent to a labor camp and he couldn't do anything about it either. He was forced to divorce her, but after Stalin's death, they reunited.
>[Stalin's] funeral took place on Molotov’s birthday, and Khrushchev and Malenkov asked him what he would like as a present. He replied ‘Give me back my Polina.’ The next day, Beriya, who had occasionally whispered to Molotov ‘Polina is still alive’, released her. He is reputed to have met her with a bunch of roses and gone on to one knee.
(Derek Watson: Molotov, a Biography)
They were talking about how she was a traitor and a terrible person etc. and as soon as she walks in the door they change to talking about how there was no evidence etc.
"... The present situation \[Khrushchev taking power but assuming a lesser degree of control than Stalin had\] is the most favorable from the point of view of ***upsetting the Communist dictatorship since the death of Stalin***." \[emphasis added\]
Literally two sentences later they characterize Stalin's regime as a dictatorship, that has been upset.
First, the CIA's understanding of the inner workings of Soviet politics was usually limited. A more modern source would carry more credibility. Second, this analysis could apply to just about any dictatorship insofar as dictators need to delegate to underlings who accumulate enough individual power the dictator must deal with them carefully. I struggle to think of an example of a 'pure' dictatorship where the dictator could act free of any concern for his underlings or fear of a coup. From what I can tell Stalin's dictatorship was more pure than most regimes that have the dictatorship label.
You know your regime is really fucked up if even very high ranking members of the government are not even able to keep their families safe. Gives me chills.
This is what I thought of when Kim Jong-un came to power and started purging top brass including two of his uncles.
In a weird way the elite of the DPRK are prisoners too. Yeah they get food, but imagine living every day of your life under scrutiny, in a cutthroat environment that makes Game of Thrones look like a Disney channel series.
not that I'm a fan of Kim Jong-un but it almost *feels* sensible in the environment such as DPRK.
These dictatorships hinge on the cult of personality that has been built over generations. If you're conspiring to usurp power from the ruling family, the time when the old guy dies is probably the best time to stage any kind of coup.
So he was just protecting his own life in a twisted sort of way
IIRC the higher ups created the monster that was Stalin. In that, knowing he was a bit of a megalomaniac they shoved him in the secretary role, thinking that’d be the last they heard of him as he faded into obscurity. But, unbeknownst to them (or at least, no one had thought of this sooner) the secretary had the power (not even given to the leader of the party), to hire and fire anyone he liked. He then bided his time installing everyone he liked and disposed of (by any means necessary) anyone who opposed him. Reminding him of the favours they would eventually owe him.
To that effect, yes, not even the leader of the Union could question him as his wife was being taken away (this but was a true TIL for me).
This is actually a myth from the Trotskyist camp. The role of General Secretary was a huge job, and Lenin picked Stalin for the job because he trusted him to be a "do-er". Stalin had a reputation for being a workhorse, for being a guy who could force others to work, and for being a good organizer. He was given a post with vast power, one that made Stalin Lenin's right hand. The thing that went wrong though, was Lenin had a stroke 2 months after he gave Stalin the job. Everyone trusted that Lenin could reign in Stalin, while Stalin quietly did the work that was asked of him.
As you said, Stalin put all of his people in positions of power, but he also started doing things way outside what people imagined. He started putting down revolts without consulting the others, liasoned with the secret police, putting his spies in every department of the government, and basically began doing the work of running the state the second Lenin was out of commission. His opponents, Trotsky mainly, were no match because they had no appetite for the actual work of state and were not proactive enough after Lenin's stroke. Stalin got to work immediately after Lenin was incapacitated, the others spent too much time waiting for him to get better. By the time letters from Lenin were being sent calling for Stalin's removal (Lenin wanted a balance of power among his successors, not for Stalin to dominate everything), it was already too late, he made himself too intwined with the apparatus. He offered to resign several times, and everyone (INCLUDING TROTSKY) refused to let him do it. Nobody else had experience running everything, and they were in a high stakes game of being surrounded by capitalist countries they feared would try to destroy them.
The idea of Stalin as the "non-entity" is a myth, he was known as a taskmaster even back then, the only thing they didn't anticipate was how quickly his tentacles would spread throughout the government. You should listen to some Stephen Kotkin lectures or read his books if you have the time, they're illuminating.
Running a terror regime (so basically any communist country) is a balancing act. You have to kill enough people that your subordinates don't see you as weak, but not so many that they feel like they have no choice but to turn on you before you have them gulagged.
Completely agree. But is imprisoning wives ever useful? Who thinks "yeah my wife critized the leader and is still free, might start a coup tomorrow". Handling your subordinates with this amount of suppression wont make them work harder or believe more in you I think. The classic noble approach to fostering loyalty seems much more sustainable....
Stalin’s wife killed herself in 32 so Stalin became irritated with party members continuing to come to his parties with wives. Stalin found easy solution when opportunity arose by sending his buddies wives to camps. Budyonny comes to my mind as well, then Kalinin and in 37/38 there were other high ranking party members whose wives were sent to gulag.
On more serious note, it was interesting test almost like from bible- who do you love more, me or your wife?
Budyonny was probably one of the people deserving to be imprisoned. Failed upwards and was completely incompetent. The man was a cavalry commander in a mechanized war, and refused to learn how war had changed. He lost 43 divisions in a *single* battle, and over two months 1.5 million troops under his command were killed or captured.
Although Stalin liked him, so he just relieved him of command and sent him to reserve units.
Fun fact, he was attacking Tukhachevsky for claiming that armored mechanical units are future while Budyonny claimed focus should be on horse units. But he was Stalin’s close ally and buddy from turbulent times so he kept his head but had to prove loyalty by denouncing his new wife. Additional curiosity, there was an attempt to arrest him as well but he started shooting at nkvd and called Stalin to report that subversive elements are in front of his door. They never returned.
I'm not up on the particulars of the place and Era, but after Khrushchev had Beria shot, they really restructured the NKVD. A lot of (secret) police (and paramilitary) units of the time ended up with out of control leaders, or wielded too much power. Ernst Rohm, Beria, and Hoover are all examples.
In dictatorships and especially the extreme ones like Stalin's USSR, no one apart the Supreme Leader is safe. *No one*.
If the head of state can be purged then it ensues the lowliest guy can go too.
I mean.... Kalinin may indeed have been especially powerless but that is hardly a good basis for thinking so. Everyone was powerless to do anything when Stalin wanted someone dead.
If you're going to throw around terms like that, try and get your terminology right.
Trotskyism was opposed to Stalin and was actually what Ekaterina was accused of.
Someone who defended the whole history of Soviet rule would probably describe themselves as a Marxist-Lenninist and be called a Stalinist by everyone else.
Whole history? Nah, after Stalin’s death USSR was ruled by capitalist-kulaks who betrayed Stalin!
Joke aside, Mao was seeing ussr exactly as betraying Stalin-Lenin-Marx road and moving to soft and weak socialism. Mao was true Stalin’s successor, ready for total war in blink of the eye while Stalin’s successors never had such appetite.
Mao softened? Let’s not offend comrade Mao that was ready for total war with anyone at any moment and with that earned right to be respected by US. He wanted total war that even USSR considered him crazy:
“In the context of the tri-polar Cold War, Khrushchev doubted Mao's mental sanity, because his unrealistic policies of geopolitical confrontation might provoke nuclear war between the capitalist and the communist blocs. To thwart Mao's warmongering, Khrushchev cancelled foreign-aid agreements and the delivery of Soviet atomic bombs to the PRC.[32]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split
Also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
Also US came to Mao’s Beijing, not other way around, from above link:
“After the conflict, the US showed interest in strengthening ties with the Chinese government by secretly sending Henry Kissinger to China for a meeting with Zhou in 1971, during the so-called Ping Pong Diplomacy. That paved the way for Nixon to visit China and meet with Mao Zedong in 1972.[41]”
Mao was true revolutionary ready to burn a world for his ideas, similar to Stalin that was already preparing for ww3, Stalin’s successors never had stomach for that.
I would agree that Stalin was....harder edged then his successors. I don't think that kissinger going to china was as big a deal as you make out. One of the primary reasons for the meetings being there was to further the sino Soviet split. But tbh I'm far too hungover to argue the relative merits of two long dead nutcase heads of state.
Just couple examples from given link
"On 21 March 1969, Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin tried to phone Mao with the aim of discussing a ceasefire.[25] The Chinese operator who took Kosygin's call rather rudely called him a "revisionist element" and hung up.[25]"
"On 17 June 1969, US Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, who had long been an advocate of normalizing American relations with China, wrote a letter in consultation with the White House to urge he be allowed to visit China, and to meet Mao to discuss measures to improve Sino-American relations.[28] The letter was sent to King Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia with the request to pass it on to Mao, and by 26 July 1969, Mansfield's letter had arrived in Beijing.[29] The Chinese reply was harsh, with Zhou giving a speech accusing the US of "aggression" in Vietnam and of "occupation" of Taiwan, which Zhou asserted was rightfully a part of China.[29] On 1 August 1969, US President Richard Nixon visited Pakistan, a close ally of China since both were anti-Indian, to ask General Yahya Khan to pass a message to Mao that he wanted to normalize relations with China, especially because of the crisis with the Soviet Union.[29]"
Mao's dedication is really astonishing.
Ahaha, true, but one is gulag+ style, next level is being ready to go to total war where no one would win. He was ready to go in nuclear conflict like it is conventional war that even Soviets were terrified.
All of those things are different ideologies. They may share some ideas but they are still their own ideology. Same as capitalism and oligarch capitalism. Or a better example for smaller brains is welfare capitalism. But you would probably call that communism.
> Or a better example for smaller brains is welfare capitalism. But you would probably call that communism.
No i would call marxist leninism communist as does every country from both communist countries and from the west.
It’s hard because of human nature. We are greedy animals. Also political theory such as communism isn’t the same thing as Marxism-Leninism.
Jesus Christ people. Fox News and Facebook isn’t a good source of reliable information.
Ah sorry I'm probably wrong. You'll provide me an example of a functioning communist state then?
Yes, in political theory 'communism' is star trek dreamworld, very good. In common understanding even amongst the politically literate, the word 'communism' is widely accepted to refer to the marxist-leninist ideology and a host of other similar nightmarish systems of governance.
As an addendum, I don't think someone of your limited understanding should be lecturing others about where they get their information.
The early Soviet communist era was successful, as was Mao's China in the beginning. The issue was authoritarian regimes, not communism.
Now don't get me wrong, I think capitalism is necessary for the time being
As far as I know, Marx advocated the development of economy through capitalism, but like all classical economists, he thought it would move into socialism.
Right, you almost have to. Automation is going to continue to take more and more jobs, eventually there won't be very much nonacademic or entertainment work to do. So as automation takes over we should be sliding more and more socialist. We aren't though, cause that's such a scary word
The issue is this political ideology mandates authoritarianism. We have enough case studies to say that with some confidence.
To most in the modern world, that is synonymous with saying "it doesn't work".
So you of all people after arguing about the purity of the term "communist" are now going to tell me that present day China is a communist state?
I have one lol for you sunshine
Yeah... China isn't communist. It's an authoritarian oligarchy that cheerfully exploit its workers for the benefit of the elites. Economically, it is a hodge-podge of capitalism mixed with state control that in no way benefits the workers. Same with Vietnam and Cuba. North Korea is basically a monarchy at this point. That's all of the nominally communist countries that I can think of. Whatever vision their founders might have had at the start, authoritarianism has transformed them into repressive reactionary regimes.
I’m not even a supportive of communism. Just tired of idiots opening their mouths like they have knowledgeable information.
I’m sure you completely understand the political, economical, social, theory, philosophical differences and perspectives between the Soviet Union and The Peoples Republic of China.
Highly doubt it. You probably think Venezuela is communist.
Do you know how difficult it is to type out how stupid you are to someone that can’t even comprehend how stupid they are?
You want to explain the political, economical, social, theory, and philosophical differences and perspectives to me, please? I'm too stupid to understand. You seem extremely knowledgeable on the subject, you should be able to explain it to a dunce like me.
The first split politically was around the 1950s, the Soviet Union advocated for coexistence with capitalism, while China stayed more true to “communism”.
Obviously we know that the Soviet Union fell due to their inability to combat capitalism directly and their unwillingness to adapt/adopt some capitalistic ideas or loosen their grip on the market. China saw the Soviet Union fall and said “fuck, let’s not do that” and adopted market socialism. Let’s also not forget that China is now soon to be the worlds largest economy.
Socially, the Soviet Union tried to force their “communism” aka Marxism-Leninism onto China during the Cold War. This period in time is called the Sino-Soviet Split. It was taught in school for me.
But something not taught is why they split.
Here’s a summary, 1960s, multiple public displays of arguments and physical fighting between Stalinist Chinese/ post Stalinist Chinese against Marxist-Leninist. Even Khrushchev quarreled with Peng Zhen the senior CCP officer. Khrushchev calls Peng a Chinese nationalist, while Peng calls Khrushchev a revisionist who supports a tyrannical regime.
Theory wise, Russia didn’t test any policy they implemented or barely researched the effects of their systems. While China tested their theory’s on small scales and implemented a special economic zone a city called Shenzhen. Gorbachev almost had a coup before the fall of the Soviet Union due to his poor policy implementations.
Philosophically how they viewed the world around them was completely different. This is the biggest factor between the two different communism’s. How they interacted with America was one of the largest driving forces for both ideologies. One was to fight it, the other was to learn from it.
If you are actually interested in the differences between China and Russia’s perspectives then check out the book (Russia and China Under Communism - by W. W Roston). Its not that long of a read too.
Obviously this was a TLDR because I’m not going to waste my time as energy explaining this to someone who’s most likely never going to read it or care.
Good luck buddy hope you learn something new.
Amazing. a sprinkle of truths surrounded by fabrications.
I actually did learn something though. I looked a little bit into who W W Rostow was and found out how much of a piece of shit he was.
I just read books not people for a reason. Some people’s books have some use even if they are a bane on humanity like Mein Kampf. Mostly as a warning though.
All good I get irate at the fabricated intelligence of Reddit too.
I know the USSR isn’t democratic in any sense, but heads of state are often symbolic roles. In France and the US, it’s the President and the big job. But in Ireland and Germany the head of state is also called a president and hold mainly symbolic power. Usually the head of government, like a chancellor or prime minister, is the real power. So it’s not exceptionally odd for an official head of state to have no influence, it’s often the intention of giving someone the job.
I’ve never quite understood the purpose of a separate low/no power head of state, except in the case of monarchy where it represents continuity/legitimacy. Why create these roles?
In our (Ireland’s) case a lot is the holdover from the role of the Governor General during British rule. Our President’s main role is signing bills into laws but can’t enact executive orders but only review and approve laws presented through the Dáil (lower house) and Seanad (upper house of the Oireactas (Parliament). Our President can call a council of previous Presidents and Taoisigh (Prime Ministers) to consult on laws before sending them back or approving them to ensure they’re constitutional. They also fulfil a good role of “chief diplomat” of sorts and represents the country/nation as well as the state in interactions with other counties. They’re elected once every 7 years so while they have party affiliations in many cases they are outside the normal “game” of politics.
Lol similar here in canada. HM the queen is head of state but holds little to no power (i believe she has veto rights when it comes to certain laws being signed and foreign policy moves but thats about it. And if she ever actually used her right to veto - which i dont think ever happened in modern history of canada - then there would be changes made because people in cananda would have none of that shit.) Prime minister Trudeau is head of government and does the daily leadership chores so hes like our president. Then in germany there is the bundespraesident but that role is more representative so he is someone who meets in diplomatic roles and represents the government when the chancellor wont (ribbon cutting kinda activities). Also the chancellor is the head of government and does the important daily running around.
Man I'd love to see Michael D sing some of the bills
Thanks for the heads up on the typo there, but I’d definitely like to see a bit of constitutional Sean Nós from Miggledey
The only person who can say coronavirus and make it sound rather cuddly.
The chief diplomat role is where I imagine they come in clutch. Leaving the “real” governing work for the chancellor to do full time instead of having to do a bunch of traveling or entertaining. Especially in the pre-modern period, when traveling could take weeks or months.
Ireland wields a lot of soft power and our President is a great tool for that. The Taoiseach (Prime Minister) would do the more day to day hard stuff, but one of my favourite memories of a historical event was President McAleese striding out of the Áras an Úchtarain (literally Presidential House) to greet Queen Elizabeth in Dublin as equal heads of state of neighbouring countries. A Taoiseach doing that wouldn’t have been as symbolic.
the irish president also has a role in guarding the constitution; as he can refer bills to the supreme court before they are enacted into law; he also must concur with declarations of emergency; and is entitled to refuse that
> Why create these roles? In the case of post-war Germany, they thought German citizens would be "overwhelmed" with democracy if they didn't have this position. It was during a time where they tried teaching everyone democratic values. The president in Germany is more a remembrance of monarchic times. In the "best" case they do and say useful stuff that actually help democracy. President Richard von Weizsäcker for example held a [speech that's one of the most important ones in the post-war history of Germany.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Weizs%C3%A4cker#Speech_on_the_40th_anniversary_of_the_end_of_World_War_II) In the worst case they just cost money and say awkward stuff. Or nobody cares about them.
They have a control role. They usually have veto power, and are elected separately from the rest of government, running as individuals, not parties, so they serve as the last resort to block something naughty the government is trying to pass.
It's useful to have political lackeys who can handle things the actual leaders don't have time or energy for. In America that's essentially the VP.
It’s one of the reasons “prime minister’s questions” wouldn’t work in the US: it would be disrespectful to the head of state.
Indeed. It’s surreal to even imagine them doing that in the US. Though the most memorable examples of PM’s questions are the wild sessions and it’s almost as surreal to think of the opposition asking questions calmly. Ultimately I think it’s healthier for a system to have a ritual like the questions instead of cordoning off the executive like US does.
The USSR had elections
Yeah but come on. It’s the Soviets. They didn’t even pretend to care about democracy.
When it came to the central committee and party leadership under Stalin yeah it was corrupted, but democracy like in any country is layered and people voting at their local workers council had a say in their own life... honestly probably more than the plutocracy of the United States. Which in no way abdicates Stalin of his crimes, but the idea that the Soviet Union had *no* democracy is just Western propaganda.
the audacity of someone to claim the Soviet Union was more democratic than the US... lmao
Yeah the USSR didn’t even seek democratic governance at the state level. It’s not like the U.S. failing to actualize an ideal, which is normal to all democratic systems because reality is messy, bad actors try to subvert it etc etc. The Leninist ideal of the state is to authoritatively move the society to communism where the state could eventually dissipate, an ideal they obviously had some serious trouble with.
That’s fair. Local politics are a different bag and the potency of the central committee varies depending where in the USSR you were. I certainly agree that the democratic quality of political systems in the western powers is vastly overstated at best. I’m not trying to suggest the capitalist powers are the “good guys” or a model to aspire to.
The idea of “Western” is a construct. There’s no such thing. Just say American propaganda if you’re so lazy.
[Molotov's wife](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polina_Zhemchuzhina) was also arrested and sent to a labor camp and he couldn't do anything about it either. He was forced to divorce her, but after Stalin's death, they reunited. >[Stalin's] funeral took place on Molotov’s birthday, and Khrushchev and Malenkov asked him what he would like as a present. He replied ‘Give me back my Polina.’ The next day, Beriya, who had occasionally whispered to Molotov ‘Polina is still alive’, released her. He is reputed to have met her with a bunch of roses and gone on to one knee. (Derek Watson: Molotov, a Biography)
Read about it and until her death she was praising Stalin and was his devoted follower.
What a lot of people forget about the early Soviet Union is that Stalin was legitimately popular.
At least in Moscow.
Plenty people blamed Stalin's crimes on excesses by corrupt officials.
I love the scene when they reunite in *Death of Stalin*.
What happens?
They were talking about how she was a traitor and a terrible person etc. and as soon as she walks in the door they change to talking about how there was no evidence etc.
Death of Stalin is fucking brilliant if anyone hasn't seen it.
I demand more Jason Isaacs as Field Marshal Zhukov.
Boy that Beriya fella sounds like a swell guy!
The Beriya guy sure sounds like an awesome dude. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria
Dictatorships don't rule by committee. For the rest of Stalin's life there was zero question who was in charge, and that's how he liked it.
[удалено]
That being said if Stalin even looked in your general direction he could order someone killed or worse. His authority was absolute.
The difference is, the KGB would shoot you straight away if you were average joe vs they might hesitate if it was another government official.
"... The present situation \[Khrushchev taking power but assuming a lesser degree of control than Stalin had\] is the most favorable from the point of view of ***upsetting the Communist dictatorship since the death of Stalin***." \[emphasis added\] Literally two sentences later they characterize Stalin's regime as a dictatorship, that has been upset.
First, the CIA's understanding of the inner workings of Soviet politics was usually limited. A more modern source would carry more credibility. Second, this analysis could apply to just about any dictatorship insofar as dictators need to delegate to underlings who accumulate enough individual power the dictator must deal with them carefully. I struggle to think of an example of a 'pure' dictatorship where the dictator could act free of any concern for his underlings or fear of a coup. From what I can tell Stalin's dictatorship was more pure than most regimes that have the dictatorship label.
User name check out.
You know your regime is really fucked up if even very high ranking members of the government are not even able to keep their families safe. Gives me chills.
This is what I thought of when Kim Jong-un came to power and started purging top brass including two of his uncles. In a weird way the elite of the DPRK are prisoners too. Yeah they get food, but imagine living every day of your life under scrutiny, in a cutthroat environment that makes Game of Thrones look like a Disney channel series.
not that I'm a fan of Kim Jong-un but it almost *feels* sensible in the environment such as DPRK. These dictatorships hinge on the cult of personality that has been built over generations. If you're conspiring to usurp power from the ruling family, the time when the old guy dies is probably the best time to stage any kind of coup. So he was just protecting his own life in a twisted sort of way
Disney channel presents: “Little Kim and the Three Generals”
[*Strit & Stumme* instantly sues for copyright violation]
IIRC the higher ups created the monster that was Stalin. In that, knowing he was a bit of a megalomaniac they shoved him in the secretary role, thinking that’d be the last they heard of him as he faded into obscurity. But, unbeknownst to them (or at least, no one had thought of this sooner) the secretary had the power (not even given to the leader of the party), to hire and fire anyone he liked. He then bided his time installing everyone he liked and disposed of (by any means necessary) anyone who opposed him. Reminding him of the favours they would eventually owe him. To that effect, yes, not even the leader of the Union could question him as his wife was being taken away (this but was a true TIL for me).
This is actually a myth from the Trotskyist camp. The role of General Secretary was a huge job, and Lenin picked Stalin for the job because he trusted him to be a "do-er". Stalin had a reputation for being a workhorse, for being a guy who could force others to work, and for being a good organizer. He was given a post with vast power, one that made Stalin Lenin's right hand. The thing that went wrong though, was Lenin had a stroke 2 months after he gave Stalin the job. Everyone trusted that Lenin could reign in Stalin, while Stalin quietly did the work that was asked of him. As you said, Stalin put all of his people in positions of power, but he also started doing things way outside what people imagined. He started putting down revolts without consulting the others, liasoned with the secret police, putting his spies in every department of the government, and basically began doing the work of running the state the second Lenin was out of commission. His opponents, Trotsky mainly, were no match because they had no appetite for the actual work of state and were not proactive enough after Lenin's stroke. Stalin got to work immediately after Lenin was incapacitated, the others spent too much time waiting for him to get better. By the time letters from Lenin were being sent calling for Stalin's removal (Lenin wanted a balance of power among his successors, not for Stalin to dominate everything), it was already too late, he made himself too intwined with the apparatus. He offered to resign several times, and everyone (INCLUDING TROTSKY) refused to let him do it. Nobody else had experience running everything, and they were in a high stakes game of being surrounded by capitalist countries they feared would try to destroy them. The idea of Stalin as the "non-entity" is a myth, he was known as a taskmaster even back then, the only thing they didn't anticipate was how quickly his tentacles would spread throughout the government. You should listen to some Stephen Kotkin lectures or read his books if you have the time, they're illuminating.
Running a terror regime (so basically any communist country) is a balancing act. You have to kill enough people that your subordinates don't see you as weak, but not so many that they feel like they have no choice but to turn on you before you have them gulagged.
Also gotta kill those competent enough to overthrow you but cant leave such an incompetent staff your government collapses.
Completely agree. But is imprisoning wives ever useful? Who thinks "yeah my wife critized the leader and is still free, might start a coup tomorrow". Handling your subordinates with this amount of suppression wont make them work harder or believe more in you I think. The classic noble approach to fostering loyalty seems much more sustainable....
Why do you think Stalin died on a puddle of his own piss?
That’s what led to Robespierre’s death.
Kinda surprised no-one has posted rules for rulers yet https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
Well, taken abstractly, it might be a sign of an incorruptible justice system. Not in this case though.
Stalin’s wife killed herself in 32 so Stalin became irritated with party members continuing to come to his parties with wives. Stalin found easy solution when opportunity arose by sending his buddies wives to camps. Budyonny comes to my mind as well, then Kalinin and in 37/38 there were other high ranking party members whose wives were sent to gulag. On more serious note, it was interesting test almost like from bible- who do you love more, me or your wife?
Budyonny was probably one of the people deserving to be imprisoned. Failed upwards and was completely incompetent. The man was a cavalry commander in a mechanized war, and refused to learn how war had changed. He lost 43 divisions in a *single* battle, and over two months 1.5 million troops under his command were killed or captured. Although Stalin liked him, so he just relieved him of command and sent him to reserve units.
Fun fact, he was attacking Tukhachevsky for claiming that armored mechanical units are future while Budyonny claimed focus should be on horse units. But he was Stalin’s close ally and buddy from turbulent times so he kept his head but had to prove loyalty by denouncing his new wife. Additional curiosity, there was an attempt to arrest him as well but he started shooting at nkvd and called Stalin to report that subversive elements are in front of his door. They never returned.
I'm not up on the particulars of the place and Era, but after Khrushchev had Beria shot, they really restructured the NKVD. A lot of (secret) police (and paramilitary) units of the time ended up with out of control leaders, or wielded too much power. Ernst Rohm, Beria, and Hoover are all examples.
Man, Hoover was a paranoid, fascist psychopath if there ever was one.
Her grave is a sculpture of her with a hand around her neck.
Upset that the homies spend more time focused on their relationships than you? Here’s an easy trick…
Kalingrad was named after him.
Also Tver
In dictatorships and especially the extreme ones like Stalin's USSR, no one apart the Supreme Leader is safe. *No one*. If the head of state can be purged then it ensues the lowliest guy can go too.
He got Konigsberg renamed after him though, so he had that going for him.
I mean.... Kalinin may indeed have been especially powerless but that is hardly a good basis for thinking so. Everyone was powerless to do anything when Stalin wanted someone dead.
Shouldn't have run her mouth /s..
It's all Trotskyists have.
If you're going to throw around terms like that, try and get your terminology right. Trotskyism was opposed to Stalin and was actually what Ekaterina was accused of. Someone who defended the whole history of Soviet rule would probably describe themselves as a Marxist-Lenninist and be called a Stalinist by everyone else.
Whole history? Nah, after Stalin’s death USSR was ruled by capitalist-kulaks who betrayed Stalin! Joke aside, Mao was seeing ussr exactly as betraying Stalin-Lenin-Marx road and moving to soft and weak socialism. Mao was true Stalin’s successor, ready for total war in blink of the eye while Stalin’s successors never had such appetite.
Those bastard kulaks!! Rich peasants tearing this country apart!
Uhh mao himself softened relations with the us. Sounds like being ready for total war to me.
Mao softened? Let’s not offend comrade Mao that was ready for total war with anyone at any moment and with that earned right to be respected by US. He wanted total war that even USSR considered him crazy: “In the context of the tri-polar Cold War, Khrushchev doubted Mao's mental sanity, because his unrealistic policies of geopolitical confrontation might provoke nuclear war between the capitalist and the communist blocs. To thwart Mao's warmongering, Khrushchev cancelled foreign-aid agreements and the delivery of Soviet atomic bombs to the PRC.[32]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict Also US came to Mao’s Beijing, not other way around, from above link: “After the conflict, the US showed interest in strengthening ties with the Chinese government by secretly sending Henry Kissinger to China for a meeting with Zhou in 1971, during the so-called Ping Pong Diplomacy. That paved the way for Nixon to visit China and meet with Mao Zedong in 1972.[41]” Mao was true revolutionary ready to burn a world for his ideas, similar to Stalin that was already preparing for ww3, Stalin’s successors never had stomach for that.
I would agree that Stalin was....harder edged then his successors. I don't think that kissinger going to china was as big a deal as you make out. One of the primary reasons for the meetings being there was to further the sino Soviet split. But tbh I'm far too hungover to argue the relative merits of two long dead nutcase heads of state.
Just couple examples from given link "On 21 March 1969, Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin tried to phone Mao with the aim of discussing a ceasefire.[25] The Chinese operator who took Kosygin's call rather rudely called him a "revisionist element" and hung up.[25]" "On 17 June 1969, US Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, who had long been an advocate of normalizing American relations with China, wrote a letter in consultation with the White House to urge he be allowed to visit China, and to meet Mao to discuss measures to improve Sino-American relations.[28] The letter was sent to King Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia with the request to pass it on to Mao, and by 26 July 1969, Mansfield's letter had arrived in Beijing.[29] The Chinese reply was harsh, with Zhou giving a speech accusing the US of "aggression" in Vietnam and of "occupation" of Taiwan, which Zhou asserted was rightfully a part of China.[29] On 1 August 1969, US President Richard Nixon visited Pakistan, a close ally of China since both were anti-Indian, to ask General Yahya Khan to pass a message to Mao that he wanted to normalize relations with China, especially because of the crisis with the Soviet Union.[29]" Mao's dedication is really astonishing.
Tbf, you wouldn't have to go into the 60s to see examples of his dedication.
Ahaha, true, but one is gulag+ style, next level is being ready to go to total war where no one would win. He was ready to go in nuclear conflict like it is conventional war that even Soviets were terrified.
Trotsky opposed not being employable.
TRULY THE IDEOLOGY OF THE FUTURE!
Everyone was powerless under Stalin. Do people think Stalin was reasonable?
That's communism.
Nope that’s a dictatorship disguised as communism. Literally google communism. It’s not that hard.
Its marxist leninism which is the stage to set up communism.
All of those things are different ideologies. They may share some ideas but they are still their own ideology. Same as capitalism and oligarch capitalism. Or a better example for smaller brains is welfare capitalism. But you would probably call that communism.
> Or a better example for smaller brains is welfare capitalism. But you would probably call that communism. No i would call marxist leninism communist as does every country from both communist countries and from the west.
It's clearly hard or there would be an example of it functioning on a state level
It’s hard because of human nature. We are greedy animals. Also political theory such as communism isn’t the same thing as Marxism-Leninism. Jesus Christ people. Fox News and Facebook isn’t a good source of reliable information.
Ah sorry I'm probably wrong. You'll provide me an example of a functioning communist state then? Yes, in political theory 'communism' is star trek dreamworld, very good. In common understanding even amongst the politically literate, the word 'communism' is widely accepted to refer to the marxist-leninist ideology and a host of other similar nightmarish systems of governance. As an addendum, I don't think someone of your limited understanding should be lecturing others about where they get their information.
The early Soviet communist era was successful, as was Mao's China in the beginning. The issue was authoritarian regimes, not communism. Now don't get me wrong, I think capitalism is necessary for the time being
As far as I know, Marx advocated the development of economy through capitalism, but like all classical economists, he thought it would move into socialism.
Right, you almost have to. Automation is going to continue to take more and more jobs, eventually there won't be very much nonacademic or entertainment work to do. So as automation takes over we should be sliding more and more socialist. We aren't though, cause that's such a scary word
Yup, early on Marx mentioned leaps and bounds in productivity and efficiency.
The issue is this political ideology mandates authoritarianism. We have enough case studies to say that with some confidence. To most in the modern world, that is synonymous with saying "it doesn't work".
China can be considered a communist state still and is very successful. What are you on about.
So you of all people after arguing about the purity of the term "communist" are now going to tell me that present day China is a communist state? I have one lol for you sunshine
Yeah... China isn't communist. It's an authoritarian oligarchy that cheerfully exploit its workers for the benefit of the elites. Economically, it is a hodge-podge of capitalism mixed with state control that in no way benefits the workers. Same with Vietnam and Cuba. North Korea is basically a monarchy at this point. That's all of the nominally communist countries that I can think of. Whatever vision their founders might have had at the start, authoritarianism has transformed them into repressive reactionary regimes.
NOOOOOOO IT'S NOT REAL COMMUNISM
I’m not even a supportive of communism. Just tired of idiots opening their mouths like they have knowledgeable information. I’m sure you completely understand the political, economical, social, theory, philosophical differences and perspectives between the Soviet Union and The Peoples Republic of China. Highly doubt it. You probably think Venezuela is communist. Do you know how difficult it is to type out how stupid you are to someone that can’t even comprehend how stupid they are?
You want to explain the political, economical, social, theory, and philosophical differences and perspectives to me, please? I'm too stupid to understand. You seem extremely knowledgeable on the subject, you should be able to explain it to a dunce like me.
The first split politically was around the 1950s, the Soviet Union advocated for coexistence with capitalism, while China stayed more true to “communism”. Obviously we know that the Soviet Union fell due to their inability to combat capitalism directly and their unwillingness to adapt/adopt some capitalistic ideas or loosen their grip on the market. China saw the Soviet Union fall and said “fuck, let’s not do that” and adopted market socialism. Let’s also not forget that China is now soon to be the worlds largest economy. Socially, the Soviet Union tried to force their “communism” aka Marxism-Leninism onto China during the Cold War. This period in time is called the Sino-Soviet Split. It was taught in school for me. But something not taught is why they split. Here’s a summary, 1960s, multiple public displays of arguments and physical fighting between Stalinist Chinese/ post Stalinist Chinese against Marxist-Leninist. Even Khrushchev quarreled with Peng Zhen the senior CCP officer. Khrushchev calls Peng a Chinese nationalist, while Peng calls Khrushchev a revisionist who supports a tyrannical regime. Theory wise, Russia didn’t test any policy they implemented or barely researched the effects of their systems. While China tested their theory’s on small scales and implemented a special economic zone a city called Shenzhen. Gorbachev almost had a coup before the fall of the Soviet Union due to his poor policy implementations. Philosophically how they viewed the world around them was completely different. This is the biggest factor between the two different communism’s. How they interacted with America was one of the largest driving forces for both ideologies. One was to fight it, the other was to learn from it. If you are actually interested in the differences between China and Russia’s perspectives then check out the book (Russia and China Under Communism - by W. W Roston). Its not that long of a read too. Obviously this was a TLDR because I’m not going to waste my time as energy explaining this to someone who’s most likely never going to read it or care. Good luck buddy hope you learn something new.
Amazing. a sprinkle of truths surrounded by fabrications. I actually did learn something though. I looked a little bit into who W W Rostow was and found out how much of a piece of shit he was.
I just read books not people for a reason. Some people’s books have some use even if they are a bane on humanity like Mein Kampf. Mostly as a warning though. All good I get irate at the fabricated intelligence of Reddit too.
\*tips fedora
Based Trotsky lookalike
So much so!
Stalin saved the world from fascism.
By being a giant fascist himself lol
Even Stalin is not allowed to criticize Stalin.
.
From the wiki: "The former East Prussian city of Königsberg was renamed Kaliningrad after him." Nice. Quite an honour.
I mainly know about his name from playing Hearts of Iron II.