Stalin

[DevilDriver]

Joseph Stalin was a great political leader. Don't forget that, while you are trying to force the dogma of anti-socialist/communist bullshit down the throats of the people. They have the right to know both sides of the issue.

[Rebelnerd]

he wasn't a great leader, his empire didn't last forever did it?

[DevilDriver]

Does any empire last forever, no?
But he is still talked about. You couldn't kill his ideas.

[Rebelnerd]

his ideas haven't been killed, true, but they've been marginalized. people talk about them but only a few countries (china, cuba, vietnam etc...) actually follow his fascist pseudo-communism and most of them don't really follow those ideas they just pay lip service to them.

[DevilDriver]

They are still present, non-the-less.

[Semper_in_Theatro]

Rebelnerd Wrote:his ideas haven't been killed, true, but they've been marginalized. people talk about them but only a few countries (china, cuba, vietnam etc...) actually follow his fascist pseudo-communism and most of them don't really follow those ideas they just pay lip service to them.

Cuba isn't Stalinist...

[Rebelnerd]

not stalinist, but they follow his idea of getting the people's support by saying that communism will liberate them. then he sets himself up as dictator while the people starve.

[Semper_in_Theatro]

Stalin hardly gets the patent on communist tyrannies. He didn't even achieve that.

Cuba is one of the least destitute of the Latin countries, and one the only ones that's actually sending out aid to other countries, while Stalin's USSR took a coalition of empires which had stood for centuries and reduced them to rubble with pseudomarxist fascism.

Castro is a genuine socialist dictator, and while his government will fall apart when he dies since the virtue of it lies in him and not the state (that is the nature of all benevolent dictatorships, and he hasn't - to my knowledge - trained an heir, which is the only way to maintain the integrity of a dynasty) his country as it stands is operating as a functional socialist state, which Stalin never achieved.

[Rebelnerd]

i wouldn't really call castro benevolent. and i know stalin didn't invent the whole communist/fascist system, but he was definitely the most famous and powerful of them.

[Semper_in_Theatro]

I think there is a modern assumption of egalitarian right which colours our historical sensibilities. When I refer to Castro as a benevolent dictator I don't mean it in any modern democratic sense, and I'm in no way denying his position as a monarchic tyrant. But there seems to be a supposition grown out of revolutionary rhetoric - especially in America - that "to be tyrannical" is equally "to be despotic" which simply isn't true.

[Rebelnerd]

but the basic idea of denying freedom to the people is present in both.

[Semper_in_Theatro]

The freedoms you enjoy or are denied are always something dictated by the governing body, what you have lost is a measure of choice in who that governing body is, not the freedoms themselves. And the extent of one's choice is always relative; I did not vote for my current governing representative, I live under the rule of someone whose influence over me was not of my choosing (which is - in its part - a definition of tyranny), and I have no viable recourse. This is the way of all democracies: you can't run a nation by concensus, so there are always compromises made - for the sake of practicality - against the cause of public enfranchisement. Each nation, as it forms its charter and constitution, defines what compromises it is willing to make, and decides where to strike that balance between emancipation of its people, and the power to govern those people.

The law of Cuba's current governmental system allows the public less choice than a democracy would, I simply argue that this choice (which is a very new innovation in the wider scheme of political history*) is not necessary to a well run and healthy country, and the position of "monarch" does not preclude Castro being defined as benevolent.


*There have been instances of populist emancipation in the past, but none recently enough (or with close enough ties to our current society) to qualify as direct antecedents of the modern, western, politically representational structure.

[Rebelnerd]

but at least in a democracy, the leader is whoever the greatest number of people want. in a dictatorship it's whoever is either chosen by the ricfh and powerful or whoever can fight their way to the top. one way of doing this, as illustrated here, is to lure the masses into obediance with the promise of "communism".

[DevilDriver]

Actually, in any condition, the one with the most guns wins. I mean, who would you vote for? The guy who can kick your ass, or the whimpy bitch?

[Semper_in_Theatro]

Rebelnerd Wrote:but at least in a democracy, the leader is whoever the greatest number of people want. in a dictatorship it's whoever is either chosen by the ricfh and powerful or whoever can fight their way to the top. one way of doing this, as illustrated here, is to lure the masses into obediance with the promise of "communism".

That is what is currently the most usual way for a dictator to gain power. But the nations which have suffered such despots (Panama under Noriega, Chile under Pinochet, Nicaragua under the Somozas, etc.) were crippled and gutted, while Cuba has remained - despite brutal and unprovoked* hostility from America - relatively prosperous, and even managed to flourish.

But then, Cuban communisim was the result of a mass uprising - as opposed to those American-backed despots like Manuel Noriega or Saddam Hussein - which makes its genesis a populist decision. The diference between the despotic fascism of Leninist/Maoist communism and the benevolent dictatorial regime in Cuba is that the vox populi retained control long enough to make a lasting imprint on its administrative structure. A good and sustainable tyranny relies on its tyrant being influenced by the people, though not controlled, and succession being determined by political accumen - and the choice of the preceding monarch - rather than lineage.

The version of dictatorship which you describe is exactly what happened in the USSR; the unregulated format of idealistic marxism (a system unsuited to large nations, and originally intended for a small island state) left it vulnerable to every cynical opportunist, and those who once gave freely of their resources to the common good soon found the receipt of their generosity replaced with coersion, and the common good replaced with a single controling force.




*If you are going to cite the Cuban missile crisis, I should point out that Cuba had originally attempted to ally itself with America in the cold war, and only after being rebuffed and put under heavy sanctions was it made desperate enough to allow Russian weapons on its soil. And they were Russian, Cuba itself never pointed a weapon at America.

[Rebelnerd]

well, soviet communism was a result of an uprising too, the bolsheviks. stalin took over and used communism, which is a excellent system, as an excuse for gaining power. he eventually lead it to executions and oppression. castro is doing basically the same thing. and if cuba is flourishing so much, why the makeshift rafts and starving people fleeing across the caribbean?

[Semper_in_Theatro]

First of all: I already addressed the diferences between Stalinist and Cuban communism. If you think my analysis is inacurate that's one thing, but I don't see the point in asking me to reiterate an argument which you haven't refuted.

Second: As previously stated (repeatedly) Cuba is a dictatorship, and as such it maintains only one ideology, by which those who don't wish to conform are obviously unwelcome. A Democracy aims to manpulate itself into whatever ideals are currently most prevalent with its people, a dictatorship chooses its politics independantly and aims to form its populace to meet that ideal.

[Aya]

Rebelnerd Wrote:i wouldn't really call castro benevolent.

I would. Cubans have a health care system and a literacy rate that puts the U.S. to shame. Thier standard of living isn't bad either when you compare it to the rest of Latin America. Stalin caused a famine and managed to kill more people than Hitler thanks to his purges.

[Semper_in_Theatro]

Exactly! *mwah* Te ama!

[Rebelnerd]

it's not the effects of his regime i'm talking about, it's the ideas and methods it's based on.

[Semper_in_Theatro]

*headcafetable*

Fine. We'll pretend that the way a regime behaves and the way it treats its population has nothing to do with evaluating its ideals. Sure. Whatever. You still haven't supported your position.

[Rebelnerd]

look, you're just making this so mush more complicated than it has to be. i was just saying that stalin was the most famous dictator to usee communism as a tool to gain power, and his actions left a legacy that influenced other ditators. that's all. i just used cuba as an example, and i wasn't trying to make some statement about his regime. lighten up a little.

[Aya]

Semper_in_Theatro Wrote:*headcafetable*

Fine. We'll pretend that the way a regime behaves and the way it treats its population has nothing to do with evaluating its ideals. Sure. Whatever. You still haven't supported your position.

beautifully put.

[Guest]

you really hate me don't you Anyiana? ;D

[Rebelnerd]

that last one was me, forgot to log in.

[ANAL_FROST!!!]

well, i dont really blame her. jk.