“Stalinism” isn’t really a thing. Marxism-Leninism was synthesized by Stalin, but Stalin did not really present anything radically different from Marxism, nor Lenin’s advancements understood as Leninism.
Marx was not simply an anarchist. Abolition of the state, in Marxist analysis, is through the gradual collectivization of production and distribution and the eradication of class. Therefore, for a state to wither away, it must be made up of a class that seeks this as a common interest. In other words, it must be a proletarian state. As Marx referred to it, this is the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the working classes have the full control of authority.
Marxism-Leninism did not change this analysis. Instead, the development of Leninist party building strategies and theory of revolution worked out the details of actually achieving what Marx described as the historical task of the proletariat. There is no permanence to the state, such a position both goes directly against Marxism-Leninism in general and dialectical materialism in particular.
Marx was explicitly clear, the working classes should be the dictators of society when building towards communism. The USSR was run by the working classes, for the interests of the working classes. All states are inherently “authoritarian,” as they are all monopolies on violence. Speaking as though a worker-state could somehow not be a monopoly on violence just eschews Marxist analysis entirely. Is your point that Marx was a “Stalinist?” This is absurd. The USSR was Marxist-Leninist, and “Stalinism” does not exist.
Removed by mod
“Stalinism” isn’t really a thing. Marxism-Leninism was synthesized by Stalin, but Stalin did not really present anything radically different from Marxism, nor Lenin’s advancements understood as Leninism.
Removed by mod
Marx was not simply an anarchist. Abolition of the state, in Marxist analysis, is through the gradual collectivization of production and distribution and the eradication of class. Therefore, for a state to wither away, it must be made up of a class that seeks this as a common interest. In other words, it must be a proletarian state. As Marx referred to it, this is the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the working classes have the full control of authority.
Marxism-Leninism did not change this analysis. Instead, the development of Leninist party building strategies and theory of revolution worked out the details of actually achieving what Marx described as the historical task of the proletariat. There is no permanence to the state, such a position both goes directly against Marxism-Leninism in general and dialectical materialism in particular.
Removed by mod
Again, Stalinism isn’t a thing. What is your actual argument? The USSR was run according to Marxist-Leninist principles.
Removed by mod
Marx was explicitly clear, the working classes should be the dictators of society when building towards communism. The USSR was run by the working classes, for the interests of the working classes. All states are inherently “authoritarian,” as they are all monopolies on violence. Speaking as though a worker-state could somehow not be a monopoly on violence just eschews Marxist analysis entirely. Is your point that Marx was a “Stalinist?” This is absurd. The USSR was Marxist-Leninist, and “Stalinism” does not exist.
Removed by mod