Log in

View Full Version : My thoughts: Stalin, Trotsky, USSR, protecting leaders



21stCenturyMarxistMan
31st December 2011, 23:20
First thing, I read that Stalin had many doubles, who would do speeches, and public events. He had every right to be fearful of capitalists and those who would be against creating a communist state. If it were Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez or Mao Zedtung, or any other communist past and present, they have the right to be fearful and be protected. They are leading a revolution, and are basically super important to the entire movement. Why do you guys think he would have doubles, protection, or?? And should modern communist and anarchist leaders have doubles? If Bob Avakian or anyone for that matter, led a revolution, I think they should be able to have doubles in secret. They would need protecting. Thoughts?

My other thing, I think the USSR was almost fully communist, but because they had to face the Nazis, they were unable to abolish the government, and it set them back until Stalin died and Democratic Socialists took over. They had some minor issues like Trtosky who I think was the same kind of communist as Stalin, but personal issues is why they didn't like each other. They had free food for all, and government housing, and almost 0% unemployment. If Stalin didn't die, and they didn't face nazis, I think by 1960 they would have been 100% communist.

Thoughts? Anyone able to help me read up on this stuff?

Ostrinski
31st December 2011, 23:34
They would need protecting.Yes, they would need protecting. From actual communists and anarchists.

Psy
31st December 2011, 23:59
In a true workers state the death of any leader would not be the end as the workers state would not be dependent on any individual.

Catma
1st January 2012, 00:12
You seem to subscribe to "great man theory", that there are people scattered about in history that are so fantastic that they have an impact nobody else could have had. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man_theory

This is a very unscientific view of things. It's easy to dramatize history as the interactions of a few important people, but believe it or not, single people are not that important. They usually serve as stand-ins for social forces, in a simplistic view of history.

As Psy said, a workers' state doesn't depend on some great messiah. If that were the case, it wouldn't be a workers state at all - just a sort of kingdom under a great man. All men die. We cannot build society around a man, no matter how great he may be.

Sasha
1st January 2012, 01:25
Hey DRF, how is your sockpuppet hanging? banned & closed