Stalinism: The Socialist version of Nazism?

[cobrawolf_meiji]

Stalinism is a very touchy subject among socialists and communists. It was the Stalinist view that turned the rest of the world against Communism, coloring it as evil.

To me, Stalin made his version of Communism less like socialism and more like Nazism. Stalinism and Nazism have more in common with each other then with other forms of Communism and Socialism. I tend to stay out of political talk but I felt this had to be addressed.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Stalin was an autocrat who led a state machine that killed millions to protect what he saw as his version of a "socialist project", but it's not a particularly useful way of thinking about his government to talk about a "Communist Nazi". Naziism was a completely different kind of movement which killed people for completely different reasons.

Really the only thing they share in common is that people died under their rule, but people died under the rule of European colonialists too. Belgium in the Congo and Britain in India and Ireland left many dead. Why not call Stalinism "Socialist Victorianism" or "Socialist Leopoldianism"?

[Thirsty Crow]

Stalinism is a very touchy subject among socialists and communists. It was the Stalinist view that turned the rest of the world against Communism, coloring it as evil.

To me, Stalin made his version of Communism less like socialism and more like Nazism. Stalinism and Nazism have more in common with each other then with other forms of Communism and Socialism. I tend to stay out of political talk but I felt this had to be addressed.
Nope. I don't accept for the moment this analogy. And indeed, this view is based only on an analogy.

The primary reason being that I tend to view the formation and workings of a political ideology in the context of the historical situation with class struggle and balance of forces. In this sense, the formation of Marxism-Leninism is starkly different from that of Nazism, and indeed it had already become an ideology of industrialization, something which Nazism never actually was, before most if its brutally repressive characteristics came to light.

Another important distinguishing factor concerns the role of ethnicity.

[Comrade Jacob]

Are you serious?!
Stalinism is the theory of socialism in one country god-damn it, it's not necessarily the admiration of Stalin. Most people who are Stalinists do not call themselves Stalinists. Stalin didn't make socialism and communism look bad, it was the bourgeois lies about Stalin that makes it look bad.
The idea that socialism should be built up from within while the world revolution happens to secure at least one socialist country if it should fail has nothing to do with wiping out races that are deemed "lesser". Oh but they are similar because they were both authoritarian for different reasons?
Saying I am anywhere near that of a Nazi is just plain insulting.

[Tim Cornelis]

Stalin didn't make socialism and communism look bad, it was the bourgeois lies about Stalin that makes it look bad.

Really, so the Soviet archives are bourgeois lies? Incidentally, does that mean the Soviet Union was a capitalist society.

[Comrade Jacob]

Really, so the Soviet archives are bourgeois lies? Incidentally, does that mean the Soviet Union was a capitalist society.

Soviet Archives - 710,000
Commonly spread b.s - 20,000,000-60,000,000

It's a bit different.

[cobrawolf_meiji]

I tend to think of Stalinists as too radical. I my self am a Moderate Maoist. But back to the subject, Stalin was too much of a dictator and he turned Russian Communism into a monster, a twisted version of Marx's vision.

[Marshal of the People]

In my opinion Stalin had nothing to do with nazis, nazis were racist while I don't believe Stalin was, though I do think Stalin was an evil Authoritarian crazy person (he apparently suffered from paranoid type schizophrenia), though I don't know enough about Stalinism to say anything bad or good about it.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I tend to think of Stalinists as too radical. I my self am a Moderate Maoist. But back to the subject, Stalin was too much of a dictator and he turned Russian Communism into a monster, a twisted version of Marx's vision.

Stalin's problem wasn't that he was too radical, it's that he wasn't radical enough. His state simply used the same forms of exploitation and terror which the bourgeois state had mastered, for the goal of economic modernization not liberation.

[Jimmie Higgins]

To me, Stalin made his version of Communism less like socialism and more like Nazism. Stalinism and Nazism have more in common with each other then with other forms of Communism and Socialism. I tend to stay out of political talk but I felt this had to be addressed.

They're both round, but it's apples and organges IMO.

When pro-Stalinists are confronted with these sorts of arguments they often (correctly) point out that Parlementary states have acted just as totalitarian and repressive when faced with movements from below or in trying to colonize or whatnot. So, for an obvious example, the USSR built up it's wealth and rapid industrialization through massive repression and even forced labor... but when the US modernized a few hundred years of forcecd labor was involved as well. But in my view this is incomplete without also being able to explain why this happened in the USSR.

I think both fascism and what the USSR became were the result of defeats of intense workers movements that actually came close to real class power. But fascism was a bourgois reaction to these rising movements whereas what became known as Stalinism came out of an decline and then internal defeat of a worker's movement. Fascism's main goal was to restore social peace by supressing rebellions of workers and national minorities and so on, but for Stalinism (and it matters little for the induvidual recieving the repression, but for a larger understanding I think it's important) repression was part of building up the USSR and modernizing it so that it could stave off and eventually compete with the European powers. So in some ways I think maybe a better comparison would be of the German State-Capitalism of the 19th century where society was regimented and controlled from above to make sweeping changes in order to modernize Germany to compete with GB and France.

[creamsicle]

I tend to think of Stalinists as too radical. I my self am a Moderate Maoist. But back to the subject, Stalin was too much of a dictator and he turned Russian Communism into a monster, a twisted version of Marx's vision.Mao was a Stalinist. Supporting Mao and not Stalin is inconsistent.

[Red_Banner]

Mao was a Stalinist. Supporting Mao and not Stalin is inconsistent.

Mao was only partly pro-Stalin.

Stalin also pissed off Mao.

Like there was this time when Mao was vistiting Moscow and Stalin kept him wating for hours.

Mao said "I did not come here just to eat and shit!"

[bluemangroup]

Stalinism is a very touchy subject among socialists and communists. It was the Stalinist view that turned the rest of the world against Communism, coloring it as evil.

To me, Stalin made his version of Communism less like socialism and more like Nazism. Stalinism and Nazism have more in common with each other then with other forms of Communism and Socialism. I tend to stay out of political talk but I felt this had to be addressed.

Where to begin? IMHO, first of all, the Nazis were worse; especially when one takes into account the fact that they murdered over six million people in death camps.

Stalin once said (I believe) that one cant make an omelet without breaking a few eggs - That pretty much sums up the Stalin era of Soviet history.

Stalin's rule saw the end of the New Economic Policy and the implementation of an economic plan, the socialization of agriculture through collectivization, rapid industrialization as to help the USSR's lagging industry catch up with the west, etc. all necessary measures and achievements which put the USSR on equal footing with much of the western world.

The Stalin era is controversial, but not something which modern communists should shy away from; its better to examine the Stalin era with a historian's lens, rather than flat out condemning it or trying to disassociate one's self from it.


Stalin was an autocrat who led a state machine that killed millions to protect what he saw as his version of a "socialist project", but it's not a particularly useful way of thinking about his government to talk about a "Communist Nazi". Naziism was a completely different kind of movement which killed people for completely different reasons.

Really the only thing they share in common is that people died under their rule, but people died under the rule of European colonialists too. Belgium in the Congo and Britain in India and Ireland left many dead. Why not call Stalinism "Socialist Victorianism" or "Socialist Leopoldianism"?

People die under the free market all the time, yet that doesn't serve to totally discredit capitalism; likewise, people died under socialism but IMHO that doesn't negate socialism as an economical and political practice and theory.

Stalin was far from having been an autocrat; furthermore, he didn't gas or burn millions of Jews to death like the Nazis. He's not comparable to Hitler or the Nazis.

Every time someone points out that Stalin is supposedly "worse than Hitler" due to statistics, I point out how Hitler was way more brutal in that he more or less invented industrialized slaughter even with a smaller death toll.

Likewise, many people died under Mao during the (first and only) famine after the 1949 revolution. But that doesn't make Mao a monster even if one tries to claim so owing to the larger death toll under Mao than under Hitler.

Its ludicrous. It's semantics, and is a pointless discussion and/or comparison IMHO.