Questions about Stalin/Mao

[cbm989]

Both Stalin and Mao did incredible things for their people. But both of them ended with totalrian regimes in which intellectuals were murdered, and questioning auhtority was illegal. Along with the mass murders of millions. Now this gives Communism a very bad light to outsiders, and after doing research on both of these charachters i had a question. Is Communism always totalarian? It seems to me at leat a blatant contradiction for Communist society to be ruled with one leader who bosses everyone around. So was this what Communism really is, or was it just two power hungry leaders? Also, are there any democratic Communisms in the world? When i say democratic i mean everyone has a vote on what goes on.

[Hegemonicretribution]

There are some good introductions to concepts pinned around the website, they can be very helpful :)

As for your questions: No communism isn't always totalitarian, in fact it never is.

Communism is by definition stateless and classless.

Communists known as Marxist believe that before this can work there needs to be a transitory phase known as socialism. During this phase there is a state, but it consists of the proletariat (or the people/workers). The role of this group is to ensure the path to communism, but it must comprise of the proletariat itself, and not an elite.

Stalin and Mao used what is known by some as Leninist tactics to achieve their goal. They used vanguards, or an elite, to drive the revolution and give it focus. They also took special jobs post revolution.

Because this vanguard was elevated, it was seperate from the proletariat. Some say that communism was never the end goal, and they were just dictators (probably more true in the case of Mao) and some say that they lost their way. "Tha road to hell is paved with good intentions."

The determination they did exhibit did have positive effects, and industrialisation occurred much quicker than in the capitalist west. When you consider the stage in development these nations were, it is not surprising that authoritarian means were used.

Marx said that revolution should come first from the west. There are lots of different theories on this, and Marx is not gospel, but personally I agree in part with this. These other nations tried the jump a little early perhaps, and replaced one dictatorship with another. It is when the main class issue is between the workers and the owners, and the conflict that this creates reaches a head that revolution is supposed to happen.

It is supposed to be a revolution comprising the working class in almost its entirety, fully aware of what they are doing. They will be self governing (socialism) until such time that governing themselves does not seem to do much (they are no longer dependant upon it). This final state is communism, some call it anarchy.