Pardon me, I meant, 'a notion' not, 'an notion.' 'An' should only precede words beginning with a vowel. Please excuse this blunder.
I think I tend to prefer 'Proletarian Bonapartism' as it's somewhat less confusing. 'Stalinism,' in my mind, conjures up an notion of Stalin (as in the man) veneration. It would be a bit seemingly peculiar then, to apply such a term to those not professing any admiration for the man from which the foregoing term derives its name.
Perhaps, but "stalinism" has been in use (and misuse) as a term for decades. I guess "proletarian bonarpartism" or "bureaucratic dictatorship" would be equally applicable. Whatever serves the purpose to sending the message.
Would not a term such as, 'proletarian bureaucratism' be more appropriate to what you are describing? It could be abbreviated as PB (with numerous peanut butter jokes ensuing I suppose, but there will always be jokers and pranksters to point such things out).
For clarity sake, I'm using this definition of Stalinism which includes more than merely the cult around the person of Stalin. Particularly this sums it up in a nutshell: "First and foremost, Stalinism must be understood as the politics of a political stratum. Specifically, Stalinism is the politics of the bureaucracy that hovers over a workers' state. Its first manifestation was in the Soviet Union, where Stalinism arose when sections of the bureaucracy began to express their own interests against those of the working class, which had created the workers' state through revolution to serve its class interests."
Thank you for the expedient reply, I do appreciate it. In response to your statement, it would seem that you believe Kruschev and all Soviet leaders following him to be 'Stalinist.' Though they were indeed anti-Trotskyist, and did indeed leave something to be desired (the 1956 invasion of Hungary being the most glaring example in my mind as I write this), I'm not certain if the term 'Stalinist' would be applicable. Kruschev thoroughly excoriated Stalin in his so-called, 'secret speech' on Stalin, condeming him for having established a cult of personality, perpetrating mass paranoid persecutions, making unilateral decisions without convening the party congress, general rudeness, and abuse of Leninist revolutionary legality.
Thank you for clearing that up Now, on the Trotskyist movements never seizing power has indeed to do with several historical factors, among which the Stalinists play a big role. But then again, the Stalinists abolished their own rule of power in an effort to convert themselves to capitalist ruling elites in the 1980's and early 90's. Stalinism has made itself completely irrelevant.
I'm not a Stalinist, and in fact, I regard Stalin as a 'proletarian Bonapartist.' I am simply one who endeavors to defend the accomplishments of all revolutionary Marxist-Leninist governments, despite whatever their defects may be. That notwithstanding, I am NOT for a historical denial of defects in the foregoing. Ideologically, I lean towards Trotskyism, and don't think that Trotsky and those associated with his stance were out to wreck or sabotage the USSR. I find that charge to be somewhat absurd. However, at the same time, I recognize that no Trotskyist movement has ever managed to come to power, Stalin's Bonapartist campaign against them being of some relevant concern in this matter perhaps. All the same, no Trotskyist group has ever been strong enough, or planned well enough, or been in the right set of circumstances to wage a successful revolutionary struggle in any nation thus far. That would be my main criticism.
Sorry if I got the wrong impression here, but I thought you were more of a Stalinist than a Trotskyist?
