From the cited source:
Stalin is an uncommon figure in modern economic history: a dictator with absolute power who also controlled one of the largest economies in the world. Since it is virtually impossible to separate Stalin's wealth from the wealth of the Soviet Union, this combination has led multiple economists to nominate him as one of the richest people of all time.
...
While that money didn't belong directly to Stalin, he had the ability to leverage blah blah blah peepee poopoo
Neolib ghouls are absolutely wild.
The same people said the same about Castro too. They're just delusional.
Much better example, these people simply have no idea how political structures work within socialist countries which is why their critiques of them don't matter. It would be like critiquing the US as if it's a feudal country.
Is it not?
Marx uses the term dictatorship of the proletariat as a more direct way of saying "democracy", but uneducated shitlibs prefer to ignore the "of the proletariat" part and compare the revocable, elected vanguard to royalty.
Thomas Sankara had a $400 a month salary and rode a bicycle everywhere. But he was a socialist dick tater who wore camouflage and a beret therefore
BURKINA FASOUPPER VOLTA BELONGED TO HEEM HON HON HON OUI OUI TRUST ME MON FREREsomehow, we are supposed to count whole countries for the wealth of Castro and Stalin, but are expected to ignore the stocks held by American billionaires cuz its not liquid or whatever