I believe in socialism, but I feel Stalin shouldn't be idolised due to things like the Gulag.
I would like more people to become socialist, but I feel not condemning Stalin doesn't help the cause.
I've tried to have a constructieve conversation about this, but I basically get angry comments calling me stupid for believing he did atrocious things.
That's not how you win someone over.
I struggle to believe the Gulag etc. Never happened, and if it happened I firmly believe Stalin should be condemned.
You are surely well aware of the nefarious propaganda the west did against Stalin.
Imagine it was true and you have the perfect depiction on how such corruption would potentially look like.
Another simple example? Stalin could have promised an administraive role to a person in exchange for sexual favors.
I'm not saying he did, but, under Communism, or rather under the trasition toward communism, that would have been a possible abuse of [not power].
Propaganda isn't bounded by material reality, though, surely you can see how simply saying something is true doesn't mean it is. All of these ideas of what could have happened ignore the mechanical foundations of democracy and economic planning. Sure, Stalin could have sexually assaulted someone, but to our knowledge he didn't, and moreover such a reason does not imply there is a desire for power in Socialist systems to get away with sexual assault. You're making a confused argument here.
I used propaganda as an easy, inaccurate answer to your request for a potential scenario.
Of couse the obvious limits of propaganta (primarily, being lies) is not what I was focusing on.
If we agree Stalin could have sexually assaulted someone and get away with it, we cycle back to the messianic property of Stalin to be better than most other people in a similar position through history. Or to not be affected by dementia, to not grow complacent, to not hold grudges, to be permanently unbiased and pure.
We don't, actually. Your conclusion doesn't follow. Stalin was not a perfect and untainted figure. The point is that Socialism does not mechanically support corruption in the same way Capitalism does out of necessity, and you seem to be ignoring that at every turn.
But he never stepped down or reformed the system to account for these issues. Hence my opinion of him.
I didn't see your edit: I guess my point is Stalin did not act under socialism, or surely not in an environment where corruption, if not coming from necessity, would hinder or be neutral to one growth within society.
He tried to resign no fewer than 4 times, and what "issues" are you talking about? How could he have "reformed the system" in your eyes to be better?
I already mentioned that trying to resign and being met with unanimous rejection doesn't say much, other than possibly the obvious fact that he was in fact a human and not a robot.
To reform the system he could have rejected the idea of a single head of state in favor of a shared position, he could have set up the lenght of time by which a person can be head of state...
The possibilities are endless and history has made this kind of necessities abundandly clear to guarantee decision makers hold their position selflessly.
You specifically said that him resigning was something you wanted him to do. He tried 4 times. Would you have had him abandon his post? Absurd. You can't have your cake and eat it too here, either resigning doesn't actually matter to you or you would have rather had him put people in danger by abandoning his post and going AWOL.
Secondly, he tried to have his position eliminated. He was of the belief that it was superfluous, and that too was rejected. When his resignation was rejected several times, he countered with the idea of eliminating his position altogether, citing previous times where no such position was in place. This, too, was rejected. Read the transcript of December 19, 1927, where Stalin makes the case of its redundancy as opportunism and opposition had already been weeded out in his eyes, and specifically states that his power can be spread to those under him and nothing would fundamentally change other than a removal of what he calls "distortions."
We have archival evidence that what you proposed he could have done, but didn't, was actually tried by him and rejected. He wasn't a dictator with absolute control, but an elected official. He was no saint, but the idea that he didn't hate his position flies in the face of him outright telling everyone that he lacked the strength to continue and would rather live out the rest of his days in a quiet part of the country doing menial party work. Either you reject the archival evidence, or you reframe your thinking.
At the end of the day of course the solution to forming the most accurate opinion of Stalin is to study Stalin.
I'll point though that apparently my stance has some merit since Stalin himself with his "What was I to do?" is at the very least considering his situation as problematic.
As a last contribution to the discussion, which I've been glad to take part of and that I'm grateful you invested time and effort in, even in recent time we have instances of head of states that ultimately grow exhausted with their role and honestly desire to step down. That's not always possible, especially when so much of the state is directly tied to their person (kings, for example), and does not prove they previously chased, and/or held, that position with selfless disposition.
Thanks again for the thoughtful and well sourced contribution.
Nice thought experiment, but in most cases we have the declassified documents from the CIA and other such organizations who originated the accusations showing that in their internal communications and records that were not public facing that they knowingly and intentionally lied to the public as part of their campaign of information warfare.
The inherent problem is that skepticism is an inexhaustible well. If the only principle guiding your analysis is skepticism, you will inevitably end up stuck in a perpetual and ultimately unproductive cycle doing little more than tilting at windmills.
This is why theory is important to study. You need to have a framework for understanding the world to build off of if you want to have any analysis that's more insightful than "what if we imagine that he had bad thoughts? Pretty scary, huh?"
What if we imagine a purple elephant? What if we imagine flying sharks? Makes you think, doesn't it??
I'm not using speculation reaching for impossible scenarios.
I'm questioning the degree of freedom that anybody could have taken advantage of if they wanted to. The fact that this happened or not is irrelevant.
Given that, I also make another separate point about how greed can have many faces, even outside Capitalism.
Combining those two I question the amount of self reflection Stalin subjected himself and his role to through his life.
I'm not suggesting that what you're speculating is impossible.
I'm suggesting your analysis is facile and uninteresting
That's only fair.