The state is a mechanism that will always perpetuate itself over the liberation of the working class. A state can temporarily be used to defend against counter-revolution, but it will inevitably be seized by revisionists who will betray the revolution.
The USSR centralized itself to the point it could be toppled by the imperial core. When the USSR fell, it degenerated into a capitalist oligarchy. A decentralized USSR might have stood a better chance. If a handful of weak leaders can topple an entire socialist project, then it has been poorly built.
No it should have decentralized after stalin. Stalin could have focused on empowering the individual members of the USSR to function independently. Corn man maybe could have pulled this off, but he was of course not nearly as good of a leader.
Stalin was exceptionally talented as a leader. When you are that good at mobilizing people, you need to make sure that if at all possible to mentor as many others to divest power into as possible.
That of course is much harder and after having been so hands on while combating fascism, he may just have not had it in him. Stalin was an immensely powerful human being however and I believe he had it in him if he had tried.
I'm AnPrim, but it's because most people do not have that sort of gusto in them. This isn't great man theory, it's just the outcome of stressors. Stalin was uniquely positioned to step up to the role he had. The risk of so much centralized power in a single human is far too great however, you have to divest it amongst the proletariat. You have to trust your fellow workers!
The state is a mechanism that will always perpetuate itself over the liberation of the working class. A state can temporarily be used to defend against counter-revolution, but it will inevitably be seized by revisionists who will betray the revolution.
The USSR centralized itself to the point it could be toppled by the imperial core. When the USSR fell, it degenerated into a capitalist oligarchy. A decentralized USSR might have stood a better chance. If a handful of weak leaders can topple an entire socialist project, then it has been poorly built.
deleted by creator
No it should have decentralized after stalin. Stalin could have focused on empowering the individual members of the USSR to function independently. Corn man maybe could have pulled this off, but he was of course not nearly as good of a leader.
Stalin was exceptionally talented as a leader. When you are that good at mobilizing people, you need to make sure that if at all possible to mentor as many others to divest power into as possible.
That of course is much harder and after having been so hands on while combating fascism, he may just have not had it in him. Stalin was an immensely powerful human being however and I believe he had it in him if he had tried.
I'm AnPrim, but it's because most people do not have that sort of gusto in them. This isn't great man theory, it's just the outcome of stressors. Stalin was uniquely positioned to step up to the role he had. The risk of so much centralized power in a single human is far too great however, you have to divest it amongst the proletariat. You have to trust your fellow workers!
he actually did try that
Oh this looks good, why didn't they do it?
:corn-man-khrush: