“Stalinism” largely refers to specific economic choices by Stalin during his time as general secretary, it isn’t a mode of production. Capitalism, on the other hand, naturally builds up monopolies that use the state in their own interests. The state isn’t distinct from the ruling class in society, it’s an extension, so as fierce competition gives way to monopolist syndicates, tech giants, and imperialism, this is a natural trajectory.
Stalinism only seems different because it’s named after the dude, maybe fascism is a more generic term. All the person your responding to is saying is that it’s as natural an argument to say that communism leads naturally to fascism (honestly in a really similar argument to yours by saying the state isn’t distinct from the ruling class and that power naturally condenses to the top in the system.)
I could make a million arguments getting into the nuance of it, as I’m sure you could too. That’s just what the person is saying.
“Stalinism” isn’t really a thing outside of specific policy positions in the early USSR, it isn’t an ideology. Marxism-Leninism was synthesized by Stalin, sure, but he didn’t divert from Marx or Lenin, merely outlined “Marxism-Leninism.” Fascism on the other hand is best characterized by its specific conditions, chiefly being arising from capitalism in decay. Liberalism is closer to the “positive” face of capitalism, and fascism is the “negative” face.
In socialism, power doesn’t consolidate in the top. The socialist state has more power than the capitalist state, but that’s because there isn’t such power in private hands. The working class has expanded power in socialism.
“Stalinism” largely refers to specific economic choices by Stalin during his time as general secretary, it isn’t a mode of production. Capitalism, on the other hand, naturally builds up monopolies that use the state in their own interests. The state isn’t distinct from the ruling class in society, it’s an extension, so as fierce competition gives way to monopolist syndicates, tech giants, and imperialism, this is a natural trajectory.
Stalinism only seems different because it’s named after the dude, maybe fascism is a more generic term. All the person your responding to is saying is that it’s as natural an argument to say that communism leads naturally to fascism (honestly in a really similar argument to yours by saying the state isn’t distinct from the ruling class and that power naturally condenses to the top in the system.)
I could make a million arguments getting into the nuance of it, as I’m sure you could too. That’s just what the person is saying.
“Stalinism” isn’t really a thing outside of specific policy positions in the early USSR, it isn’t an ideology. Marxism-Leninism was synthesized by Stalin, sure, but he didn’t divert from Marx or Lenin, merely outlined “Marxism-Leninism.” Fascism on the other hand is best characterized by its specific conditions, chiefly being arising from capitalism in decay. Liberalism is closer to the “positive” face of capitalism, and fascism is the “negative” face.
In socialism, power doesn’t consolidate in the top. The socialist state has more power than the capitalist state, but that’s because there isn’t such power in private hands. The working class has expanded power in socialism.