The Instigator
benko12345678
Pro (for)
Winning
50 Points
The Contender
Hanspete
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

This house believes that Stalin was not a true socialist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
benko12345678
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,986 times Debate No: 62011
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (46)
Votes (10)

 

benko12345678

Pro

As a totalitarian socialist I support all (former and current) communist leaders, Kim Jong Il, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin, Josip Broz Tito, Nicolae Ceausescu, Fidel Castro. However, I do not support the reign of Josip Stalin because of his ulterior fascist and capitalist motives.

In this debate I establish that:
This is a debate on whether or not Josip Stalin was a socialist. Your personal opinion on what is and is not moral is irrelevant.

Definition of socialist:

'A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.'

1. Josip Stalin was a corrupt bureaucrat that plunged the Socialist ideals of Marx and Lenin (and other Marxists) into a totalitarian regime where the state controlled absolutely everything. Communism by default is highly against a one-communist-state even existing. Stalin was not a Communist or a Socialist by any means. He was a fascist that used Communist imagery and ideology to control everyone and everything.

2. Stalin's social outlooks were much closer to fascism than true communism. Stalin condemned homosexuality (irrelevant if you personally find it immoral), even though Lenin was a strong supporter of homosexual rights.

3. Stalin supported collective farming, which was akin to subsidized farming, an aspect only found in a completely capitalist nation. The soviet union was based on various forms of State capitalism. Goods were produced, not for use only, but for sale at a profit. Industry was carried on largely on lines familiar to State-capitalist organisations outside the USSR. The soviet Government borrowed from investors (mostly Soviet citizens) hundreds of millions of pounds for investment in industry, and payed them a high rate of interest on their investments; this payment to the investors being the first charge on industry.

4. One of the most significant events of the cold war was the Tito-Stalin split. Tito advocated the abolition of collective farming and the 'Tito standard' which stated that the needs of an individual socialist nation would be of higher significance than the needs of a one-socialist-nation, which Stalin opposed (A one-world-socialist state is a mark of imperialism. Definition of Imperialism from the Oxford thesaurus: 'advocacy of imperial or sovereign interests over the interests of the dependent states.')

5. On 22 May 1943, Stalin announced the formal shutting-down of the Communist International, the association of revolutionary socialist parties across the world set up after the October Revolution.

6. Finally, and the most important distinction between fascist Stalinism and Marxist Communism was the preserved class hierarchy. Most branches of Fascism include an extreme fixed Hierarchy, whether the elite class was the Leader, the Military, the Capitalists, or just the State. The "Communist" Party of the Soviet Union was an elite class of its own, while the rest of the people were left in dire conditions... something that the Revolution sought to put an end to.

Links:
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://soviethistory.macalester.edu...
Hanspete

Con

First I wish to respond by saying Joseph Stalin was more than a socialist he was a murderer! He drove my family from their home to Poland then helped place my great grandfather and grandfather in a concentration camp, but that is irrelevant to this debate. You say you support the "reign" of Kim Jong II, Lenin, Tito, Ceausescu, and Castro. Here is where you argument is flawed (except for the fact that you're a nut). Stalin did everything that every other communist leader did, executed his opponents, forced collectivization farms, established communes, centralized businesses under government control, and ruled unjustly with a biased eye and paranoid thought. Fascism and Socialism share the same roots just under different names. Mussolini did many of the exact same thing that Stalin and other socialists did yet he operated under the name Fascism. What Stalin was ,regardless of political affiliation, was a monster. As a Jewish person it is my duty to my people to never let them forget what Stalin, Hitler, or Lenin did to us. You are wrong to support him and this debate is one of malice and spite created by someone who knows not what those men have caused my people whether Jew, German, Russian, or Italian to suffer.
Debate Round No. 1
benko12345678

Pro

1. You did not refute my entire argument and you did not provide any links. I'd advise you to go to my profile and read my former religious affiliation.I was also Jewish.
Second off, your entire argument is an appeal to emotion which I did not fall for. I respect you as a jehudi, BUT, you seem to completely ignore what socialism even is. My parents lived under socialism as well. I'm from Slovenia, the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, your personal experience is irrelevant and so is mine, I just threw it out there as a small factoid.

2. Your justification of how Stalin was a socialist was: 'Stalin did everything that every other communist leader did, executed his opponents, forced collectivization farms, established communes, centralized businesses under government control, and ruled unjustly with a biased eye and paranoid thought'
This is outright false and you provide no references to prove it. You are aware that even the allies during world war 2 committed atrocities? Every single leader in history killed their opponents. Also, this is irrelevant to this debate.
The Stalinist organization of collective farming was much closer to subsidized farming, a perennial mark of capitalism.
Stalin actually abolished the Comintern, which you should have known, if you read my argument.
Stalin continued SOME marxist economic ideals, but so have all the leaders of the modern era, do we call them socialists?
The statement that Stalin ruled unjustly is exactly the point of why he was not a true marxist...

3. Allow me to lecture you on something any person with a decent education should know. Socialism is the set of beliefs of common ownership and proletarian control of industry. You seem to claim: 'They were all murderers and you're a nut'
That is an obvious ad hominem attack, as well as a misunderstanding of history. Lenin did not murder Jews, Stalin murdered everyone, not just the Jews. That is why my argument is about why Stalin was NOT a socialist, which you failed to address. I propose you refute my first argument and my second one.

4. In hindsight, your argument is irrelevant and useless. I propose you actually read my argument when you try to refute it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, for my continuation.

At the most basic level, a Marxist communist society:
Is classless
Is stateless
Has no form of a currency
Has the means of production owned in common by all people.

Stalinism meets none of these requirements.

1) Stalinism does remove classes - see "kulaks" and "bourgeoisie" - but then creates new ones to fill the gaps while maintaining the pretense of a revolution. In essence, it's as hierarchical as capitalism, if not more so.

2) Stalinism does not abolish the state, it greatly expands it and its power, creating totalitarian police states ostensibly to "advance the revolution without the threat of saboteurs" etc. but actually to consolidate the power of the ruling elite.

3) Stalinism maintains currency and ration stamps as an element of coercion - the USSR, particularly in the early 30s during collectivization, used food, and currency - ration stamps, which ensured access to food - as a weapon against dissent on a near-unparalleled scale. Currency is a key feature and a key weapon of Stalinist states.

4) Stalinism does not have the means of production owned in common by all people, the state instead takes control of the means of production because it cannot trust the workers, whom it allegedly sets out to emancipate, with the responsibility of their workplaces - after all, they might speak out against the Dear Leader, now, mightn't they?

References:
[1]http://www.socialistrevolution.org...
[2]http://www.workerspower.net...
Hanspete

Con

Is my argument outright false can you prove that Stalin and other socialists/communist leaders did not do this??? What of Castro marching 1000 political opponents to their graves which they dug? What of Stalin putting 1 our of every 10 Russians in concentration camps? Do i really need sources to back up these proven atrocities? Of course the Allies committed atrocities thats part of being human! That doesn't excuse what they did in the least either! Collective Farms a perennial of Capitalism?!?!? I mean come on I work on a farm that's punny. for God's sake everyone in my family owns a small farm! Lenin didn't murder Jews, well of course he did, maybe not in mass but the possibility that their were Jews among those who resisted him is good. Your argument that communist societies are classless is true for the intent but wrong when in action. There are two communist classes, the ultra wealthy and everyone else. Has no state, wrong the state was what was intended to collect and redistribute everything evenly, without a state how could things be redistributed on a massive scale especially in a country as big as Russia? Your sources are not credible because they are written from a biased point of view so therefore in terms of sources we are on the same page. Want proof that I am telling the truth, look it up on wikipedia for God's Sake!
Debate Round No. 2
benko12345678

Pro

This is irrelevant to the debate. We're debating on whether or not Stalin was a socialist. Also, do we call the allies villains because of what they did? No, we do not.

You seem to be completely ignorant of what collective farming even is...
Small farms do not fit into this category. Subsidization (or in Stalin's case, collectivization) means incorporating a large farm to suit a business. Of course not all farms as subsidized, but that is irrelevant as well...
Just because some of the people that died during the revolution happened to be Jews doesn't mean Lenin committed a genocide.

'Your argument that communist societies are classless is true for the intent but wrong when in action. There are two communist classes, the ultra wealthy and everyone else.'

In a Stalinist society, this is true. Maybe check the policies of the SFRY.

'Has no state, wrong the state was what was intended to collect and redistribute everything evenly, without a state how could things be redistributed on a massive scale especially in a country as big as Russia?'

Your ignorance amazes me. Read any of Karl Marx's works, none of the incorporate the state or redistribution of wealth BY the state. Marxist theory proposes common ownership of enterprise, not ownership of the state. You seem to be defeating yourself here, as you are proving Stalin to not be a true socialist. A country as big as Russia is a problem. Exactly why Marxism is against such entities existing.

' Your sources are not credible because they are written from a biased point of view so therefore in terms of sources we are on the same page. Want proof that I am telling the truth, look it up on wikipedia for God's Sake!'

My links are not biased, I would like to see some citation for that. You're not even making an argument. You don't even seem to be aware of what Marxist theory EVEN IS. I suggest YOU look on wikipedia, or better yet, read the actual book.

STILL WAITING FOR AN ACTUAL REFUTATION.
Hanspete

Con

This debate sickens me so I refuse to refute such biased and egregious arguments posted by my competitor.
Debate Round No. 3
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
Precisely.
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
Stalin was a monopoly capitalist who didn't mind getting his hands dirty.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
For anyone interested here is the link to the new debate on this subject matter. http://www.debate.org...
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
Since they were never refuted...
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
Should I use the arguments I use in this debate?
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
@bendo12345678 I am ready whenever you are.
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
Vote, comrades, vote!
Posted by Malacoda 2 years ago
Malacoda
I love both of your profile pictures. Especially Hans.
Posted by STALIN 2 years ago
STALIN
Oh wow, a debate about me got on the front page.
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
I would be interested. We can begin tomorrow (I'm very tired right now)
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by YamaVonKarma 2 years ago
YamaVonKarma
benko12345678HanspeteTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: HansVonForfeiture
Vote Placed by SamStevens 2 years ago
SamStevens
benko12345678HanspeteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided actual sources and had better arguments. Con's arguments were poor. Con appealed to emotion which failed. The last round by con was atrocious. Conduct goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by STALIN 2 years ago
STALIN
benko12345678HanspeteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: ff by Con. Full 7 points to Pro.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
benko12345678HanspeteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Shocking behavior Con. If you want to debate a topic then you need to debate and not whine about something irrelevant. Clear winner is Pro. I was actually interested to see a debate that was historical and contested. Better luck next time Pro.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
benko12345678HanspeteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: All Con did was rant and a mixture of insults here and there. Conduct and Args Pro.
Vote Placed by Aithlin 2 years ago
Aithlin
benko12345678HanspeteTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO gave 6 reasons why Stalin was not a "true socialist". Rather than refuting them or providing relevant reasons of his own, CON went off topic; instead, he ranted on about Stalin's atrocities and what he supposedly deems as communism. By default, PRO wins based on arguments. Conduct goes to PRO; CON went off topic and insulted PRO. I'm inclined to give Sources to PRO as well because CON's conduct was exceptionally bad, but I'll refrain for now.
Vote Placed by AdamKG 2 years ago
AdamKG
benko12345678HanspeteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't even have need to read the entire debate before I knew who won. Con had poor conduct but was truly rude at the end. Pro's arguments were clearly well-educated and structured. Meanwhile, con's arguments look like it was just thrown together haphazardly with no research or structure whatsoever. Con did not appear to use sources. While I question some of pro's sources that may be biased, at least he had them.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
benko12345678HanspeteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff at rudeness at the end
Vote Placed by Ajabi 2 years ago
Ajabi
benko12345678HanspeteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I take Con's last round to be a concession of sorts. His conduct is utterly despicable, and I hope he can learn proper debate etiquette before continuing on this site. Arguments for Con's concession, Conduct because Con insulted Pro. Happy to clarify this rfd!
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
benko12345678HanspeteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: con insulted pro and gave up.