Stalin, etc.

Xxxzx Xyyxyz musides at SPAMadelaide.on.net
Sun Aug 8 02:45:19 MDT 1999




<excerpt>describes factory meetings were directors got terrible
roastings from the

workforce, who were quite sure that Stalin was on their side

</excerpt>

 And this was key, yes? Not Socialism, not economic sense, but being on
<italic>Stalin's</italic> side. It happens, you point out, that Stalin
was right many times; and so in it had to be that way (because of
historical circumstances), and so Stalin is vindicated.


 What I am most interested to learn is why it was necessary for Stalin
to have absolute authority; how one person having absolute authority
can be Socialist, which if my understanding is correct, is defined as a
workers' state?




>they knew what was allowed and what was not;

>there was a kind of social contract here, and it worked.


 The workers are in a Contrat social: they can abuse their boses but
cannot dispute (so cannot vote on) legislature. Fearful bosses and
obidient workers. Wonderful system for a dictator.



Xxxzx
</x-rich>








More information about the Marxism mailing list