Was Stalin a Progressive or a Conservative?

https://www.studymode.com/essays/Was-Stalin-a-Progressive-Or-a-39480454.html

Although Stalin was a progressive in the economic aspect that he implemented the First and Second Five-Year Plans, which developed industry in Russia, as well as in the social aspect that he put forth a new education system, Stalin more so portrayed elements of conservatism.

continued

 

The terms progressive and conservative in this context have no meaning, as progression and regression only make sense in reference to a goal or value set.

Stalin was above all else a psychopath set on controlling everyone around him. You do this by consolidating power in as few hands as possible and controlling those people completely.

Still, he only had the benefit of technology over his predecessors. Julius Caesar would have if he could have. History is ****ed up. Lots of pure evil people, and most of them got into positions of power.

 

Positing a political nexus that actually makes sense as opposed to various prevailing Complex fallacies and abstractions that inevitably abuse shorthand terms such as "left," "right," "conservative," "liberal" :

More government control versus individual freedom = more Left. More individual freedom versus government control = more Right.

Therefore, it's a simple matter to categorize any larger government, more authoritarian regime as LW and any smaller government, less authoritarian regime as RW.

Time to put away all the other confusing, abstract, dishonest, self-serving gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex nonsense with respect to "who was what" type of government.

Stalin was a far left progressive.

 

If you’re trying to compare Stalin to conservatives here in the US, I call this a poor attempt at trolling.

 

The corporate welfare state doesn't exist without big government. Individual freedom is right-wing code for corporatists to have their cost of
doing business socialized by the taxpayers, consumers, and workers.

 

Interesting.

Are we now seeing an effort to classify the concept of individual freedom as an evil objective?

 

I always thought he was a classic tryant posing under the guise of comrade leader.

 

Just trying to settle the issue of definitions.. nobody agrees on the meaning of socialism and fascism ...

 

Socialism bad. Fascism bad. Communism bad.

Capitalism good.

 

Stalin was a leftist. One of the leaders of the Socialist movement in Russia...which ended up destroying the nation and many around it. Socialism, leftist ideological beliefs are horrible.

 

This does not describe "left" and "right". This describes authoritarian and libertarian.

 

Nope. Stalin was a hard right conservative like all Fascists.

 

The further left you go in politics, the larger and more powerful the government becomes.

At the far end on the right is the U.S. in 1776. A libertarian’s dream.

At the far left is North Korea in 2019.

 

You consider North Korea to be liberal left wing? Really? REALLY? Have you dumped your gyro?

 

Stalin wasn't a fascist. He was a communist.

Mussolini was a fascist.

Revionist history employed by either side is intellectually dishonest.

 

In the ideal society there is no greed for wealth and no lust for power. Government is only necessary for communal projects (infrastructure, education , etc.) Individual freedom is as total as it can be.

However, greed and lust for power seem to be very human traits, and government is necessary to limit and control those instincts. Without proper government / societal controls it is possible for a sick individual to rise to dictator. We can argue about too much government control or not enough government control. Obviously, like many things, we need to find the proper balance.

 

And Woodrow Wilson was a Progressive Socialist who had his own personal slave for most of his childhood.

 

hahahhha another leftist trying to rewrite history. Stalin was a hardcore follower of Marxist.....

moreover Fascism has nothing to do with what Americans call conservative, conservatives in America deal with believing in the terms outlines in the Dec of Independence and US Constitution....and is actually closer to socialism. Facism has strong central power, and intense regulation of the economy. Which is very similar to socialism in that regard, but socialism, which is what Stalin followed, went further and included Govt ownership of the means of production...there was no private property.

 

You keep talking and I'll keep laughing.

Stalin was a hard left socialist, like all 'progressive' liberals......Lenin, Trotsky, Chavez, Castro, Hitler come to mind

 

Hitler tried to eradicate ALL socialists and communists.

 

In modern parlance Fascist is synonymous with "bully"...

 

Ah no...it has a specific meaning...I know folks throw it around, but this thread was discussing political terms

 

It's perfectly fine and useful to describe left and right also. Otherwise they prove to be nebulous, unworkable abstractions distorted towards certain ideological claims.

"Libertarian," btw, is a U.S. political party founded in the 70s, and not a political ideology or philosophy. I am guilty of misusing the term as well because it is useful shorthand, but that misuse has caused lots of mischief. "Authoritarian" is also unworkably vague; you can see LW misusing that constantly on the forum in their typical hilarious moronics of claiming that people who want less government and more individual control are somehow "authoritarians."

It's time to do away with all the vagueness of abstraction-based political nomenclature and taxonomy. A simple "more gov = more left" "less gov = more right" nexus does exactly that. Or better yet, let's do away with the counterproductive abstractions "left, right, conservative, liberal" altogether in favor of more precise, useful terminology.

Better comparisons such as "collectivist v individulalist" exist. Time for us to start using them and demand propagandists use clear language or be discounted.

 

It is perfectly inaccurate. Left and right has nothing to do with the amount of government control.

The etymology of the word predates the political parties use by some 200 years, and solidified in the use by Proudhon and later Bastiat's the liberal party in France. They sat to the left (we were the original left prior to the Marxist incorrectly abducting the position)

No it doesn't. The right in America demand just as government as the left. They are both authoritarian.

 

Says you, I say otherwise. I am well aware of the etymology of the semantic nullities "left" and "right."

And it's a complete falsehood that the RW in America "demand just as much government as the left" especially post Trump Movement, launched on things like "draining the swamp," lowering taxes and reducing regulations. That's -not- "authoritarian" under any definition. The RW does respond more to local law and order themes, but that's less "authoritarian" and more public safety and welfare. And no, they are not "both authoritarian." False dichotomy is false.