|| His thinking might be
|| subtler than some of the things you are saying here. Stalin
|| follows Lenin pretty closely , so that would make you way off.
||
No actually it confirms what I was called a "dogmatist" for: Stalinism is the logical conclusion of Leninism. Notice I haven't used the word opportunism, which I certainly would have if I were to match your tone.
^^^^^
CB:
It confirms that you are anti-Sovieteer, with the tiresome, typical claim that Lenin was a dogmatist, and Stalin was a dogmatist. When I showed you non-mechanical discussion in Dimitrov you got indignant because it didn't fit your stereotype of Leninists as dogmatic thinkers. Also, it is not true that every leader must make some big creative contribution to theory. The situation of the SU after Lenin's death called for more practical application of his general concepts than a lot of creative theoretical development. In such a situation, following Lenin's principles is not accurately portrayed as dogmatism.
(Your tone is too sharp to criticize my tone)
^^^^^^
|| That's about as vulgar as your portrayal of Stalin's thinking.
|| There's a lot of "good"
|| mixed with a lot of bad. Sorry . That's life. Complicated.
Again, I don't see what makes you think you can lecture me, buddy.
^^^^^^^^ CB: That's a pretty short "lecture". More like an email comment.
As I say, your comments have been fairly sharp, so don't dish it out if you can't take it.
^^^^^^
If you want to exonerate Stalinism, that's your problem and your burden of proof.
^^^^^^^^
CB: No, you don't get to decide who has the burden of proof either. The Soviet Union accomplished many positive things. The burden is on you to explain how that happened under Stalinism.
^^^^^
Don't take it for a foregone conclusion. I live next door to the countries Stalin and Dimitrov created, remember? The violent sectarianism of their ideological offspring, which I've had to endure for decades, actually made the 1980 military coup something of a relief.
Hakki
^^^^^^^^^^
CB: Characterising what I have said as proceeding from a foregone concluision is not accurate. I have put forth evidence supporting what I have said, to the extent that is normal on email.
I live in a country which the Soviet Union targeted with nuclear weapons. (This is another example of sarcasm in your tone)
Big men don't make history . Masses of people do. Neither country was made by the individual leaders.