This house believes that Stalin was not a socialist

As a totalitarian socialist I condone all socialist/communist regimes, however, in this debate I make the claim that Josef Stalin was not a socialist. In this debate I establish that: This is a debate on whether or not Josef Stalin was a socialist. Your personal opinion on what is and is not moral is irrelevant. Definition of socialism: '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. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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? Links: [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://soviethistory.macalester.edu... [5]http://www.socialistrevolution.org... [6]http://www.workerspower.net...