Stalinism is better than democracy

Perhaps superseding Stalin's fearful image with "though it may have caused his own death" in a way invalidates whatever point you're making on the topic, but the claim that the system of terror in some way fortified the system is ludicrous. Instead of avoid mistakes, advisers and cabinet members would simply not tell Stalin what was actually happening for fear of reprisal. Additionally, doing a superb job did not in any way ensure your safety from the psychopath. Stalin earned his reputation in a large part by executing many of his greatest generals and most efficient workers. (1) The system of tyranny and desperation was so severe that Stalin's wife actually killed herself. (2) This cannot form the basis for a 20th century government, and certainly did not act to improve the country. 2. I would like to see some hard evidence of this campaign of discrediting the USSR that you claim has been inflicted on Russians. While Stalin's predecessors gently condemned some of his more extreme actions, they generally agreed with his philosophy. Meanwhile, under Putin, the state-media has been quite, shall we say, Soviet recently, chugging out mountains of propaganda against the west and in praise of the Russian tradition dating back to the czars. (3) 3. It is completely irrelevant whether Stalin or his followers divided opinion on the country; it's still a critique and an evisceration of the system. As under any political system, different opinions inevitably rose from the oppressive and tumultuous state, and while Stalin had great power, because the system did not accept and work with these differences like a democracy, but instead attempted to cling on to its absolutist despot roots, the system was doomed to falter and fall come Stalin's death. 4, Indeed, much growth was won under Stalin. (Although similar growth was also won under Roosevelt) The cost, however, included a potential nuclear war, millions of productive workers, some of Russia's greatest political and bureaucratic talent, Stalin's life, and the continued survival of the country. It cost the US absolutely nothing. Basically, Growth was achieved at the cost of Stalinism. I appreciate that my opponent has finally gotten around to proving their case with an attack on democracy. 2. Critique of Democracy The beautiful thing about democracy is that participation is completely optional. Indeed, there are many stupid and ignorant people living in the United States and in Europe, but these are likely the same group that does not vote, and led to approximately 60% turnout in the 2012 presidential election. (4) While there will inexorably be ignoramuses voting, there will also be intellectuals and the informed to balance this out. Stalinism, in contrast, relies on one self-appointed person to run everything, and thus suffers from the same problem as fascism: all it takes is a single stupid leader, and the system collapses. Millions of stupid people in a democracy, and nothing turns for the worst. Having all the information is helpful, but in no way vital in making decisions. There is a difference between lacking certain levels of understanding and "knowing absolutely nothing". Stalin never wasted time with facts, but came to a decision based on little to no input at all. Some voters are like this, while others are knowledgeable and can come to a reasonable and tenable position. Once again, the difference is that Stalin's ignorance hurt a lot, while the voters' very little. Good luck to my opponent in the final round. (1) . http://www.fsmitha.com... (2) . http://www.nytimes.com... (3) . http://imrussia.org... (4) . http://www.businessinsider.com...