Stalinism is better than democracy

The first necessary step it seems is to define Stalin-ism. Dictionary.org defines the philosophy as "the bureaucratic, authoritarian exercise of state power and mechanistic application of Marxist-Leninist principles associated with Stalin." (1) Essentially, Stalin-ism offers totalitarianism in the stead of freedom or universal suffrage and brutal reprisal in the stead of cooperation or companionship. While Stalin's horrendous crimes against human decency and basic rights should not be neglected, this debate primarily focuses on the success of the state he ruled from 1928-53. (2)My opponent's thesis focuses on the points of stability, productivity, and unity, and thus will be my opening focus on this debate.Stability: I count it unnecessary to define stability, as it can refer to a broad spectrum of phenomena. Generally, stability is the state of not being set to collapse or in a precarious position to do so. This label cannot be placed on Stalin's USSR, politically, internationally, nor with regard to the future. While my opponent praises Stalin's harsh response to any and all opposition within Russian territories, I would argue that it is Stalin's very policies which inspired this dangerous dissent and made violence necessary. In response to Trotsky's unfortunate end, many members, a majority in fact, of Stalin's own party turned against him and threatened to overthrow Stalin and put Trotsky back in place. Stalin, in his usual subtle manner, had all of these people executed along with their families. (3) Similarly, Lenin issued a challenge, for which he was murdered, followed by a near peasant revolt, which again was put down with great suffering. (4) I would submit that a country and a leader who require such awful measures simply to guarantee the stability of their authoritarian system is perhaps not in as great a position as imagined. On a diplomatic and international level, the USSR was a bit like a suicide bomber in that the war it wished to wage, and attempted to begin on many occasions, promised only complete destruction and desolation. Perhaps my opponent will disagree, but nuclear-based mutually assured destruction strikes me as neither a sound nor stable foreign policy. The USSR was one mistake away from such the greatest human tragedy in history, and possibly the last one, and the wayward nation almost made that error in 1963. Being on the brink of war for 20+ years is surely impressive, but not particularly stable. When Stalin was in the throws of a vicious stroke in 1953, doctors refused to treat him, fearing the same fate as other physicians who had dared to try and assist their dictator. Stalin died on March 1st, a momentous day in the progress of humanity that should really be a holiday, or at least noted annually. Nevertheless, the confusion stemming from his death sent the USSR on a perpetual decline, despite it not technically collapsing for another 30-40 years. The parties of Russia at the time fought so long and violently, that a new president, Nikita Khrushchev, did not emerge victorious until 1956 (5), and the USSR was plagued by infighting until the very end. Once again, the nation was not in any way stable, and only out of sheer luck managed to avoid collapsing in a vile revolution or a ballooning mushroom cloud.Productivity: Although the word can have many different meanings, it is likely that my opponent refers to the Soviet economy. I must ask how he can say this in a serious intellectual debate? The Stalinist System is among the most spectacular failures of any country in history. (6) Like all other aspects of governance, Stalin chose bureaucratic micromanagement and fiscal despotism to run the economy, which was simply put, a mess. Among the problems were the following:1. Because the rewards for work were so petty, despite millions of what were essentially slave workers, and forced technology advancements, very little got done comparatively to what could be accomplished in the west. As one mine "worker" put it, "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work". As a result, potential was wasted, progressed was slowed, and people suffered. (7)2. The US continually throughout the Cold War spent several times more for military expenditures than the USSR. However, because of the inefficiency and weakness of the Soviet economy, the country ailed, while the US economy kept expanding. "First there was a visible decline in the rate of growth, then its complete stagnation. There was a drawnout, deepening and almost insurmountable crisis in agriculture. It was a frightening and truly terrifying sign of crisis. It was these factors that were crucial in the transition to perestroika." (8)3. As Stalin and his successors could not risk Russians discovering their failures, like the massive fallout from the Five Year's Plan (9), they deleted all records. This being as a consequence of the system, the errors made and the abuses conducted could never be unearthed or fixed or responded to. A leader with malevolent motivations could not do such a thing in a democratic system, and this sort of cover-up is not just possible, but really demanded under a Stalinist rule.For a very concrete application of the 3 points I just made, here is a graph mapping the Soviet economy's weakening from when Stalin took over in 1928, through his supreme presidency, and up until the 80's. Unity/ Fraternity:As fraternity was one of the few things my opponent addressed in his second round, I will throw it in there. Needless to say, fraternity in a democracy is a result of political and social equality, as well as a common happiness stemming from the system. In 1953, when Stalin was on his deathbed, he screamed from his chambers. Physicians, guards, and family members were nearby or outside, but noone came to help him, because of how psychotic he was. Is this fraternity? Is this loyalty to one's leader? (10). No, Stalin would die alone, as he should, and an age of quiet desperation and political domination ended. The only fraternity in the USSR under Stalin was the opposition and the common man struggling for existence under the yoke of Leftist fascism. I could write and dictate for hours on this topic, but my opponent leaves me with little need to, based on his first round argument. Until I receive more material to work with, I will leave my arguments as such. Good luck to my adversary.(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(3) (4) http://historyofrussia.org...(5) http://en.wikipedia.org...(6) (7) (8) http://www.sjsu.edu...(9) http://www.hoover.org...(10)