Why did no one kill Stalin? Everyone must have hated him but still he's just one man...

XD upvoted

He was loved by the people.

>I remember some red army soldier tried to shoot Stalin in 1942
when did this happen?

/thread

Or else.

Yeah, just like all those North Koreans who were weeping at the loss of their great leader.

I mean, showing a little praise for your leader is better than getting sent to a Gulag, right?

Interesting...

Stalin kept a loyal inner circle of people like Mikhail Kalinin and Alexander Poskrebyshev who performed sensitive functions but were effectively powerless.

they did
he died like a poisoned rat

Only kulaks and shitty capitalists hate Stalin or communism in general.

P.S. USSR was state capitalism with some socialist elements

inb4 "NEVER BEEN TRIED LOL LOLOLOOLOOL"

Gulag yourselves.

A lot of people (especially in his inner circle) were pretty fucking devoted to him, and the ones that weren't devoted to him he had killed/imprisoned/their wives imprisoned.
Also it's pretty god damned likely that it was Beria who killed him, so there's that.

Stalin killed literally everybody who had even the slightest potential to threaten him.

/leftypol/ go home, your stale memes weren't original at HQ and they're not original now.

Yeah bruh just walk in on the most paranoid man in history and shoot him like lmao what's the worst that could happen? His guards torturing you to death? Sending your entire country down the civil war path again?

Reminder that Stalin died alone because everyone around him was so scared of bothering him that they left him alone in his room for 3 days before even daring to check on him.

Wait... so Stalin was a capitalist, but only capitalists hate him???

Can somebody who isn't from /leftypol/ attempt to decipher this shit?

Fuck off, Stalin was actually just a different color fascist. Support for him to any degree is antithetical to pretty much everything that socialism is about. Read Marx, read Gramsci, read Lenin.

>Proletariat
>Bourgeois
>Porkie
There you go, have some more commie buzzwords.

In 1942 senpai damn

He was killed though, by that degenerate fuck Beria.

State capitalism is where the state does all the factory running, instead of capitalists. Socialism, by definition, is where the workers do all the factory running.

Same reason people don't kill other dictators. They're brainwashed to respect them and they have little privacy or secrecy and any hint of going against their leader gets them killed. It is thought though that he may have been poisoned in 53.

>the workers do all the factory running.
Wouldn't this inevitably lead to some workers becoming the leaders and giving themselves increased powers and wages in exchange for the responsibility of running the factory?

How would they do that if their position in the factory depends on the support of those under them? They could be "physically removed" as they say. Doesn't even need to be that extreme though, they could easily just stop going to work or stop the abusive workers from coming to work.

He died aged 74. It's perfectly likely that he simply died of natural causes.

Perhaps the workers would eventually realize that only a handful of them are intelligent/experienced enough to actually run the factory and would promote them to positions in which they would run the factory.

I'm not aware of any evidence that Beria killed Stalin. And if he did, it sure was a dumb idea on Beria's part given what happened soon afterward.

>implying Best Korea isn't literally the greatest country in the world
Shut up zionist

Right. Leave it to the workers to decide how to organize their workplace. A person should have a say in the decisions that affect them.

Beria was falling out of favor and was probably in line to be purged along with the rest of the remainders of the old guard (like Molotov). He had already been removed from the head of NKVD and was no longer needed for the atomic bomb project AND a lot of the soviet leadership hated his fucking guts (rightfully so).
Beria was probably doomed either way, but by killing the fuck he gave himself a chance.
This is of course assuming that Beria wasn't just claiming credit for circumstance which would not be out of character for him.

The fact Franz Ferdinand was shot was a bit of a fluke (the rest of the assassins/the original polot failed and Princip happened to run into the Archduke's car after)

also, the fact it happened in an occupied region and...fucking Austria-Hungary.

On the other hand, you have a leader so paranoid he rarely did public appearance (Franz Ferdinand was in a drop-top car in the middle of a city ffs!), purged everyone remotely opposed to him, and built a police state that only North Korea can rival

Get the gas

>Leave it to the workers to decide how to organize their workplace

But they'll appoint a person who is corrupt and then lose everything.
Or they'll appoint a darn good leader, and then suddenly they don't run shit anymore.

>Leave it to the workers to decide how to organize their workplace

Why are employee-owned companies present in free markets, but manager-owned companies banned in socialist environments?

Why is it that in a "capitalist country" like the USA, the Amish are allowed to live peacefully in their communes, but in socialist countries, private ownership, or in some cases, the use of money, banned?

Why is it that only when private ownership is allowed to thrive in "special economic zones" that these socialist economies actually work?

>Soviets: loyalty or i'll fucken kill you
>NKorea: raised from birth to adore their leader as a supernatural being of cosmic superiority, the highest achievement would be to die for Dear Leader
You might want to read that last one again, the first one is comprehensible to a westerner, but the second seems a bit outlandish or extreme.
It's 100% true, there is indoctrination from the ground up, in the same way USA citizens only really learn their history, their geography, NKoreans only learn and hear about Dear Leader, all day every day. Not even a failed state, a death cult owned by a single family.
The people in that picture are sincere.
1984 was a good book, but NK made it work, putting down rebellions with weapons is primitive western shit, removing the possibility of thinking of dissent is pro-tier Asian.

Stalin only made nine public appearances between 1939 and 1953, not counting the high-security meetings with allied leaders

>Why is it that in a "capitalist country" like the USA, the Amish are allowed to live peacefully in their communes, but in socialist countries, private ownership, or in some cases, the use of money, banned?
Because in the USA the Amish attract few converts and are in no way a standing indictment of the prevailing system. If they were, or if they achieved wealth or influence, they'd be WACO'd by DEA agents.
Pretty much the same for the opposite case, successful alternatives are corrosive to the powers that be.
Socialist economies have to fight sanctions and embargoes as they face the same pressures on a global scale.
Strangely, the USA made Iraq into a de-facto socialist country with it's trade restrictions and punitive measures against anyone who traded with them. Still managed to spend 1.1 billion arming Hussein though.
Be rich and powerful, crush others and say they deserved it for being essentially inferior, same old same old.

>they'd be WACO'd by DEA agents.

No they wouldn't.

I guess you're right though, communist countries have to fight sanctions in the world market. But so does every country.
The point is, capitalism+state intervention is a shit show a la USSR, by your admittance.
But communism+state intervention fails in the same way.
So the best we can do in this discussion is hypothesize a world where states don't intervene and see what we have fundamentally.

Under capitalism, we have individuals negotiating trade on their own terms.
Under communism, it's forcibly arbitrated.

He was paranoid as fuck. The only people he was willing to surround himself with were total sycophants who would never dream of backstabbing him, with the occasional sadist who he tolerated because he was too good at his job to kill (e.g., Beria). He very rarely made public appearances, and only then under tight security. If there were dissidents who managed to avoid the NKVD/MVD, they would probably be sold out by others, either out of fear of persecution by association or hopes of getting on Stalin's good side.

He had a look alike to deliver speeches too.

Stalin was mostly a threat to the bureaucratic elite. While he did send millions of normal people to prison camps, most common Soviet citizens also identified him with industrialization and, later, defense from the German onslaught. While Stalin was objectively a brutal killer, his constituents and their contemporary descendants take a far more nuanced view of his career than Westerners.

thestalinproject.org

Soviet citizens were legitimately bereaved when he died.

Management isn't ownership

They're usually not identical even under capitalism

But that's exactly what eventually happened.

The only people who he let close to him were usually ethnic Georgians who stood to gain from his regime and would be screwed without him.

Also he kept about a system where everyone suspected one another and nobody dared make a move or risk conspirating for fear the other person could dob them in and they'd be found out.

>Le based commies :D
>Le based genocide

that was because Stalin was awful at riding a horse - he WANTED to lead it and was very bitter towards Zhukov.

>On top of that Stalin's cult of personality made it so that people couldn't really think of anyone else leading the country than old uncle Joseph.
This is exactly what pic related has been doing for the past 17 and a half years.

Most Russians seem to vote for him because 'there's nobody better', precisely because he and his cronies have long since eliminated them all

>publically claiming credit for the murder of the head of a totalitarian state, one of the most brutal leaders in human history, who murdered anyone who opposed him and filled the top party ranks with those loyal to him
How could he POSSIBLY have thought this was a good idea?

Did everyone in Stalin's circle secretly hate him too? I would think the loyalists would be angry watching Beria gloat about murdering their God Emperor.

He effectively killed himself by putting so much fear into his guards that when he finally had a stroke nobody went to check on him, because he didn't want to be disturbed

>If they were, or if they achieved wealth or influence, they'd be WACO'd by DEA agents.
They migrated and settled land in the 1800s. It was long before that was even a issue.

Here we are again

>/leftypol/ 'humor'

>eliminated them all
Like who?

>Stalin's cult of personality made it so that people couldn't really think of anyone else leading the country
You think Stalin invented that?
Russians have always had an authoritarian government, remember the Romanov Dynasty that they had for a few hundred years? And ever since the they have resorted back to only have dictatorships.

>You think Stalin invented that?
No, I'm saying the opposite. As you say, Russians have always had leaders acting this way.

I can't remember any names, but it's widely accepted that Putin has been doing since the beginning. If you look it up, you'll find more than enough proof that it's true. Otherwise, you're just being difficult.

But Putin did improve the economy and living standards. Russia was Somalia tier in the 90s.

>guy asks for examples
>i dunno dude lmao just search it up urself or ur just being difficult xD!

again ownership and management aren't the same thing. if the manager is corrupt the owners (workers) can force then out

he had ways of controling people and selecting those who arent suicidal

>implying there actually IS anybody better than Putin to lead Russia
He pretty much single-handedly got his country out of the gutter and made it a great power again, without ever turning full despot. Of course, he tried to disqualify any opposition, but to be fair, it's difficult to imagine said opposition doing a better job than he did.

Owning a gun was always illegal in Russia but it never stopped anyone. Especially not post WW2.
We still have WW2 loot floating around and that's after a ton of disarming campaigns in the 90s.

The entire region was having a massive economic recovery.

Putin just took credit for it so he could embezzle more money at the cost of the Russian populace.

Now show Ukraine, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and say that the entire region is recovering with a straight face again.
Sharpshooting stats is not an argument, whether you're right or not about the point of discussion.

Certainly if you're managing the company you deserve extra compensation for your troubles but you get ousted by your angry underlings for being unfair so someone else steps up and certainly if they're managing the company they deserve extra compensation for their troubles....repeat until out of people able to effectively manage the company.
The former managers start their own companies and are now owners, workers get what they can take, stay jobless, or seize the means of production in a vicious cycle until the entire nation starves due to the tantrums of the unwashed workers.
Socialism is actually fantasy. The entire ideology is displacing one boss for another who's title is now manager and still makes more than you because being a mindless worker isn't a marketable skill? But it's okay because you and some other walking, talking assembly lines DECIDED who would be the new king? Does R E A L communism work on barter system? How is raising wages 400% going to help with goods being raised 1000%? It's like the perfect tool to progress your country straight back into the stoneage. Currency collapses, trade collapses, society collapses.
But it's okay.
Because they added a new breakroom.

>The people in that picture are sincere.
That's not what genuine crying people look like

Beria did.

>collectivization
>efficient
yet private plots turned out to be more efficient than the collective farms

Estonia is right next to Russia.

Unlike Russia, Estonia has no oil.

I could do all of the FSU states, you'll see the pattern in almost all of the European ones.

>Putin
>efficient at anything other than maintaining his buddies in power and keeping Russia's vast resources from benefiting anyone else

vatniks plz go

>>>>>great power again

What's going on in this thread?

nothing

Stalin simply removed all the intelligentsia and party elites/ideologues who hated his guts for being an ordinary "Russian" once he was in the position to appoint people in the party. And who did he appoint in their place? Ordinary, poor people without education like himself who only wanted a decent standard of living. Stalin gave that to people and they would be fiercely devoted to him in the party. Ideologically straight bolsheviks were the last thing you'd find after Stalin was done.

>Stalin simply removed all the intelligentsia and party elites/ideologues who hated his guts for being an ordinary "Russian" once he was in the position to appoint people in the party.
>"Russian"
>""
What did you mean by this? It was common knowledge that Stalin was Georgian.

>Why did no one kill Stalin?

The Jews tried to do this, but failed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors'_plot

literally 3 states out of the 15 constituents are doing well, and the pattern with them is that they were absorbed into the western sphere, russia was too big for that, Ukraine too important for russia for the west to tread on it(at least for a while) and the rest weren't interesting enough.
Your argument holds no water

3 who are in europe*

What's the evidence that Khrushchev killed Stalin? That theory seems to be the tankie equivalent to the stab-in-the-back myth

Stalin wasn't responsible for any genocide. The Holodomor was exacerbated by political factors, but not man-made.

Everyone loved him because he was a good guy.

Adding to that, the gulag worked as an exacerbated prison, and only a bit more than a quarter of prisoners were politically motivated (leading to 4 million detained), and aprox. 800K were murdered, while 600K starved to death (most of them in the absolutely terrible years of 37-38).

The number of prisoners in Gulag total was 2 million on a regular basis. These numbers contrarrest in themselves the images of pure profanity that are fed regularly about the places. This is if the NKVD secret archives, analized by V. Kemskov are to be believed, which I personally do, given that the URSS was amongst all a bureocratic hellhole.

The moral conclusions from this data are up to you. I personally find it horrific.

Russian Wikipedia has a whole page dedicated to Assassination attempts on Stalin ->

history.stackexchange.com/questions/1707/were-there-any-attempts-to-assassinate-joseph-stalin

HE CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT

>great power
no you dumb slav, you dominate the airwaves, that doesn't make you a great power.

He was a fascist promoting a morally collect ideology (communism). Therefore, nothing is wrong with his form of fascism as it isn't based upon false constructs such as racial superiority.

>le famine is genocide meme

it's based on the false construct of equality though

Not knowing if this guy is serious or not is why i love Veeky Forums

So was Nero.

This is true, but it leaves out one of the reasons, which is that, whenever the Soviet government under Stalin did unpopular things, people other than Stalin took the fall for it. Kaganovich got the destruction of the Moscow Cathedral, Budyenniy was blamed for Barbarossa, and Voroshilov blamed for how many were lost in the Winter War. Yes, I'm sure everyone knew Stalin ran the government, but a lot of Stalin loyalists were willing to take the fall for him when his plans fell through.