>>1835823> by the fact the workers arenāt ideological socialists in the same sense as anti Stalin leftists are."Workers" as a group are not entitled to a certain ideology, but it would not be hard to assume that most of them are apolitical, and the ones who aren't are easily manipulated by reactionary propaganda to go against their own benefits.
It would not be also hard to assume that the latter is not the norm. As a class, the proletariat would chose for their own benefits, independent of their ideals. For example, any form of sectarism in trade unions or workers organizations in capitalist society, is just silly. The "social democrat" trade union will want better wages, restrictions to unsafe working conditions, more worker rights in general, etc.The same as any other left wing trade union, and even apolitical or right wing trade unions. Their main goal is still the same, but the methods and appearance differ. If the worker is given more "bureaucratic power" or a bigger share in the decision making of the socialist state, even if the voice of the worker is not socialist, as long as it doesn't undermine or pose a threat to the Union, then at least is a concession. And concessions and reforms have an appeal to make the masses more satisfied(Not that the Soviet Union under stalin was a bureaucratic dictatorship that undermine all workers voice, on the contrary). If there is such a thing as a conflict between the interests of the vanguard and the interests of certain group of workers, both parties can be reasonable in their demands and come into an agreement.
>In addition, the comments that Stalinism represents some dominance of the Bureaucracy over the workers is bit bizarre given how āpureā Socialism as advocated by people whoād call themselves āanti-Stalinistsā isnāt even in the interests of the workers themselves.Not too much related to Stalinism, but my biggest problem with them and the Soviet Union itself is that, as it seems, and correct me if i am wrong, there was no major educational effort to teach the workers how to manage the State in the future or to understand the major concepts of socialism and its strands.
From what i understand of Lenin, in the few pieces i read, the Soviet Union would undergo a period of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, guided by the vanguard party, not only to secure their survival and expand the means of production, undergo industrialization and autarky, but to ensure that the state would be in a constant stage of change and reform, where the divisions between "Vanguard" and "Worker" would decrease so much that there would be no need of a vanguard anymore, and the state would "wither away", reaching the "latter stage" of communism.
I am not a historian to really know or understand the history of the laws and methods of voting under the soviet union, so i am probably typing gibberish, but from what i heard in other threads, even the old Russian citizens anons know, most, if not all of them, could not explain what this "communism" was all about. Maybe as a result of Khrushchov more then Stalin or anyone else, but still. Of course , if given the opportunity, the vanguard can and probably should hold the monopoly of power to ensure the survival of the soviet state. That doesn't mean that is "impossible" to hold a "controlled opposition" (China probably the best example of this) to give some concessions and a sense of control and independence.
Post too long, i don't know what i meant by any of that