Stalin was a communist. He was not a capitalist,
What's indeed not a fact but an interesting question. What is the role of party bigwigs in a "part"-y which controls everyone and everything and which is totalitarian under control of only one Trump? How fits this with any theory at all?
The basic idea of communism "property is theft" - better to say "property is not self-made" - is for sure not really wrong in case of some few hundred families in the world. But this some few hundred families own more than 90% of everything.
I fear whether someone likes this or not: We will need a new system of economy in the world. 100-150 years ago most people were farmers and were able to produce everything - with hard work - what they needed. In the world today it is impossible to survive without money. And it becomes more and more diffcult not to become a slave of others and to seed an own money tree, so no one has to die on hunger, because he is able to buy food.
The role of one leader is precisely what is called for in communism as it develops. Marx clearly stated that a dictagtorship is required for a while.
No idea what Marx said - after 50 pages I closed the boring book "Das Kapital". I know he said for example "I am not a Marxist". And sentences like "the dictatorship of the proletariat (=working class)" is not the dictatorship of a single person. and whether a tyrant with a slaveholder mentality is a Communist or a Capitalist is the same to me.
The dictatorship of the proletariate does not have to be limited to dictatorship by one person but that is what it refers to.
Dictatorship is dictatorship whether or not one hangs a qualifier on it or not.
You answered too fast and too flat.
Here again what I wrote:
-----
No idea what Marx said - after 50 pages I closed the boring book "Das Kapital". I know he said for example "I am not a Marxist". And sentences like "the dictatorship of the proletariat (=working class)" is not the dictatorship of a single person. and whether a tyrant with a slaveholder mentality is a Communist or a Capitalist is the same to me. Nevertheless it is far from justice to give everything to some few people and nothing to billions.
By the way - do you know the text of the Commie anthem "Die Internationale". When the socialist state GDR still existed I wondered myselve often about why the dictators of this tyranny did not arrest everyone who sang this song.
-----
Dictatorship of the proletariate is indeed the dictatorship of one person.
That's without logic.
Any dictatorship could be more than one person such as a regime or junta but in general it is one person and what marx meant which is why Stalion was a communist following the plan even if slightly tweaked.
Short: I am not a Commie and Capitalism means also nothing to me. No idea what you try to criticize. It is nevertheless still far from justice to give everything to some few people and nothing to billions.
It is perfectly logical. One dictator can easily grow or emerge out of the proletariate class.
Wealth and the making of wealth has nothing to do with justice and wealth is not given.
Inequality of wealth and income is in fact perfectly just and harms NO ONE.
Depends on if it is earned or not.
The reality is that most wealth is not earned and then income inequality is not just and is harmful.
For example, I own a bunch of rental properties, that I could lie and say I am providing a service for people who can not otherwise have a place to live.
But the reality is all I did was come up with a low down payment and credit rating, that not only allowed me to buy the property, but then got the tenant to pay for it.
The mortgage is lower than what I can get in rent, and the tax exemptions, like for mortgage interest, maintenance, etc., are all gravy.
Every place I have ever worked, the employees get less than a third what they actually produce.
The only reason the owners get the major share is that they have a monopoly on the capital needed to procure the means of production. And it is not at all clear they deserve nearly as much as they take for a return on their risk.
And the problem is that the investors with the monopoly on capital are short sighted and ignorant, not caring what harm they do.
Like almost all the railroads went under, not because they were not important or making money, but because new high tech stocks and companies seemed like a better investment, even though there is nothing more important to the country than railroads.
They are the cleanest, safest, and could be fastest means of transportation, both for materials and people.