I believe in socialism, but I feel Stalin shouldn’t be idolised due to things like the Gulag.
I would like more people to become socialist, but I feel not condemning Stalin doesn’t help the cause.
I’ve tried to have a constructieve conversation about this, but I basically get angry comments calling me stupid for believing he did atrocious things.
That’s not how you win someone over.
I struggle to believe the Gulag etc. Never happened, and if it happened I firmly believe Stalin should be condemned.
For starters, “Gulag” just means “prison.” Of course prisons existed in the USSR, and some had rather brutal conditions. Others, however, did not, and treated prisoners better to much better than your average American prison. Nobody is saying the Gulags never existed, perhaps they mean your specific interpretation of the conditions of gulags and the extent to which they were used. Edit 1
As for Stalin himself, it’s fair to say he committed a fair degree of errors in judgement, had reactionary social views such as his view of homosexuality, was frequently paranoid, and so forth. At the same time, it is equally fair to understand that Stalin has been the subject of countless lies, exaggerations, myths, and other degrees of Cold War propaganda we learn as fact despite evidence to the contrary, especially following the opening of the Soviet Archives. Moreover, it is necessary to acknowledge the vital role he played in governing the worlds first Socialist State, and building the foundations of this rapid improvement on the utter squalor of the Tsarist regime.
Should Stalin be idolized? I don’t think so, as I believe that can get in the way of accurate analysis. Should Stalin be villianized and made a scapegoat to brush the Red Scare under the rug? I don’t believe so, either. The USSR came with countless benefits, from a doubling of life expectancy to free healthcare to near 100% literacy rates (better than the modern US), and more. These benefits were formed under Stalin, and as such we must do our absolute best to separate fact from fiction. If we accept and push purely the accepted bourgeois narrative regarding the real experience of AES states, then we cannot learn from them properly and sort out what worked and what did not.
Basically, Stalin was neither a perfect saint devoid of mistakes nor a unique monster that should be especially condemned. He was the leader of the USSR, but did not have absolute control, and in addition was in many ways less monstrous than contemporary leaders such as Hitler and Churchill. Correct contextualization is important. I highly recommend the short, 8 minute article “Tankies” by Roderic Day, hosted over on Red Sails. For more in-depth reading, Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend by Domenico Losurdo is a good historical critique of Stalin that focuses on taking a critical stance towards Stalin and contextualizes him.
Edit 1: seeing your other two comments, I am now entirely certain that this is the case.
8·18 hours agoAs always, I have a book that I wish to quote from, but I cannot choose which parts, so I’ll just point to Russian Justice if anyone is interested.
For a shorter read see Chapter 14 in This Soviet World
Excellent work, comrade 🫡
I think you hit the nail on the head with this comment. Stalin was a very influential man who shaped large part of the 20th century. Villanizing or idolizong his achievements without acknowledging the other side of the coin would be having an incorrect outlook on him.
I took a quick read of the link describing tankies. It more or less echoes what you said. That being said my observation of the use of the word tankie doesn’t fall in line with what the author was talking about. I’ve seen it used primarily for people who staunchly or blindly defend figures like Stalin and are incapable of acknowledging any criticisms of said figures. What yoyre describing is more of a lefty or a socialist in my opinion. The article was written in 2020 so maybe the use of the word has evolved over time. I haven’t been familiar with the word for that long to say otherwise.
Regarding the term “tankie,” I actually disagree with what you’re saying here. The term “tankie” is described to mean what you say, but the term is applied to people with the same analysis as myself, Roderic Day, and others who defend AES. I’ve even seen Anarchists labeled “tankie.” The reason the word “tankie” is used is because it allows the thrower to terminate the conversation and misrepresent the accused as having all of the blind, dogmatic sins the term itself has been associated with, regardless of the actual bearings of the conversation at play.
The quantity of people who actually fit the term “tankie” is miniscule compared to the quantity the word is thrown at with regularity.
That sounds to me like you were just dealing with bad faith actors, which isn’t uncommon here unfortunately.
I think we both agree on what it’s intended use is meant to be for. I guess you’ve just had the misfortune of dealing with people misusing the label to shut down any actual discussion.
What I am describing is by far the most common usage of the term I have seen, to the point that it might as well be the only usage. The intended usage of “tankie” has become weaponized discussion-avoidance and serves as a cheap copout to prevent tackling uncomfortable topics.
You are factually incorrect in the very first statement. “Gulag” means “главное управление исправительно-трудовых лагерей” and is a name of a state agency directly operating a network of concentration/forced labor camps. Each of the camps had their name, control and command structures and operated under direct oversight of some best Stalin’s chaps.
Also, it wasn’t just ‘prison’. Each of them was a concentration camp for politically it otherwise unsound elements, that provided Stalin with supply of free slave labor.
I’ll direct you to @[email protected] in his comment here going over the Soviet prison system, along with myth-dispelling surrounding the Soviet prison labor system.
You didn’t need to direct me anywhere to accept that you made a clear factual mistake.
The Gulag system was the Prison system of the USSR for much of its existence. No, it did not translate directly into “prison,” but that doesn’t change that it was the prison system, and moreover the conditions of many gulags were favorable compared to American prisons. It’s worth reading RedWizard’s comment because he dispelled a lot of the myths you perpetuate.
Thanks, this is the kind of response I was looking for. I’ll look into what you said further.
With the image that Stalin has in the west, I think it alienates people when he’s not condemned. I can’t think of a singe leader that we should praise (Mandela maybe?) if anything we should praise ideas not people.
If you don’t directly challenge false, bourgeois narratives, then they are used as ammo against related subjects. “Stalin was a butcher of 100 million,” if accepted, means the Soviet Union was a horrible failure as well. This means Socialism was a horrible failure in the Soviet Union. This cascading power of bourgeois narratives prevents real radicalization, and moreover allows repitition of failures if not properly analyzed.
Take another example. Stalin synthesized Marxism-Leninism. As a Marxist-Leninist, there is no avoiding Stalin when talking with liberals. Because of my belief that Marxism-Leninism is correct, I cannot avoid the topic of grappling with Stalin’s existence.
As Marx said, “The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.”
Removed by mod
Your comment consists of 0 facts, an ableist slur, and a recommendation to watch a work of fiction designed specifically to push an anticommunist narrative. Moreover, the assertion that I must not have read is silly, I linked an article and a full history book in my comment, and have a Marxist reading list linked on my profile with a mix of theory and historical texts. Why would anyone take what you have said seriously?
tl;dr there’s no response here it’s 100% reaction mugging
he was s power hungry megalomaniac that felt no shame in killing anyone who crossed him
From my limited understanding Stalin tried to change things too fast. A comparison that would piss everyone off is like Elon Musk going all-in on robotics in an underdeveloped country.
In the long term Stalins policies paid off, but a lot of people starved because as it turns out putting all your points in technology means you don’t have farms.
Gulagging bourgeoisie also isn’t bad per se. But Stalin definitely sacraficed innocent people in the crossfire.
He is an ambiguous person. He certainly did a lot of good things, but there were mistakes and even from our point of view, quite cruel decisions. It is difficult to assess why he made certain decisions. There is a lot of unconfirmed information and ambiguous accusations around him, although, of course, there are bad decisions, maybe we don’t know all the information, or maybe he was wrong. It was a difficult time back then. According to some reports, at the end of his life, even Lenin treated him ambiguously and was afraid of the concentration of power in one hand and even wrote a letter to the congress, but some doubt this, so it may not be true. To truly understand this, you need to be a historian and read a lot of original documents by yourself. But I don’t think that we should consider him only a complete villain, as he is often exposed.
Regarding Lenin, he specifically had beef with Stalin over his rude treatment of Lenin’s wife, and wished someone would replace him who was in all manner the same except kinder. Ie, Lenin fully backed Stalin’s positions, theoretical understanding, etc and wished he was simply a kinder person towards comrades when interacting with them.
Stalin tried to resign over this, and his resignation was rejected.
For further reading: Archival evidence and records show he tried to resign no fewer than four times, all rejected.
From what I understand, people who were sent to Gulag mostly were Nazis, bourgeoisie (basically people like the UnitedHealthcare CEO) and counter-revolutionaries.
I’m not saying it was the best way to seize resources from the rich and prevent counter-revolution. Some of the things he did were good, and some were bad.
How do you define what a Nazi is?
Do counter revolutionaries deserve to be sent to worker camps where the conditions are so bad many die?
“Send people who don’t agree with my world view to worker camps” Doesn’t feel like a good thing
Wasn’t Stalin a communist dictator? We aren’t looking for communism or a dictatorship. Claiming otherwise is just misleading.
That is cold war / anti-communist propaganda, which capitalists and the media that they own will never stop propagating, because capitalists are definitionally anti-communist.
Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The western idea of a dictator within the communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.
Second Thought: We Need To Talk About “Authoritarianism”
(Sorry for the stupid question, I only know what I’ve been taught in school.)
If it wasn’t authoritarian or a dictatorship, why’d they build those absolutely giant statues? Just a democratic flex?
Why did “they” build Mt. Rushmore or the Lincoln Memorial?
I’m afraid I don’t know
under Stalin’s rule
You are still speaking from the cold war framing of Stalin being a dictator and not an elected official who tried to step down multiple times.
Joseph Stalin was elected as the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU in April 1922 during the 11th Congress of the Party. Between then and until his death, he asked to be relieved of his duties as General Secretary a total of four times — all of which were rejected.
That’s one weird situation
Stalin was a Communist leader of the USSR. He was not a dictator according to the CIA. Moreover, the idea that Socialists do not seek Communism is a bit strange, the two most major camps of Socialism are Marxism and Anarchism, neither of which has “Socialism” as an end goal. Anarchists seek direct implementations of full horizontalism and decentralization out of the shell of the old, so to speak, while Marxists seek full public ownership and central planning, ie they wish to implement Communism.
The idea of a stagnant, static, never-changing system is foreign to the overwhelming majority of Socialist ideologies, ergo it must continue to advance. This advancement in my opinion is of course going to be Communism.
Finally, the hammer and sickle is the symbol of Marxism-Leninism and the Soviet Union, which is used as the symbol for this community. You yourself do not need to support them, but using the term we in doing so is silly.
Right, communism and socialism aren’t the same thing though, why are you conflating them? Regardless of sillyness.
Socialism, in my opinion, inevitably leads towards Communism if maintained. What matters is which has supremacy, Capital, or Humanity. I am not conflating them, but pointing out that Socialism, in the eyes of Marxists, is simply pre-Communism.
That makes sense! Thank you! I suppose communism can be seen as extreme socialism, in a way.
(I had to block some trolls before I found your comment, sorry for the slow response.)
Sort of. Socialism is simply when public ownership becomes the dominant and driving factor of an economy, typically marked by human supremacy over Capital, rather than the reverse. Since markets naturally centralize, they develop unique forms of planning suitable for their industries and sectors, paving the way for public aquisition and planning. Socialism trends towards full socialization, at which point classes cease to exist and as such class oppression ceases to exist, and “money” becomes superfluous, as there is no trade between institutions.
I think any extreme is probably a bad situation. Thank you for clarifying! I’ve got some thinking to do now.
Why is an extreme a bad situation? What if said extreme was an eradication of poverty? Eradication of racism? Extremes are not inherently superior to moderatiom, nor is the reverse true.
If you want a reading list, I have one linked on my profile.
I call myself a socialist but do not support a full horizontalism or full decentralization. I support partials of both.
I do believe that optimizations for quality of life and value and stability are rarely at the ends of the spectrums, but sometimes somewhere in the middle and subjective to democratic agreement and changing based on reality.
I want my system to be flexible to have times of more centralization, times of decentralization, times of horizontality, times of independent nodes, etc.
Why is it that you believe the correct answer is “in the middle?” Moreover, why do you believe that you can simply stop the progression towards full public ownership, and therefore full centralization, assuming productive forces continue to develop? The point of Marxism is that there is no such thing as a stagnant system, and competition within markets further results in centralization, paving the way for public ownership to be superior.
I don’t think I’d be “stopping” the progression, just that the progression is not towards some absolute idealistic end. (and to note in my ideal system, my individual ideals are secondary to the populations average), just that the natural maximum optimization, say of organizations type, an amount of organizations would be publicly controlled by a government, and an amount would be controlled by the employees themselves in a coop structure.
I think this makes sense as there will likely be products that a niche set of people want, but is not at such a scale that the government and the people behind it would want to dedicate collective resources towards it directly.
Fundamentally I believe the uniqueness and fickleness of people I believe will always outpace any collective structure, and so allowing for that to be represented in a society is key to success, and that entails organizations outside of collective-control which rely on consensus.
I do want a socialist system were all shares of an organization are either public ally owned or owned by the employees themselves, with no rent seeking capitalists involved.
Out of curiosity, have you read Marx? Much of what you’re saying goes against standard Marxist consensus. As an example, cooperatives are not “Marxist,” they allow accumulation despite eliminating bourgeois exploitation of proletarians. To that extent, they also must retain money, and trade, which becomes superfluous in the context of the rest of a Socialist society that would rather be fully planned.
Moreover, you are separating the idea of “government” from the “people” in a manner that confuses what Communism would actually look like. In retaining private property, you retain the conditions for Capitalism to emerge, and you retain groups that potentially stand at odds with the interests of the rest of the economy. This is why Public Ownership and Central Planning becomes superior to market-based systems once the productive forces have reached sufficient levels of development, and why Marxists say a system like that which you describe would eventually turn into Communism anyways as it works itself out to be more efficient.
If you want a starter guide, I recommend my own introductory Marxist reading list.
I have not yet, but i do plan to, thanks for the reading list, I will check into it.
At least at the moment and from what I know so far, I do not identify or align with Marxism or Communism, I do with socialism and i do not view socialism as some half step.
What do you say in response to the notion that no system is static, and ergo is either moving towards full public ownership and planning or is regressing? Markets have a tendency to centralize in order to combat a tendency for the rate of profit to fall, which leads to inefficiencies. At some point, these markets coalesce into syndicates with internal planning, at which point it becomes far more efficient overall to fold them into the public sector. There remains no use for said markets.
To me, the statement that markets will always remain useful in some aspect, same with private property, sounds similar to saying feudalism will always have some use, and even slavery. At some point markets will fade into obsolescence much the same way older modes of production did, alongside advancements in technology and production, same as what happened to feudalism and slavery.
Not worthy of his role. Not nearly smart enough, surely not intellectually honest enough to reject a lifelong position of leadership as a mean to pursue world equality.
Somebody Lenin himself did not want to see in that position.
This is ahistorical.
First, Stalin evidently was intelligent. He wasn’t a genius, but he was consistently proven to know what he was talking about. See his interview with H.G. Wells.
Secondly, Stalin did try to reject his position, even desiring to have his position itself permanently liquidated. Archival evidence and records show he tried to resign no fewer than four times, all rejected.
Thirdly, there is no actual evidence that Lenin was opposed to Stalin, the anger Lenin felt towards Stalin towards the end of his life was due to Stalin’s treatment of Lenin’s wife. Additionally, Stalin was democratically elected, the Soviet Union was not a monarchy. Regardless of who Lenin may have wished to succeed him, Stalin was elected, and furthermore one of his attempted resignation attempts was over this spat with Lenin over treatment of his wife in Lenin’s final days (which, again, was rejected).
Stalin was no saint, he made numerous mistakes and was frequently socially reactionary, but it is important to place him in a correct historical context and separate fact from fiction. Moreover, you offer no indication how someone replacing him would help “pursue world equality,” whatever that means. Marxism to begin with rails against the idea of equalitarianism, prefering the concept of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work,” and eventually substituting “work” with “needs” as the productive forces become capable of accomodating such organization.
That was my opinion according to the sources I have been exposed to. I’m glad to deepen my understanding on the matter, I’ll just point out that in the history of mankind most leader pushed to stay in power, when they were meant to step down, and stayed in power when the choice was purely up to them.
Isn’t it weird that the rejections were unanimous? Don’t you think there may have been a certain, I don’t know… Hesitation into suggesting they found the head of state not fit for the role?
As I said, I’ll look better into it, but I am not currently convinced Stalin was an exception to the trend that affected most of the highest ruling class through history.
Stalin wasn’t an exception himself, the Soviet system of democracy is, which coincides with other AES states. It allowed more democratic and meritocratic methods of selecting candidates. Stalin personally seemed to want nothing more than to retire to a quiet post, free from the sheer amount of responsibility placed on his shoulders. This does not make him some virtuous figure, he had genuine, selfish desires of living out the rest of his days in a more peaceful manner. This is only further proven by his paranoia. It’s difficult to comprehend the amount of stress he was in.
Moreover, Stalin was not “ruling class.” He was only the “ruling class” with respect to the fact that the proletariat was in control. Such a confusion of government figures as uniquely non-proletarian flies in the face of Marxism itself, which sees class as relations with respect to the Mode of Production. Having a government and central planning is a key aspect of Marxian Communism.
Old habits die hard. I meant people with a lot more power than the other people.
I’m aware, my point is that I believe your analysis of power with respect to ideas of “corruption” don’t actually follow when applied to alternative modes of production. Capitalism naturally selects for those Priests of Capital that best serve its alien interests in profit and accumulation, as those who do not do so end up cast aside. Capital is a fickle god.
On the other hand, under a Socialist system, Humanity becomes supreme to Capital. “Power” in a Socialist system comes with far less excess wealth compared to Capitalist systems, and moreover the ties to accumulation just don’t exist as the driving factor of a centrally planned economy. What this means is that leaders of AES are frequently in it more out of ideological reasons, rather than personal enrichment.
You seem to conflate power with money.
I don’t think there’s many way to be more powerful than holding power in a society where the different access to goods are irrelevant.
You think ambition fueled by money are more powerful than the ones fueled by idealism, purity, rightfullness and, of course, narcissism and domination?
Do you really think it’s all the same to those people, to Stalin himself, if he was farming potatoes or signing the 5 year plan under oh-so-genuine thundering applause of the assemply?
Come the fuck on.
I tie “pursuit of power” to actual, mechanical drives. What is the purpose of power? Why do you believe humans pursue it? I quite specifically mentioned that Capitalism itself selects for those in power within it by selecting the most ruthless and willing to do whatever it takes to accumulate the most, because the system requires it. Socialism does not, ergo you need to justify a “pursuit of power.”
Secondly, I want to know where you are getting the notion that Stalin was not popular among his peers. Rather, he became more popular until the “Secret Speech,” where Kruschev attempted to delegitimize Stalin in pursuit of his own interests. I think you would do best to read some of the books listed here by other comrades.
