all 58 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 16 points 1 year ago (9 children)

I suspect for some folks Stalin is bad because anyone else would have let the USSR capitulate to the wehrmacht invasion.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I suspect for some folks Stalin is bad because [...]

    For most folks in the west, stalin is considered to be a brutal authoritarian dictator who made a deal with the nazis to carve up europe into spheres of influence. It should not be surprising to anyone that a lot of anarchists hold to that view, especially given stalin's view of anarchists (see below).

    We are not the kind of people who, when the word "anarchism" is mentioned, turn away contemptuously and say with a supercilious wave of the hand: "Why waste time on that, it's not worth talking about!" We think that such cheap "criticism" is undignified and useless.

    Nor are we the kind of people who console themselves with the thought that the Anarchists "have no masses behind them and, therefore, are not so dangerous." It is not who has a larger or smaller "mass" following today, but the essence of the doctrine that matters. If the "doctrine" of the Anarchists expresses the truth, then it goes without saying that it will certainly hew a path for itself and will rally the masses around itself. If, however, it is unsound and built up on a false foundation, it will not last long and will remain suspended in mid-air. But the unsoundness of anarchism must be proved.

    Some people believe that Marxism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that, in the opinion of these people, it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two trends.

    This is a great mistake.

    We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the "doctrine" of the Anarchists from beginning to end and weigh it up thoroughly from all aspects.

    So if I may ask you a question - if marxism and anarchism are fundamentally enemies, as stalin himself argued, why would any anarchist support the modern day ML penchant for rehabilitating stalin's reputation? It makes no sense. But sure, keep telling yourself anarchists hate stalin because of his virtues and not because of his other characteristics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    keep telling yourself anarchists hate stalin because of his virtues and not because of his other characteristics.

    To be clear, those weren't the folks I was referring to in my comment. But:

    if I may ask you a question - if marxism and anarchism are fundamentally enemies, as stalin himself argued, why would any anarchist support the modern day ML penchant for rehabilitating stalin's reputation?

    Absolutely welcome to ask, and I'll give it a shot nonetheless.

    I would ask the anarchist (and the modern day ML too) if they agree with this part of Stalin's theory.

    I don't, and would venture to say a modern day ML may also disagree with Stalin in this but even also have a penchant for his rehabilitation, for other reasons.

    More tangentally I think anarchism and marxism are not fundamentally enemies, (so, in disagreement with Stalin here), and would suggest they primarily diverge on the role a state plays in mediating conflicts of private and public interests.

    But if I were to try and find common ground with the bit from Stalin you're citing, just for argument's sake, it would be that this divergence is a fundamental relationship between the two, but I'd still maintain the differences are not incompatible or irreconcileable.

    But again, for the record, I was being more snarky about people who pivot from talking about how Hitler could've won to how Stalin could've lost.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    In total, anarchists should uphold the soviet experience, and disprove bourgeois framing of Stalin and the USSR. This weakens bourgeois cultural hegemony, strengthening both anarchist and Marxist movements. I know this was long, but I hope it was at least interesting to read!

    I appreciate the interesting read! Just been a bit hectic irl. Personally, I'm sympathetic to the fact that the West has collectively demonized the USSR with propaganda ever since 1917. Objectively, yes, the USSR achieved a lot in a very hostile environment, both military and economic, and they also did a lot of stuff I don't agree with, but that's not confined to the Soviets, of course.

    I guess I just don't see the point in the exercise though. You're never gonna get much traction trying to rehabilitate Stalin, because anti-Soviet propaganda is so deeply ingrained. Like why even fight that fight? You're gonna hit a brick wall every time, because it's a "toxic brand" of sorts. Arguing over Stalin's legacy feels genuinely counterproductive to me, compared to just advocating for community groups, socialism and direct action. I guess we are just coming at the same task from different angles. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    For most folks in the west, stalin is considered to be a brutal authoritarian dictator who made a deal with the nazis to carve up europe into spheres of influence.

    Do they not know of how the western leaders enabled the Nazis to carve up Czechoslovakia and opposed USSR's call for a united front against Nazis?

    The Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact, USSR happened after the Munich agreement where Britain, France and Italy came together to allow the Nazis and Poland to annex Czechoslovakia.

    And if you think there were no agreements before:
    1934 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_declaration_of_non-aggression
    1935 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_Naval_Agreement
    1938 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
    1939 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

    And the next para from the text you quoted goes into the reasons, right? Searched with the text you shared and got this:

    The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses."

    https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm

    How do you see his critique? Do you think that anarchism cares less about wider social emancipation?
    I don't have much experience with literature on Anarchism(or Marxism, but relatively better there), so would be cool to know your opinions on it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    How do you see his critique? Do you think that anarchism cares less about wider social emancipation?

    I don't think it's accurate. And no, definitely not. It seems like he is describing libertarians more than anarchists imo, as mutual aid and community building are core principles of anarchism.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Funny that this is the exact same "logic" the libs use to try to defend running a pro-zionist, pro-corporate, pro-billionaire slimeball in the last US presidential election - "But Trump was worse!"

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Stalin was the leader of the world’s first socialist state

    Socialist state is a contradiction in terms.

    Stalin was CEO of USSR Incorporated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    i wonder how your instance turned into a nazi bar

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It didn't. And I'm an anarchist.

    If you're going to rely on ad hominems, you should at least try to make them somewhat accurate and relevant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You have the fucking nerve to say that after calling the USSR a corporation. You're not even a radlib; you're a Christopher Hitchens neocon.

    And yes your instance is a nazi bar. You just recently had to be shamed into banning one of your mods ADVOCATING for the holocaust.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Um... no. I'm an anarchist.

    And you sound like a helicopter parent who's balanced on that fine line between hysterical tears and explosive rage because somebody at the playground said something mean about their darling USSR.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    "USA bad so Soviets good" is also propaganda.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    This is disrespectful to common sense.

    The number of people KILLED in the mentioned Gulags is in the millions. The total number of killed by the regime is estimated as ~~20 million people. The number of people imprisoned in the US is just a bit north of a million.

    Having a mass murderer on a picture and trying to picture it as "wasn't as bad as the US now" is distasteful. Have self-respect, spend effort and verify the numbers. Think critically about the picture you're thinking to upvote.

    P.S. I'm not a US citizen or resident. In terms of freedoms, both the Soviet Union was terrible, and a lot of the events happening in the US right now are terrible.

  • source
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Ah so everything was chill in the USSR then? Stalin didn't have any secret police or totalitarian access to power?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    No, he was a competent leader. Why on earth wouldn't he have counterintelligence operations against the CIA and others? Do you remember what they did to their own citizens during the war "just in case we need to do it to the Soviets and not just black people 😉". Are you advocating defenselessness against the torture regime of the USA?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Well you see, I watched half of the yellow lecture and now good thing bad and bad thing good! Its Dialectical Materialism!

    Neo-Stalinism is a meme ideology that produces radical liberal bureaucrats, not revolutionaries.

    But principled MLs and Maoists are much better at decolonial struggles and centralization than most of the left. And they tend to be much better educated on history and theory than the based Stalinists, and certainly most ambient liberals.

    The trick is to learn to tell the difference between aspirational leftists and real ones. The real movement, you can disagree but you have to prove yourself in action because in political struggle the stakes are real. And to be effective we have to work together in evaluating and acting on what is objectively real. But in the real movement, people come from all different backgrounds, and live in all different environments that affects the way they look at social problems.

    The people you're arguing with don't understand that the most loyal supporters that Stalin enabled in those early days after the revolution, were later executed/purged on trumped (heh) up charges of anarchism and Trotskyism. They have memorized a few apologetics for why its good actually, or never really happened. Its because they want to be actual practical organizers, but they're still idealists who think repeating certain phrases legitimizes them. The older ML and Maoist organizers know this too, and try to educate where they can but any movement can become sectarian and self referential.

    Don't take the bait, the history is deeply contradictory no one really understands how easily it breaks people's brains. Its better not to worry and focus on doing something real

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Frankly not a tankie or a capitalist, but I'm pretty sure Stalin was shitty for other reasons. Admirable reasons at time as in the case of being a cold-mother fucker enough to gank his own son for the revolution. But reasons, surely.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    Agreed, and to clarify, I'm pretty much a socialist, just think co-operatives oughta be allowed to hold similar assets to a state, (within the laws of a state in question) ideally subsidiary to the state's own collectivized system. The cold bit about Stalin was crediting the fellow with having more idealogical depth than the simple "funny gulag man" many paint him as.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    True, why I count myself among y'all, I just quibble over the details frankly. Bad habit of mine. The results themselves overall in terms of quality of life speak volumes over the reduction in quality of life under capitalist systems generally. Even with failures like Mao's famines.

    Frankly the socialist states are generally more friendly to cooperatives over corporations. But again I call myself a social corporatist and folks usually imagine I'm arguing in favor of a techno-libertarian corporate congress. Pardon me for the lack of outright clarity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    True, and yes unfortunately on Marxist theory and commentary. Part of why I'm a disillusioned corporatist if I still count as one and not an outright socialist. What can I say, Marx makes good arguments for economies of scale.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Mostly, a misguided attachment to libertarianism, and a lack of faith in a successful global proletariat revolution. Thus why in the original comment I clarified "tankie"; the other bit? The American feds. Real Red-scare vibes over here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    You know, that's a valid question I've been asking myself lately due to the intersection between American Union history and the current state of politics. Frankly, contribute to the local orgs already; so as I said, arguing I'm not under the umbrella isn't strictly valid.

    The other bit being that you can loop folks further left out of the more extreme sections of the evangelical right by presenting yourself as a middle ground. Talk them into reading some libertarian theory, conservative theory, and to read Marx and Engels for comparative analysis. Or at worst, reduce the theory to memes and make them read it by cutting absurd bits. I'm a bit of a dadaism fan if it wasn't obvious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    As a Hungarian, No thanks, we don't want russian soldiers again in our country. Can't we agree on socialism without involving Russia?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Russia cannot become socialist again because it never was socialist. It's official regime was "communism", but there was very little socialist about it in the way Europe is doing it now.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] -5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I mean this doesn't prove Stalin not bad.

    Are these stats including dead people or just prisoners? I feel like Stalin may have been fielding a murder-forward build.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (1 child)