this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
21 points (67.8% liked)

Socialism

5249 readers
171 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 55 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

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.

[–] Edie@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

As 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

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 week ago

Excellent work, comrade 🫡

[–] AnonomousWolf@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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."

[–] imogen_underscore@hexbear.net 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

people need to be educated not coddled. conceding to and legitimising liberal/right wing revisionist history is a strategic error for any communist or communist movement.

[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 week ago

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.