• ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    162·
    3 days ago

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

    • Unruffled [they/them]@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      3·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        2 days 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.

  • WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    149·
    4 days ago

    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!”

    • Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml
      105·
      4 days ago

      It’s not just a matter of the US being worse, this undermines the credibility of every single accusation regarding human rights that the US makes about any other country

  • fxdave@lemmy.ml
    34·
    2 days ago

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

  • Rooskie91@discuss.online
    810·
    3 days ago

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

    • mistermodal@lemmy.ml
      133·
      3 days 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?

  • scathliath@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    57·
    3 days ago

    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.

  • planish@sh.itjust.works
    36·
    3 days ago

    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.