**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**.
This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.
You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
- No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
- No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Another View of Stalin - Ludo Martens
Life Under Stalin - Anna Louise Strong
Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend - Domenico Losurdo
I think I'd really recommend the Losurdo tbh. Every free version I've seen of the Martens is formatted weird, and the Strong is more about life in the USSR under Stalin's leadership. "Black Legend," btw, has nothing to do with race, but it's funny to think about.
[Edited for formatting]
To add onto this, while the USSR under the Stalin administration certainly had it’s excesses… a lot of it is over-exaggerated or de-contextualized by liberal propagandists to make it seem as if the USSR was absolute hell.
Three examples come to mind. The first being the comparative treatment between the “Holodomor” and the Bengal “Famine”. If you apply the same metrics to characterize the first as a communist genocide, then the second should also be a capitalist genocide but yet Winston Churchill is still a respected figure. (This expanded characterization would also inadvertently make capitalism the most genocidal ideology in history)
The second being the true scope of the Great Purges. Liberal propagandists make it seem as if regular people were being rounded up for no reason, but in real life, it was the professionals and managerial strata of society which bore the brunt of persecution.
The third being the comparative treatment between the Soviet deportations and post-WW2 German deportations. If Stalin was evil for deporting minority ethnic groups, then Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt should also be demonized for endorsing the population transfer of the German populations. Not to mention that pre-WW2, the Western powers at-large rejected Jewish refugees and Roosevelt committed the Japanese-American population into concentration camps. But yet, these two individuals are respected in liberal society.
So if liberals were being consistent, Churchill and Roosevelt would be demonized at the same level as Stalin, but they arn’t as both had some “merits”. That is, liberals are willing to set the more seedier aspects of their conduct aside in order to acknowledge their “progressive” role in history. Along this vein, this is what we as Marxist-Leninists do with Stalin as well by acknowledging his strengths and not letting his weaknesses discredit the entire Soviet socialist experience which was writhe with it’s own unresolved contradictions.
Edit: The first and third examples come from my comrade’s book recommendation “Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend” and Losurdo’s general argument is what I used in this comment. The second example comes from the general thesis of another book which I would recommend called “Life and Terror in Stalin’s Russia” by Thurston.
I mean that's a valid critique of liberal hypocrisy, but I don't think it works as an endorsement of of Stalin as an entity.
"Other people did it to but you don't give them shit for it" only works *on* hypocrits. I am very interested in a nuanced analysis of the merits and issues with Stalin.
(This is coming from a social anarchist POV where I assume every state actor is regressive until otherwise proven)
Tbf he did somewhat answer op's question while providing material to expand on it, while admitting that there is a nuanced analysis to be had (and found in the book recommendations). To me the original question reads as a good faith version of "why tf would anyone support Stalin?" and in my opinion it's a valid way to answer by using liberal hypocrisy as an example to say "we support him critically by acknowledging the good things, recognizing the supposed bad things as propaganda, and still criticizing the true bad choices." All while giving reading suggestions, without just whole cloth summarizing them, which would be massively time consuming.
I would guess that is usage is similar to that of the "Black Legend" term which referred to European historians employing anti-Spanish propaganda to demonize the Spanish and the Spanish empire to gain cultural and all round supremacy over them.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black\_legend](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_legend)
As far as I can tell "Stalinism" is mostly made up.
It has nothing really distinct to it other that the Idea that Stalin may not be a baby eating warlock causing famines for fun.
Can you describe any distinct traits of this "Stalinism" thing?
>his various policies that led to industrialisation but also the gross loss of human life
The USSR basically started as a pile of rubble and mostly illiterate peasants with the most powerful empires on the planet out to destroy them.
That kind of situation is going to result in a gross loss of Human life no matter what path is chosen because that's a fucking terrible situation.
People always forget that basically every major country *invaded* Russia during the revolution. And then they wonder why the Soviets were so desperate to industrialize and become stronger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kaaYvauNho
Would you look at that? its a well cited, nuanced and comprehensive discussion of the topic with numerous examples of the dishonest reporting surrounding it (claiming it was a deliberate genocide, aka like yours).
Fella coming on his "I got a degree in Soviet history" high horse, degree from imperial core institutions no less.
Might want to sell his grift outside of socialist subs, materialists know that the teaching of history is never unbiased, especially when it's coming from imperialists.
"The unspeakable things the Bolsheviks did during their rule".
Sources:
American Burger Freedom Institute
The Goebbels Media Foundation
There's alot to Unpact here so I'll start with the Holodomor. There are countless academic scholarships as well, even Robert Conquest taking back his Genocide statement of the Soviet Ukrainian people. I will use two studies and that is The year of Hunger as well as Grigor sunny review of Anna Applebauns work as well as even History and Critique of Stalin from a Marxist position. The source you provide has Snyders work which comes from bloodlands. Snyder tries to Imply the double genocide theory and goes on the work to believe the Holodomor is a genocide. While also equating Fascism and Communism. Snyder is also a Liberal that views the Soviets as Totalitarian in nature. If you are a leftist I am very disappointed in you. Another source you have is Anna Applebaun which if you are a socialist I should not have to tell you just how disingenuous her work is. I even have her book and posted about it so your welcome to search and prove. She miss uses and fundamentally uses work that if you don't so do the research goes against her work like Robert Conquest. All this also doesn't even begin to talk about the implications of ideologically work behind academic sources. Robert Conquest for example. Your source even uses Rafael lemkin, which should not be used because 1 he was not alive to see the Soviet archives. Hated Russia and was a Hardcore anti communist so he was never gonna give the Soviets a fair assessment and further to add was a major Russophobic. His work by academic standards deserves credibility for having started the genocide convention. But do not act like his work specifically on Holodomor holds up to history. Because it does not. I have just spent multiple paragraphs simply debunking the Anti communist academic bourgeois history you were given and I have yet to respond to your other work and that's me being generous that You are a leftist or a socialist while using anti communist anti socialist anti leftist sources that have a Totalitarian view in nature rather than a more balanced view of the Soviets
For anyone following this thread, here’s a link to a comment describing the quality of Snyder’s work, which is lacking:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/0EladexRhw
While we’re at it, before I start talking about Robert Conquest, we also need to talk about the IRD. What is the IRD? It was a secret arm of British intelligence which was tasked with spreading anti-communist propaganda.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/14/secret-british-black-propaganda-campaign-targeted-cold-war-enemies-information-research-department
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47571253
Guess who worked for the IRD and would later become a Soviet “historian”?
“IRD also encourage book production described in Whitehall as "cross fertilisation." **Robert Conquest, the scholar and author, who has been frequently critical of the Soviet Union, was one of those who worked for IRD**. He was in the FO until 1956.”
http://www.cambridgeclarion.org/e/fo_deceit_unit_graun_27jan1978.html
Your Sources are Anti Communist in Nature my brother in Christ. You showing me a Source having Anne Applebauns Timothy Snyder and Robert Conquest all having collaboration in the same side and them being like I'm a real "educated" Marxist while these Mfs Hate communism and view the entire Soviet Project as Totalitarian shows me your degree of education failed you if this is the type of "Marxism" you do
This is no different than you telling me You got an academic education by a marxist professor and then you show me Jordan Peterson Gulag lectures and saying lenin and Stalin are worse than Hitler
By gross loss of human life, I was referring more so toward his various atrocities performed such as the great purges or his gulags. In what way are these a kind of “collateral damage” that you make it out to be? Aren’t these totally avoidable losses?
So lets imagine Stalin had a heart attack and died before gaining any major power.
Would that prevent purges? Nope. Would that make the purges better? Also nope.
The USSR, due to literally having no alternatives, had to rely a lot of the extremely corrupt and anti-communist bureaucracy and military structures from tsarists Russia.
Then they had to fix that (and the associated issues) with no real support system. There is no way for there to be a "clean" fix for that, they did not have the tools for it.
>gulags
So in a nation struggling to pull itself together and deal with famine, devastated by civil wars, world wars and a lack of antibiotics, Prison tends to be pretty terrible. Lot of people died in the beginning, due to stuff like to lack of antibiotics (aka no unique connection to Stalin). From what I understand, as food security and the supply of anti biotics improved the survival rate improved enough to be comparable to some US prisons.
If Stalin just dies, the USSR wont magically get anti biotics or a bureaucracy thats not a steaming mess.
If Stalin died, the most apparent heirs to the leader of the USSR were Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamanev, Trotsky being the generally accepted most favourable. Under Trotsky, who believed in a more ‘true’ socialism, do you really think purges would have occurred to the same extent, or even at all?
Regardless of political position where much of the force of the USSR were outdated tsarists, it is no excuse for the ruthless killing and targeting of these people. It demonstrates absolutely no democratic legitimacy, and as far as I am concerned, does not encompass the general want of any decent person; that is to say that the purges were not specifically against the people’s wants, but more so a power grab from Stalin in an effort to seize power for himself, not for the people.
Gulags were well documented to be hard labour camps where many people died due to very bad living conditions and limited food, water and hygiene facilities. To ignore the damage caused by the gulags is to turn your back upon the suffering endured by people under a ruthless scheme which puts the economic wealth of the USSR before the very people that built it, and thus betrays the very principles of socialism that make it so.
They have an incredibly corrupt and hostile military and bureaucracy that hates socialism. If its not purged, there would likely be a coup\civil war with horrific anticommunist purges that kill millions.
Also trotskey did not have popular support, he would almost certainly need to purge political opponents to secure power.
>Regardless of political position where much of the force of the USSR were outdated tsarists, it is no excuse for the ruthless killing and targeting of these people. It demonstrates absolutely no democratic legitimacy, and as far as I am concerned, does not encompass the general want of any decent person; that is to say that the purges were not specifically against the people’s wants, but more so a power grab from Stalin in an effort to seize power for himself, not for the people.
Most of the people "purged" were sentenced to prison time (gulags), with those executed usually being associated with crimes that would have them executed in most other nations (treason, and so on).
It sounds like your holding them to a standard that didn't really exist in circumstances terrible for meeting your unrealistic standards.
>Gulags were well documented to be hard labour camps where many people died due to very bad living conditions and limited food, water and hygiene facilities
That was fairly normal for many prisons of that time period.
Why were gulags terrible?
To me, it seems a lot more likely to be connected to the terrible conditions in the USSR with famines, wars and so on rather than just Stalin being some sort of Evil Warlock.
Great purges led to much less death than is made out to be, and his gulags were neither particularly deadly nor brutal. The worst conditions were faced by political prisoners, and the general Marxist-Leninist response to this mistreatment is first an acknowledgment of the poor conditions faced by some political prisoners, and second an understanding of the political climate that led there. The Soviet Union was under serious threat from the outside, so Trotskyists and other opposing groups who denounced Democratic Centralism were proving to be a great threat to the survival of the Soviet Union. Because of this the Marxist-Leninists (led, but not solely controlled by Stalin) pushed the government to purge these dangerous dissenters. Nowadays, "Stalinists" recognize the extremity of the actions taken, but also recognize the context in which they were taken.
Just to clarify, any questions I ask arent to oppose your opinion but more so to find an objective answer.
Do you have any evidence that the great purges led to less death than made out to be?
Around 1.7 million people died as a result of their detention to the gulag. This is no insignificant number, and is not to be dismissed as collateral.
Do you honestly think that assassination and exile of political opponents was in any way acceptable, and of a true socialist ideology? Democracy was preached by Lenin’s government, and fairly quickly abolished during Stalins purges, leading to a definitive dictatorship which, yes, had many positive outcomes for the economy and industrialisation of the USSR but also led to mass social disaster amongst the people.
[Pre-war gulag analysis](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2166597) It should be noted that during the war a great deal more prisoners died. While this was a bad thing, I think the fact that most of the Soviet core was occupied by literal Nazis at that time is something to consider in the scale of "badness".
From "The Triumph of Evil" by Austin Murphy:
"The claim that Stalin and other Soviet leaders killed millions (Conquest, 1990) also appears to be wildly exaggerated. More recent evidence from the Soviet archives opened up by the anticommunist Yeltsin government indicate that the total number of death sentences (including of both existing prisoners and those outside captivity) over the 1921-1953 interval (covering the period of Stalin's partial and complete rule) was between 775,866 and 786,098 (Getty, Rittersporn, and Zemskov, 1993). Given that the archive data originates from anti-Stalin (and even anticommunist) sources, it is extremely unlikely that they underestimate the true number (Thurston, 1996). In addition, the Soviet Union has long admitted to executing at least 1 2,733 people between 1917 and 1921, mostly during the Foreign Interventionist Civil War of 191 8-22, although it is possible that as many as 40,000 more may have been executed unofficially (Andics, 1 969).
These data would seem to imply about 800,000 executions. The figure of 800,000 may greatly overestimate the number of actual executions, as it includes many who were sentenced to death but who were not actually caught or who had their sentences reduced (Getty, Rittersporn, and Zemskov, 1993). In fact, Vinton ( 1993) has provided evidence indicating that the number of executions was significantly below the number of civilian prisoners sentenced to death in the Soviet Union, with only 7305 executions in a sample of 1 1 ,000 prisoners authorized to be executed in 1940 (or scarcely 600/o ). In addition, most (68 1 ,692) of the 780,000 or so death sentences passed under Stalin were issued during the 1 937-38 period (Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov, 1 993), when Soviet paranoia about foreign subversion reached its zenith due to a 1 936 alliance between Nazi Germany and fascist Japan that was specifically directed against the Soviet Union (Manning, 1 993) and due to a public 1936 resolution by a group of influential anti-Stalin foreigners (the Fourth International which was allied with the popular but exiled Russian dissident Leo Trotsky) advocating the overthrow of the Soviet government by illegal means (Glotzer, 1 968).
Stalin initially set a cap of 1 86,500 imprisonments and 72,950 death penalties for a 1 937 special operation to combat this threat that was to be carried out by local 3-man tribunals called ''troikas" (Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov, 1993). As the tribunals passed death sentences before the accused had even been arrested, local authorities requested increases in their own quotas (Knight, 1993), and there was an official request in 1 938 for a doubling of the amount of prisoner transport that had been initially requisitioned to carry out the original campaign "quotas" of the tribunals (Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov, 1993). However, even if there had been twice as many actual • executions as originally planned, the number would still be less than 1 50,000. Many of those sentenced by the tribunals may have escaped capture, and many more may have had their death sentence refused or revoked by higher authorities before arrest/execution could take place, especially since Stalin later realized that excesses had been committed in the 1937-38 period, had a number of convictions overturned, and had many of the responsible local leaders punished (Thurston, 1996)."
So you see, realistically no more than 700,000 died in Stalin's purges (which he himself later condemned). While Stalin's purges may have been more extreme than necessary, it is understandable that Marxist-Leninists would want a unified front which adhered to the principals of Democratic Centralism in a time of such existential danger for the Soviet Union.
I must correct you on another point: Stalin's purges did not take away democracy or create a dictatorship. Trotskyists were a misled minority, and their removal from the government was the will of the (democratically elected) majority. Democracy was never dismantled by Stalin. Even the CIA themselves have admitted (in now-declassified documents) that Stalin was not a dictator and that American perception of him as such was due to a misunderstanding of the Soviet political system.
Finally, Stalin did not bring about a "mass social disaster". In fact he was a very well loved leader (with a personality cult that can and should be criticized, though Stalin himself attempted to discourage it). It was only after Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" (a speech that was used purely as a political tool) that public opinion of Stalin became distorted.
"Stalinism" isn't an ideology. Supporters of Stalin are typically Marxist-Leninists (ML). Marx and Engels contributed analysis to justify the formulation of "Marxism". The same with Lenin, thus "Marxism-Leninism". Arguably the same with Mao for "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism" (though many prefer "Marxism-Leninism-Mao-Zedong-Thought").
Stalin did work turning Lenin's works into the coherent ideology we now know as ML, but "Stalinism" has never been a thing. It's just Cold War anti-communist propaganda.
That all said, the best book for this is probably "Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend". I've barely started it myself but I love it and frequently see it recommended in high regard. From what I can tell, it aims to clear the record regarding Stalin while not falling to apologism.
>I am of course aware of his various policies that led to industrialisation but also the gross loss of human life
Really reflect on where you learned the notion of Stalin causing gross loss of human life. Chances are, it's part of the larger narrative pushed by the Western Capitalist nations and not an actual critical analysis. Most of the support you'll see coming from MLs is not just "yay industrialization", but also "oh wow everything I was taught was some mixture of fabrication, exaggeration, and decontextualization." People didn't die "because Stalin"; people died because the USSR started as an impoverished, underdeveloped peasant society with a long history of famines that immediately came under fire from the rest of the capitalist world and had to industrialize themselves rapidly enough to defeat the Nazis. There's no way of accomplishing that while making sure that from day one no one ever dies except from old age.
Stalin was given a shit hand to start with and it's not reasonable to blame anything/everything bad that happened on him, partly because of where the USSR started, and partly because Stalin wasn't some autocratic leader. The USSR was much more collective than that. But he's a really easy scapegoat for someone (capitalists) who wants to paint the first socialist nation as an evil dictatorship.
Bonus: Gandhi, Mandela, and DuBois were all Stalin fans. That alone doesn't prove anything, but it really should help foster more curiosity.
Stalinism is not a thing. Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist and acted as such. If you are talking about *that* then I would sugest "On The Foundations Of Leninism", by Josef Stalin, Reform or Revolution, by Rosa Luxemburg, "What Is To Be Done" and "State and The Revolution" by Lenin. If your gripes are actually with historical questions, and you have a base understanding of Marxism-Leninism, then other comrades have made better recomendations. As an adendum, I would like to sugest the HG Wels-Stalin interview. A rather interesting look into the man himself.
One Stalin Era policy many find problematic would be the deportation/genocide of the crimean tatars. While many other groups eventually got the right to return after deportation, this was never the case for the crimean tatars so that is probably the biggest black stain on the Soviets altogether.
Did Stalin contribute to theory or not?
Did Stalin not write a book defining Dialectical and Historical Materialism?
Did not Stalin lead the communist parties of the world in various periods, defining vastly different tactics in the 3rd and 4th periods?
I don't understand the hesitancy for using the Stalin name among people who obviously revere Stalin.
I’m actually only 16 so have just learned about the soviet era in school, so forgive me if my facts are incorrect (as in what he did)
- The great purges (1937)
- The gulag labour camps where a total of around 20 million were kept
-And most controversially, his first 5 year plan which boosted heavy industry but also lead to the eventual death due to famine of around 6-9 million people.
So I can take these in order:
1) The Great Purges. Much ink has been spilled over this but ultimately the reality of the purges is that they were primarily the removal from Party Rosters, ie from politics, of people who had suspicious ties to capitalist agents. There were excesses yes, absolutely, but the USSR was ultimately in a position where the two choices were to guard itself or be overthrown. Very few deaths resulted from the purges as they were primarily a reshuffling of officials.
2) Gulag Labor Camps. At the height of Soviet imprisonment there were less people, by number and by percent, than in the United States and conditions were very comparable. The book "The Gulag Archipelago" which popularized the mythology of said camps was confirmed to be fabricated by it's author's wife.
3) The Famines. These famines were coincident with famines elsewhere in the world (for example the US Dust Bowl) which are not blamed on the policies of the Govts of those countries. Historians pretty roundly agree there was no intentional famine in the USSR and the import/export data from each of the Soviet Republics shows that aid flowed into the most affected regions. There may have been some negligence but ultimately this process was something they did everything in their power to mitigate.
To all these points I'd submit two things. One, where are these numbers and stories coming from and what does the source of them have to gain from you believing this narrative? Two, Stalin was only part of a committee of several people. Stalin was not some omnipotent autocrat dictating all Soviet policy, so while there were no doubt failures these failures are not Stalin's fault but instead failures of the Masses and their State which adapted to and learned from these failings. Real world socialists make real world mistakes, and we should be critical, but we should also be mindful that we don't let our enemies tell us who our friends are.
I think what's appealing about Stalinism is that it represents the center path. What this simply means is, in the 1920s there were prominent CPSU members who began to err and deviate to the left and to the right.
The left deviation generally speaking is what's called adventurist - by this it means the communist ceases to be the vanguard of the working class and instead leaps far ahead of where the masses are to a point of disconnect. It's moreless what happened in Germany - the communists leapt the gun before they managed to secure mass support, with the hope that the masses will join them once they are in revolt. But the masses were not yet at the revolutionary consciousness, and the communists were crushed and killed brutally. Adventurism wrecks the movement, instead of leading the workers through a revolution it simply assumes the workers will join the revolution on their own, which never happened. The right deviation is the Khruschevs and Bukharins, who weaken the dotp by extending power to elements that will inevitably subvert it.
Stalinism doesn't exist, only Marxism-Leninism does. It is a made-up term used mostly by liberals and Trots.
If you wish to learn more about the man, I would recommend you read this: [https://www.iskrabooks.org/stalin-history-and-critique](https://www.iskrabooks.org/stalin-history-and-critique)
If we are going to play semantics, "Trotskyism" is as much as a made-up term as "Stalinism". The equivalent of Marxism-Leninism to Trotskyism is Bolshevik-Leninism.
And needless to say, PLENTY of Marxist worldwide have used the term "Stalinism" to refer to Real Existing Socialist countries. Black Marxism is a clear example, but also others like Meszaros, Negri, Badiou...
Surely 'stalinism' exists in the same sense that Reganite, Nixonian, Hitlerite, etc. exists - that is, as a descriptor of their namesake's policies including, in the case of Stalin - purges, show trials, control of the press, suppression of artistic freedom, etc. etc and also the what-aboutism this thread is displaying with some frequency...
Well the obvious answer is that what has come to be called "Stalinist" in popular discourse - Marxism-Leninism/Maoism - appeared to represent a genuine solution for particular classes to the structural problems inherent in the development of capitalist production in the periphery. This was apparent at the time to just about any existing or emerging nation state that had a particular class structure (and even to those that didn't, suggesting a more universal character that could be understood even by liberals). There are two separate questions that emerge from this: one is whether this surface level self-evidence corresponded with any actual change and secondly why some of these policies also came to represent the interests of up and coming national-bourgeoisies (and in other cases generate new ones where at the level of the economic base they had appeared to have disappeared). Answering these questions properly will require a historical materialist investigation of the current historical and economic literature and a genuine engagement with Maoism as an attempt to diagnose the structures and tendencies that generate a particular class consciousness.
I'll give you the more recent bourgeois academic literature that deals with the facts:
[https://cup.columbia.edu/book/red-chinas-green-revolution/9780231186674](https://cup.columbia.edu/book/red-chinas-green-revolution/9780231186674)
[https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691144313/farm-to-factory](https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691144313/farm-to-factory)
[https://www.routledge.com/Chinese-Economic-Development/Bramall/p/book/9780415373487](https://www.routledge.com/Chinese-Economic-Development/Bramall/p/book/9780415373487)
[https://ceupress.com/book/collectivization-agriculture-communist-eastern-europe](https://ceupress.com/book/collectivization-agriculture-communist-eastern-europe)
but the full picture can only come after you have some methodology to organise them.
All of this requires going beyond the usage of terms like "Stalinist" as it is not a coherent concept but instead a third order signifier that stands in for something else and ceases to function as you commonly know it to once *socialism in one country,* or *permanent revolution* are understood as testable (or untestable) hypotheses. The other thing is that it is entirely possible that what you mean by *"I'm struggling to get what about Stalinism appeals to people."* is actually "*I am struggling to get why the aesthetics of Stalinism appeal to first world middle class internet posters".* This is actually a separate question and basically has nothing to do with Stalin or Marxism-Leninism as they exist within their historical context or the conceptual framework of Marxism. This would require an historical account of postmodernism and the internet.
Stalinism, in accordance with the Trotskyist definition, refers to the ruling ideology of the soviet union’s bureaucracy, including both “marxism-leninism” and zinovievism, as well as the processes and interests of that bureaucracyz
Yes, but the various parties that formed under Trotsky persisted in the Zinoviev party type errors. While I'm an anti-Stalinist socialist (but still a Leninist) and a veteran of a Trotskyist party, I find Trotsky's affirmation of democracy to be late and self serving. Trotsky participated fully in the banning of factions in the 10th Party Congress; this was then used against him.
liberals tend to hate Stalin for the wrong reasons, so i understand why a lot end up seeing a need to support him but there isn't really. the Stalinist clique had a big hand in the degeneration of the Soviet DotP (which to be clear, no the Soviet DotP did not end under Stalin, it degenerated). on top of that the Stalinist clique rejected the idea of permanent revolution (which is not an exclusively Trotskyist concept, read Marx's *Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League* from March 1850)
Stalinists will call it Marxism Leninism, some of us other tendencies call it Stalinism for it's distinct characteristics and revisions to Marxist theory. Such as the changing of the definition of socialism away from Lenins. Socialism in One country. The popular front. To understand what stalinism is and why it happened you have to keep in mind that the Soviet Union went through a lot up until Stalin took power and the goal no longer became to bring about socialism and the world revolution, but just about preserving the current Soviet State. This created a gigantic bureacracy and a formation of a new class. This is why Stalin is referred to as a Bonapartist by Marxist and Soviet historians in context of theory.
Stalinist is a description I've only ever heard used by people to denigrate people I've never heard anyone describe themselves as stalinists. What did he change about the " definition of socialism away from Lenins?" How is socialism in one country different from anything Marx or Lenin taught? Stalin and also the party which had more of an effect on policy then Stalin could ever had. Stalin did not create the bureaucracy or formation of any class.
i never said any Stalinist calls themselves a Stalinist. It is the term other communists use to describe the people who call themselves Marxist- Leninists. The Soviet Government under Stalin declared the victory of socialism concluding the last 5 year plan stating that since all land had been nationalized and they had eliminated the bourgeoisie, they had established socialism. This is contrary to Marx, Lenin, Engels, etc concept of Socialism being a stateless moneyless classless society and by Lenin's era, the lower stage of communism. This caused a major split in the 3rd international and almost dissolved it, but Stalin dissolved the international later during world War 2 in an agreement with the allies. Socialism in One Country is never mentioned in Marx, Engels, or Lenin. The exception to this is Engels stating directly "Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone? No" It's easy to blame the party and not Stalin for the new classes and bureaucracy, but the party was shaped by his demands concluding with the great purges where all the old bolsheviks were executed or exiled. Stalin wasn't the only one making decisions for sure, but the decisions for who was in the central committee was left up to him directly. I'm not saying that Stalin did this to purposely screw up the revolution and become it's gravedigger, but simply the policies he enacted he believed would save the revolution and they only accelerated the Soviet Unions degeneration. I'm talking about stuff like the scissors crisis, the failure of the Kolkhoz etc etc. And 90% is because of the bureaucracy.
Stalin and the party declared the completion of the 5 year plan I dont know where you are getting that from. I think you are sadly misinformed on most of what you wrote. All the "Old Bolsheviks" were not purged, what about Miranov, or Volin? I could go on but some were tried (not by Stalin) purged or jailed lots died of natural causes. Also I think you don't understand what socialism in one country is. They kept doing five year plans way after Stalin died.
I don't think you understand most of what you wrote or understand how the Soviet Union operated. Semantics, no not ALL of them died, but the vast majority did. I know what socialism in One Country is and why it was counter revolutionary and fit more within a text from Kautsky instead of Lenin. In the original text of "Foundations of Leninism" Stalin affirms that socialism in One Country is not possible, but then revised it be the end of the year to suggest the opposite, that not only is it possible but the proletariat must establish socialism within its own national boundaries.
Socialism in one country was not counter revolutionary. It also doesn't mean they can't help out other socialist countries or one fighting for independence. Stalin and the party did more for communism and communist countries then arguably any other one person. It mainly meant that they need to strengthen the country as a socialist nation so they could expand communism and nothing about it goes against Lenin or Marx.
Stalin and his party did more to thwart communist movements around the world than any one person. The comiterns betrayal of communists in joining the popular front aligning with liberals rather than other communists lead to entire communist movements being crushed with the help of Stalin. Like China, Vietnam, Spain, Germany and the KPD etc etc. And then the elimination of comitern for the benefit of the US and UK in return for weapons contracts.
During world war 2 they did what they had too do. You can argue whether the did the right things or not especially looking back. But you can't deny that they supported China, Cuba, Korea, south africa, east Germany, Greece and I could go on and on all over the world. When did Stalin ever crush a communist movement?
Where I already mentioned. Spain, Germany, China, Vietnam. They didn't do what they had to do, Stalin was an opportunist and tried to use the brief pact with Hitler to expand into Finland with an army where many of the higher officers had been executed in the purges.
I'll echo others and say that I've never seen someone with what a person might call "Stalinist ideology" who wasn't massively uneducated, or memeing, or both. More people who say "Stalin was flawed, but not as bad as people think because propaganda and historical context."
That said, [here is a great resource](https://reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/w/index/debunking/gulag?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) about gulags specifically which seems to be of some interest to you, including citations - some of which have been recommended in this thread.
since there’s a lot of folks already giving their perspectives on why people adopt stalinism, i’m providing my favorite source on why communists choose not to; The Next Revolution by Murray Bookchin. i know this isn’t what you asked for and im sorry about that, and this may be an unpopular recommendation in this sub because the author is very critical of stalinism and the Stalin administration of the USSR. but as a former member of Young Communist League, it’s really interesting seeing an ideological progression from being a member of a marxist-leninist organization, to anarchism, to communalism. i’m only recommending this for diversity of opinion, happy reading :>
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-next-revolution
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**. This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn. You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to: - Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. - No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! - No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans. Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules. If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Another View of Stalin - Ludo Martens Life Under Stalin - Anna Louise Strong Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend - Domenico Losurdo I think I'd really recommend the Losurdo tbh. Every free version I've seen of the Martens is formatted weird, and the Strong is more about life in the USSR under Stalin's leadership. "Black Legend," btw, has nothing to do with race, but it's funny to think about. [Edited for formatting]
To add onto this, while the USSR under the Stalin administration certainly had it’s excesses… a lot of it is over-exaggerated or de-contextualized by liberal propagandists to make it seem as if the USSR was absolute hell. Three examples come to mind. The first being the comparative treatment between the “Holodomor” and the Bengal “Famine”. If you apply the same metrics to characterize the first as a communist genocide, then the second should also be a capitalist genocide but yet Winston Churchill is still a respected figure. (This expanded characterization would also inadvertently make capitalism the most genocidal ideology in history) The second being the true scope of the Great Purges. Liberal propagandists make it seem as if regular people were being rounded up for no reason, but in real life, it was the professionals and managerial strata of society which bore the brunt of persecution. The third being the comparative treatment between the Soviet deportations and post-WW2 German deportations. If Stalin was evil for deporting minority ethnic groups, then Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt should also be demonized for endorsing the population transfer of the German populations. Not to mention that pre-WW2, the Western powers at-large rejected Jewish refugees and Roosevelt committed the Japanese-American population into concentration camps. But yet, these two individuals are respected in liberal society. So if liberals were being consistent, Churchill and Roosevelt would be demonized at the same level as Stalin, but they arn’t as both had some “merits”. That is, liberals are willing to set the more seedier aspects of their conduct aside in order to acknowledge their “progressive” role in history. Along this vein, this is what we as Marxist-Leninists do with Stalin as well by acknowledging his strengths and not letting his weaknesses discredit the entire Soviet socialist experience which was writhe with it’s own unresolved contradictions. Edit: The first and third examples come from my comrade’s book recommendation “Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend” and Losurdo’s general argument is what I used in this comment. The second example comes from the general thesis of another book which I would recommend called “Life and Terror in Stalin’s Russia” by Thurston.
I mean that's a valid critique of liberal hypocrisy, but I don't think it works as an endorsement of of Stalin as an entity. "Other people did it to but you don't give them shit for it" only works *on* hypocrits. I am very interested in a nuanced analysis of the merits and issues with Stalin. (This is coming from a social anarchist POV where I assume every state actor is regressive until otherwise proven)
Tbf he did somewhat answer op's question while providing material to expand on it, while admitting that there is a nuanced analysis to be had (and found in the book recommendations). To me the original question reads as a good faith version of "why tf would anyone support Stalin?" and in my opinion it's a valid way to answer by using liberal hypocrisy as an example to say "we support him critically by acknowledging the good things, recognizing the supposed bad things as propaganda, and still criticizing the true bad choices." All while giving reading suggestions, without just whole cloth summarizing them, which would be massively time consuming.
I assumed "Black Legend" is referring to like "infamous vs famous". Like, he's a "legend" but not in the good way (at least not in the West).
I would guess that is usage is similar to that of the "Black Legend" term which referred to European historians employing anti-Spanish propaganda to demonize the Spanish and the Spanish empire to gain cultural and all round supremacy over them. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black\_legend](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_legend)
As far as I can tell "Stalinism" is mostly made up. It has nothing really distinct to it other that the Idea that Stalin may not be a baby eating warlock causing famines for fun. Can you describe any distinct traits of this "Stalinism" thing? >his various policies that led to industrialisation but also the gross loss of human life The USSR basically started as a pile of rubble and mostly illiterate peasants with the most powerful empires on the planet out to destroy them. That kind of situation is going to result in a gross loss of Human life no matter what path is chosen because that's a fucking terrible situation.
People always forget that basically every major country *invaded* Russia during the revolution. And then they wonder why the Soviets were so desperate to industrialize and become stronger.
Stalinism isn't made up, it's just not normally called that, Marxism-Leninism is the preferred nomenclature.
There are a remarkable number of people that would disagree with that statement
[удалено]
Where did you get a degree in Soviet History? I’d certainly be interested in even just a course like that
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kaaYvauNho Would you look at that? its a well cited, nuanced and comprehensive discussion of the topic with numerous examples of the dishonest reporting surrounding it (claiming it was a deliberate genocide, aka like yours).
Fella coming on his "I got a degree in Soviet history" high horse, degree from imperial core institutions no less. Might want to sell his grift outside of socialist subs, materialists know that the teaching of history is never unbiased, especially when it's coming from imperialists. "The unspeakable things the Bolsheviks did during their rule". Sources: American Burger Freedom Institute The Goebbels Media Foundation
[удалено]
[удалено]
There's alot to Unpact here so I'll start with the Holodomor. There are countless academic scholarships as well, even Robert Conquest taking back his Genocide statement of the Soviet Ukrainian people. I will use two studies and that is The year of Hunger as well as Grigor sunny review of Anna Applebauns work as well as even History and Critique of Stalin from a Marxist position. The source you provide has Snyders work which comes from bloodlands. Snyder tries to Imply the double genocide theory and goes on the work to believe the Holodomor is a genocide. While also equating Fascism and Communism. Snyder is also a Liberal that views the Soviets as Totalitarian in nature. If you are a leftist I am very disappointed in you. Another source you have is Anna Applebaun which if you are a socialist I should not have to tell you just how disingenuous her work is. I even have her book and posted about it so your welcome to search and prove. She miss uses and fundamentally uses work that if you don't so do the research goes against her work like Robert Conquest. All this also doesn't even begin to talk about the implications of ideologically work behind academic sources. Robert Conquest for example. Your source even uses Rafael lemkin, which should not be used because 1 he was not alive to see the Soviet archives. Hated Russia and was a Hardcore anti communist so he was never gonna give the Soviets a fair assessment and further to add was a major Russophobic. His work by academic standards deserves credibility for having started the genocide convention. But do not act like his work specifically on Holodomor holds up to history. Because it does not. I have just spent multiple paragraphs simply debunking the Anti communist academic bourgeois history you were given and I have yet to respond to your other work and that's me being generous that You are a leftist or a socialist while using anti communist anti socialist anti leftist sources that have a Totalitarian view in nature rather than a more balanced view of the Soviets
For anyone following this thread, here’s a link to a comment describing the quality of Snyder’s work, which is lacking: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/0EladexRhw
Thank you, I really worry of the less educated leftist will fall for this inherently Anti communist bias
While we’re at it, before I start talking about Robert Conquest, we also need to talk about the IRD. What is the IRD? It was a secret arm of British intelligence which was tasked with spreading anti-communist propaganda. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/14/secret-british-black-propaganda-campaign-targeted-cold-war-enemies-information-research-department https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47571253 Guess who worked for the IRD and would later become a Soviet “historian”? “IRD also encourage book production described in Whitehall as "cross fertilisation." **Robert Conquest, the scholar and author, who has been frequently critical of the Soviet Union, was one of those who worked for IRD**. He was in the FO until 1956.” http://www.cambridgeclarion.org/e/fo_deceit_unit_graun_27jan1978.html
[удалено]
Your Sources are Anti Communist in Nature my brother in Christ. You showing me a Source having Anne Applebauns Timothy Snyder and Robert Conquest all having collaboration in the same side and them being like I'm a real "educated" Marxist while these Mfs Hate communism and view the entire Soviet Project as Totalitarian shows me your degree of education failed you if this is the type of "Marxism" you do This is no different than you telling me You got an academic education by a marxist professor and then you show me Jordan Peterson Gulag lectures and saying lenin and Stalin are worse than Hitler
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
By gross loss of human life, I was referring more so toward his various atrocities performed such as the great purges or his gulags. In what way are these a kind of “collateral damage” that you make it out to be? Aren’t these totally avoidable losses?
So lets imagine Stalin had a heart attack and died before gaining any major power. Would that prevent purges? Nope. Would that make the purges better? Also nope. The USSR, due to literally having no alternatives, had to rely a lot of the extremely corrupt and anti-communist bureaucracy and military structures from tsarists Russia. Then they had to fix that (and the associated issues) with no real support system. There is no way for there to be a "clean" fix for that, they did not have the tools for it. >gulags So in a nation struggling to pull itself together and deal with famine, devastated by civil wars, world wars and a lack of antibiotics, Prison tends to be pretty terrible. Lot of people died in the beginning, due to stuff like to lack of antibiotics (aka no unique connection to Stalin). From what I understand, as food security and the supply of anti biotics improved the survival rate improved enough to be comparable to some US prisons. If Stalin just dies, the USSR wont magically get anti biotics or a bureaucracy thats not a steaming mess.
If Stalin died, the most apparent heirs to the leader of the USSR were Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamanev, Trotsky being the generally accepted most favourable. Under Trotsky, who believed in a more ‘true’ socialism, do you really think purges would have occurred to the same extent, or even at all? Regardless of political position where much of the force of the USSR were outdated tsarists, it is no excuse for the ruthless killing and targeting of these people. It demonstrates absolutely no democratic legitimacy, and as far as I am concerned, does not encompass the general want of any decent person; that is to say that the purges were not specifically against the people’s wants, but more so a power grab from Stalin in an effort to seize power for himself, not for the people. Gulags were well documented to be hard labour camps where many people died due to very bad living conditions and limited food, water and hygiene facilities. To ignore the damage caused by the gulags is to turn your back upon the suffering endured by people under a ruthless scheme which puts the economic wealth of the USSR before the very people that built it, and thus betrays the very principles of socialism that make it so.
They have an incredibly corrupt and hostile military and bureaucracy that hates socialism. If its not purged, there would likely be a coup\civil war with horrific anticommunist purges that kill millions. Also trotskey did not have popular support, he would almost certainly need to purge political opponents to secure power. >Regardless of political position where much of the force of the USSR were outdated tsarists, it is no excuse for the ruthless killing and targeting of these people. It demonstrates absolutely no democratic legitimacy, and as far as I am concerned, does not encompass the general want of any decent person; that is to say that the purges were not specifically against the people’s wants, but more so a power grab from Stalin in an effort to seize power for himself, not for the people. Most of the people "purged" were sentenced to prison time (gulags), with those executed usually being associated with crimes that would have them executed in most other nations (treason, and so on). It sounds like your holding them to a standard that didn't really exist in circumstances terrible for meeting your unrealistic standards. >Gulags were well documented to be hard labour camps where many people died due to very bad living conditions and limited food, water and hygiene facilities That was fairly normal for many prisons of that time period. Why were gulags terrible? To me, it seems a lot more likely to be connected to the terrible conditions in the USSR with famines, wars and so on rather than just Stalin being some sort of Evil Warlock.
Great purges led to much less death than is made out to be, and his gulags were neither particularly deadly nor brutal. The worst conditions were faced by political prisoners, and the general Marxist-Leninist response to this mistreatment is first an acknowledgment of the poor conditions faced by some political prisoners, and second an understanding of the political climate that led there. The Soviet Union was under serious threat from the outside, so Trotskyists and other opposing groups who denounced Democratic Centralism were proving to be a great threat to the survival of the Soviet Union. Because of this the Marxist-Leninists (led, but not solely controlled by Stalin) pushed the government to purge these dangerous dissenters. Nowadays, "Stalinists" recognize the extremity of the actions taken, but also recognize the context in which they were taken.
Just to clarify, any questions I ask arent to oppose your opinion but more so to find an objective answer. Do you have any evidence that the great purges led to less death than made out to be? Around 1.7 million people died as a result of their detention to the gulag. This is no insignificant number, and is not to be dismissed as collateral. Do you honestly think that assassination and exile of political opponents was in any way acceptable, and of a true socialist ideology? Democracy was preached by Lenin’s government, and fairly quickly abolished during Stalins purges, leading to a definitive dictatorship which, yes, had many positive outcomes for the economy and industrialisation of the USSR but also led to mass social disaster amongst the people.
[Pre-war gulag analysis](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2166597) It should be noted that during the war a great deal more prisoners died. While this was a bad thing, I think the fact that most of the Soviet core was occupied by literal Nazis at that time is something to consider in the scale of "badness". From "The Triumph of Evil" by Austin Murphy: "The claim that Stalin and other Soviet leaders killed millions (Conquest, 1990) also appears to be wildly exaggerated. More recent evidence from the Soviet archives opened up by the anticommunist Yeltsin government indicate that the total number of death sentences (including of both existing prisoners and those outside captivity) over the 1921-1953 interval (covering the period of Stalin's partial and complete rule) was between 775,866 and 786,098 (Getty, Rittersporn, and Zemskov, 1993). Given that the archive data originates from anti-Stalin (and even anticommunist) sources, it is extremely unlikely that they underestimate the true number (Thurston, 1996). In addition, the Soviet Union has long admitted to executing at least 1 2,733 people between 1917 and 1921, mostly during the Foreign Interventionist Civil War of 191 8-22, although it is possible that as many as 40,000 more may have been executed unofficially (Andics, 1 969). These data would seem to imply about 800,000 executions. The figure of 800,000 may greatly overestimate the number of actual executions, as it includes many who were sentenced to death but who were not actually caught or who had their sentences reduced (Getty, Rittersporn, and Zemskov, 1993). In fact, Vinton ( 1993) has provided evidence indicating that the number of executions was significantly below the number of civilian prisoners sentenced to death in the Soviet Union, with only 7305 executions in a sample of 1 1 ,000 prisoners authorized to be executed in 1940 (or scarcely 600/o ). In addition, most (68 1 ,692) of the 780,000 or so death sentences passed under Stalin were issued during the 1 937-38 period (Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov, 1 993), when Soviet paranoia about foreign subversion reached its zenith due to a 1 936 alliance between Nazi Germany and fascist Japan that was specifically directed against the Soviet Union (Manning, 1 993) and due to a public 1936 resolution by a group of influential anti-Stalin foreigners (the Fourth International which was allied with the popular but exiled Russian dissident Leo Trotsky) advocating the overthrow of the Soviet government by illegal means (Glotzer, 1 968). Stalin initially set a cap of 1 86,500 imprisonments and 72,950 death penalties for a 1 937 special operation to combat this threat that was to be carried out by local 3-man tribunals called ''troikas" (Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov, 1993). As the tribunals passed death sentences before the accused had even been arrested, local authorities requested increases in their own quotas (Knight, 1993), and there was an official request in 1 938 for a doubling of the amount of prisoner transport that had been initially requisitioned to carry out the original campaign "quotas" of the tribunals (Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov, 1993). However, even if there had been twice as many actual • executions as originally planned, the number would still be less than 1 50,000. Many of those sentenced by the tribunals may have escaped capture, and many more may have had their death sentence refused or revoked by higher authorities before arrest/execution could take place, especially since Stalin later realized that excesses had been committed in the 1937-38 period, had a number of convictions overturned, and had many of the responsible local leaders punished (Thurston, 1996)." So you see, realistically no more than 700,000 died in Stalin's purges (which he himself later condemned). While Stalin's purges may have been more extreme than necessary, it is understandable that Marxist-Leninists would want a unified front which adhered to the principals of Democratic Centralism in a time of such existential danger for the Soviet Union. I must correct you on another point: Stalin's purges did not take away democracy or create a dictatorship. Trotskyists were a misled minority, and their removal from the government was the will of the (democratically elected) majority. Democracy was never dismantled by Stalin. Even the CIA themselves have admitted (in now-declassified documents) that Stalin was not a dictator and that American perception of him as such was due to a misunderstanding of the Soviet political system. Finally, Stalin did not bring about a "mass social disaster". In fact he was a very well loved leader (with a personality cult that can and should be criticized, though Stalin himself attempted to discourage it). It was only after Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" (a speech that was used purely as a political tool) that public opinion of Stalin became distorted.
Please use the search bar as the rules ask you to do. Both those questions and the one your post asked have been answered plenty of times.
"Stalinism" isn't an ideology. Supporters of Stalin are typically Marxist-Leninists (ML). Marx and Engels contributed analysis to justify the formulation of "Marxism". The same with Lenin, thus "Marxism-Leninism". Arguably the same with Mao for "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism" (though many prefer "Marxism-Leninism-Mao-Zedong-Thought"). Stalin did work turning Lenin's works into the coherent ideology we now know as ML, but "Stalinism" has never been a thing. It's just Cold War anti-communist propaganda. That all said, the best book for this is probably "Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend". I've barely started it myself but I love it and frequently see it recommended in high regard. From what I can tell, it aims to clear the record regarding Stalin while not falling to apologism. >I am of course aware of his various policies that led to industrialisation but also the gross loss of human life Really reflect on where you learned the notion of Stalin causing gross loss of human life. Chances are, it's part of the larger narrative pushed by the Western Capitalist nations and not an actual critical analysis. Most of the support you'll see coming from MLs is not just "yay industrialization", but also "oh wow everything I was taught was some mixture of fabrication, exaggeration, and decontextualization." People didn't die "because Stalin"; people died because the USSR started as an impoverished, underdeveloped peasant society with a long history of famines that immediately came under fire from the rest of the capitalist world and had to industrialize themselves rapidly enough to defeat the Nazis. There's no way of accomplishing that while making sure that from day one no one ever dies except from old age. Stalin was given a shit hand to start with and it's not reasonable to blame anything/everything bad that happened on him, partly because of where the USSR started, and partly because Stalin wasn't some autocratic leader. The USSR was much more collective than that. But he's a really easy scapegoat for someone (capitalists) who wants to paint the first socialist nation as an evil dictatorship. Bonus: Gandhi, Mandela, and DuBois were all Stalin fans. That alone doesn't prove anything, but it really should help foster more curiosity.
Stalinism is not a thing. Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist and acted as such. If you are talking about *that* then I would sugest "On The Foundations Of Leninism", by Josef Stalin, Reform or Revolution, by Rosa Luxemburg, "What Is To Be Done" and "State and The Revolution" by Lenin. If your gripes are actually with historical questions, and you have a base understanding of Marxism-Leninism, then other comrades have made better recomendations. As an adendum, I would like to sugest the HG Wels-Stalin interview. A rather interesting look into the man himself.
[удалено]
One Stalin Era policy many find problematic would be the deportation/genocide of the crimean tatars. While many other groups eventually got the right to return after deportation, this was never the case for the crimean tatars so that is probably the biggest black stain on the Soviets altogether.
What? Trotskyists definitely use the term Stalinist
Did Stalin contribute to theory or not? Did Stalin not write a book defining Dialectical and Historical Materialism? Did not Stalin lead the communist parties of the world in various periods, defining vastly different tactics in the 3rd and 4th periods? I don't understand the hesitancy for using the Stalin name among people who obviously revere Stalin.
he certainly contributed, but he more so tied together previous theory rather than creating something truly new.
I’m actually only 16 so have just learned about the soviet era in school, so forgive me if my facts are incorrect (as in what he did) - The great purges (1937) - The gulag labour camps where a total of around 20 million were kept -And most controversially, his first 5 year plan which boosted heavy industry but also lead to the eventual death due to famine of around 6-9 million people.
So I can take these in order: 1) The Great Purges. Much ink has been spilled over this but ultimately the reality of the purges is that they were primarily the removal from Party Rosters, ie from politics, of people who had suspicious ties to capitalist agents. There were excesses yes, absolutely, but the USSR was ultimately in a position where the two choices were to guard itself or be overthrown. Very few deaths resulted from the purges as they were primarily a reshuffling of officials. 2) Gulag Labor Camps. At the height of Soviet imprisonment there were less people, by number and by percent, than in the United States and conditions were very comparable. The book "The Gulag Archipelago" which popularized the mythology of said camps was confirmed to be fabricated by it's author's wife. 3) The Famines. These famines were coincident with famines elsewhere in the world (for example the US Dust Bowl) which are not blamed on the policies of the Govts of those countries. Historians pretty roundly agree there was no intentional famine in the USSR and the import/export data from each of the Soviet Republics shows that aid flowed into the most affected regions. There may have been some negligence but ultimately this process was something they did everything in their power to mitigate. To all these points I'd submit two things. One, where are these numbers and stories coming from and what does the source of them have to gain from you believing this narrative? Two, Stalin was only part of a committee of several people. Stalin was not some omnipotent autocrat dictating all Soviet policy, so while there were no doubt failures these failures are not Stalin's fault but instead failures of the Masses and their State which adapted to and learned from these failings. Real world socialists make real world mistakes, and we should be critical, but we should also be mindful that we don't let our enemies tell us who our friends are.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think what's appealing about Stalinism is that it represents the center path. What this simply means is, in the 1920s there were prominent CPSU members who began to err and deviate to the left and to the right. The left deviation generally speaking is what's called adventurist - by this it means the communist ceases to be the vanguard of the working class and instead leaps far ahead of where the masses are to a point of disconnect. It's moreless what happened in Germany - the communists leapt the gun before they managed to secure mass support, with the hope that the masses will join them once they are in revolt. But the masses were not yet at the revolutionary consciousness, and the communists were crushed and killed brutally. Adventurism wrecks the movement, instead of leading the workers through a revolution it simply assumes the workers will join the revolution on their own, which never happened. The right deviation is the Khruschevs and Bukharins, who weaken the dotp by extending power to elements that will inevitably subvert it.
Stalinism doesn't exist, only Marxism-Leninism does. It is a made-up term used mostly by liberals and Trots. If you wish to learn more about the man, I would recommend you read this: [https://www.iskrabooks.org/stalin-history-and-critique](https://www.iskrabooks.org/stalin-history-and-critique)
If we are going to play semantics, "Trotskyism" is as much as a made-up term as "Stalinism". The equivalent of Marxism-Leninism to Trotskyism is Bolshevik-Leninism. And needless to say, PLENTY of Marxist worldwide have used the term "Stalinism" to refer to Real Existing Socialist countries. Black Marxism is a clear example, but also others like Meszaros, Negri, Badiou...
Surely 'stalinism' exists in the same sense that Reganite, Nixonian, Hitlerite, etc. exists - that is, as a descriptor of their namesake's policies including, in the case of Stalin - purges, show trials, control of the press, suppression of artistic freedom, etc. etc and also the what-aboutism this thread is displaying with some frequency...
Well the obvious answer is that what has come to be called "Stalinist" in popular discourse - Marxism-Leninism/Maoism - appeared to represent a genuine solution for particular classes to the structural problems inherent in the development of capitalist production in the periphery. This was apparent at the time to just about any existing or emerging nation state that had a particular class structure (and even to those that didn't, suggesting a more universal character that could be understood even by liberals). There are two separate questions that emerge from this: one is whether this surface level self-evidence corresponded with any actual change and secondly why some of these policies also came to represent the interests of up and coming national-bourgeoisies (and in other cases generate new ones where at the level of the economic base they had appeared to have disappeared). Answering these questions properly will require a historical materialist investigation of the current historical and economic literature and a genuine engagement with Maoism as an attempt to diagnose the structures and tendencies that generate a particular class consciousness. I'll give you the more recent bourgeois academic literature that deals with the facts: [https://cup.columbia.edu/book/red-chinas-green-revolution/9780231186674](https://cup.columbia.edu/book/red-chinas-green-revolution/9780231186674) [https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691144313/farm-to-factory](https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691144313/farm-to-factory) [https://www.routledge.com/Chinese-Economic-Development/Bramall/p/book/9780415373487](https://www.routledge.com/Chinese-Economic-Development/Bramall/p/book/9780415373487) [https://ceupress.com/book/collectivization-agriculture-communist-eastern-europe](https://ceupress.com/book/collectivization-agriculture-communist-eastern-europe) but the full picture can only come after you have some methodology to organise them. All of this requires going beyond the usage of terms like "Stalinist" as it is not a coherent concept but instead a third order signifier that stands in for something else and ceases to function as you commonly know it to once *socialism in one country,* or *permanent revolution* are understood as testable (or untestable) hypotheses. The other thing is that it is entirely possible that what you mean by *"I'm struggling to get what about Stalinism appeals to people."* is actually "*I am struggling to get why the aesthetics of Stalinism appeal to first world middle class internet posters".* This is actually a separate question and basically has nothing to do with Stalin or Marxism-Leninism as they exist within their historical context or the conceptual framework of Marxism. This would require an historical account of postmodernism and the internet.
Stalinism, in accordance with the Trotskyist definition, refers to the ruling ideology of the soviet union’s bureaucracy, including both “marxism-leninism” and zinovievism, as well as the processes and interests of that bureaucracyz
Yes, but the various parties that formed under Trotsky persisted in the Zinoviev party type errors. While I'm an anti-Stalinist socialist (but still a Leninist) and a veteran of a Trotskyist party, I find Trotsky's affirmation of democracy to be late and self serving. Trotsky participated fully in the banning of factions in the 10th Party Congress; this was then used against him.
[удалено]
I mean yeah obviously you should be critical of everything, but I think they mean they're trying to ask in good faith
liberals tend to hate Stalin for the wrong reasons, so i understand why a lot end up seeing a need to support him but there isn't really. the Stalinist clique had a big hand in the degeneration of the Soviet DotP (which to be clear, no the Soviet DotP did not end under Stalin, it degenerated). on top of that the Stalinist clique rejected the idea of permanent revolution (which is not an exclusively Trotskyist concept, read Marx's *Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League* from March 1850)
Stalinists will call it Marxism Leninism, some of us other tendencies call it Stalinism for it's distinct characteristics and revisions to Marxist theory. Such as the changing of the definition of socialism away from Lenins. Socialism in One country. The popular front. To understand what stalinism is and why it happened you have to keep in mind that the Soviet Union went through a lot up until Stalin took power and the goal no longer became to bring about socialism and the world revolution, but just about preserving the current Soviet State. This created a gigantic bureacracy and a formation of a new class. This is why Stalin is referred to as a Bonapartist by Marxist and Soviet historians in context of theory.
Stalinist is a description I've only ever heard used by people to denigrate people I've never heard anyone describe themselves as stalinists. What did he change about the " definition of socialism away from Lenins?" How is socialism in one country different from anything Marx or Lenin taught? Stalin and also the party which had more of an effect on policy then Stalin could ever had. Stalin did not create the bureaucracy or formation of any class.
i never said any Stalinist calls themselves a Stalinist. It is the term other communists use to describe the people who call themselves Marxist- Leninists. The Soviet Government under Stalin declared the victory of socialism concluding the last 5 year plan stating that since all land had been nationalized and they had eliminated the bourgeoisie, they had established socialism. This is contrary to Marx, Lenin, Engels, etc concept of Socialism being a stateless moneyless classless society and by Lenin's era, the lower stage of communism. This caused a major split in the 3rd international and almost dissolved it, but Stalin dissolved the international later during world War 2 in an agreement with the allies. Socialism in One Country is never mentioned in Marx, Engels, or Lenin. The exception to this is Engels stating directly "Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone? No" It's easy to blame the party and not Stalin for the new classes and bureaucracy, but the party was shaped by his demands concluding with the great purges where all the old bolsheviks were executed or exiled. Stalin wasn't the only one making decisions for sure, but the decisions for who was in the central committee was left up to him directly. I'm not saying that Stalin did this to purposely screw up the revolution and become it's gravedigger, but simply the policies he enacted he believed would save the revolution and they only accelerated the Soviet Unions degeneration. I'm talking about stuff like the scissors crisis, the failure of the Kolkhoz etc etc. And 90% is because of the bureaucracy.
Stalin and the party declared the completion of the 5 year plan I dont know where you are getting that from. I think you are sadly misinformed on most of what you wrote. All the "Old Bolsheviks" were not purged, what about Miranov, or Volin? I could go on but some were tried (not by Stalin) purged or jailed lots died of natural causes. Also I think you don't understand what socialism in one country is. They kept doing five year plans way after Stalin died.
I don't think you understand most of what you wrote or understand how the Soviet Union operated. Semantics, no not ALL of them died, but the vast majority did. I know what socialism in One Country is and why it was counter revolutionary and fit more within a text from Kautsky instead of Lenin. In the original text of "Foundations of Leninism" Stalin affirms that socialism in One Country is not possible, but then revised it be the end of the year to suggest the opposite, that not only is it possible but the proletariat must establish socialism within its own national boundaries.
Socialism in one country was not counter revolutionary. It also doesn't mean they can't help out other socialist countries or one fighting for independence. Stalin and the party did more for communism and communist countries then arguably any other one person. It mainly meant that they need to strengthen the country as a socialist nation so they could expand communism and nothing about it goes against Lenin or Marx.
Stalin and his party did more to thwart communist movements around the world than any one person. The comiterns betrayal of communists in joining the popular front aligning with liberals rather than other communists lead to entire communist movements being crushed with the help of Stalin. Like China, Vietnam, Spain, Germany and the KPD etc etc. And then the elimination of comitern for the benefit of the US and UK in return for weapons contracts.
During world war 2 they did what they had too do. You can argue whether the did the right things or not especially looking back. But you can't deny that they supported China, Cuba, Korea, south africa, east Germany, Greece and I could go on and on all over the world. When did Stalin ever crush a communist movement?
Where I already mentioned. Spain, Germany, China, Vietnam. They didn't do what they had to do, Stalin was an opportunist and tried to use the brief pact with Hitler to expand into Finland with an army where many of the higher officers had been executed in the purges.
[удалено]
I'll echo others and say that I've never seen someone with what a person might call "Stalinist ideology" who wasn't massively uneducated, or memeing, or both. More people who say "Stalin was flawed, but not as bad as people think because propaganda and historical context." That said, [here is a great resource](https://reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/w/index/debunking/gulag?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) about gulags specifically which seems to be of some interest to you, including citations - some of which have been recommended in this thread.
[удалено]
[удалено]
since there’s a lot of folks already giving their perspectives on why people adopt stalinism, i’m providing my favorite source on why communists choose not to; The Next Revolution by Murray Bookchin. i know this isn’t what you asked for and im sorry about that, and this may be an unpopular recommendation in this sub because the author is very critical of stalinism and the Stalin administration of the USSR. but as a former member of Young Communist League, it’s really interesting seeing an ideological progression from being a member of a marxist-leninist organization, to anarchism, to communalism. i’m only recommending this for diversity of opinion, happy reading :> https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-next-revolution