In my continued exposure to leftist spaces and a leftist view on history it has become clear that all I understand about Stalin is the reactionary rhetoric I’ve been fed my whole life. I have only just started on reading theory and exposing myself to a leftist view, so Stalin as a topic isn’t something I’ve reached yet.

But I have to ask, and I think this is the place to ask it, what is the deal with Stalin?

The vibe I get is that people at a minimum don’t hate Stalin, but also maybe at most appricate Stalin. I’m aware that the efforts of the USSR during WW2, especially in regards to Nazi aggression are a credit to his administration and leadership, but is that really where the vibe starts and stops?

I’m not looking for a dissertation on the guy, but just the notes or primary points. I’ll take reading suggestions too.

Thanks comrades.

  • wrecker_vs_dracula [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    36·
    10 months ago

    Stalin good actually, but best not to bring it up with the Tatars or the Ingush. Also the song about Stalin in the Tractor Drivers maybe a little cringe. All literature published in the English language covering the prewar Soviet Union, especially academic literature, must contain a ritual denunciation of Stalin. If you want to engage directly with the bases for these denunciations, that is a little harder to research.

    It’s important to understand that Khrushchov’s “secret” speech denouncing Stalin in 1956 was an enormous contributing factor to the Sino-Soviet split, which became more or less official that year. The image of Stalin represents anti-revisionism to the communists who use it today. Stalin’s bust is a symbol for the rejection of the revisionist turn in the postwar Soviet Union. It is also stands for staunch opposition to Trotskyism and Maoism. You will find however that communists rarely deal in absolutes. Dialectic analysis of history allows for simultaneous acknowledgment of the bad and celebration of the good in any person or political project.