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.

  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    34·
    10 months ago

    There are some really interesting interviews with Stalin, some examples:

    With Emil Ludwig, my favorite

    With Roy Howard

    And of course with HG Wells

    When assessing someone, it’s good to let them speak for themselves, even if your attitude towards what they say is nonetheless one of complete skepticism. Of course, Stalin wrote a few books and some of them are very accessible, so that’s another option.

      • GenderIsOpSec [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
        37·
        10 months ago

        it’s the one that changed my mind about Stalin back when someone linked it back on reddit-logo

        brainworms got withered in real time, when someone you’ve been told was a brutish barbarian warlord goes on and on about theory like look at this shit:

        There is no, nor should there be, irreconcilable contrast between the individual and the collective, between the interests of the individual person and the interests of the collective. There should be no such contrast, because collectivism, socialism, does not deny, but combines individual interests with the interests of the collective. Socialism cannot abstract itself from individual interests. Socialist society alone can most fully satisfy these personal interests. More than that; socialist society alone can firmly safeguard the interests of the individual. In this sense there is no irreconcilable contrast between “individualism” and socialism. But can we deny the contrast between classes, between the propertied class, the capitalist class, and the toiling class, the proletarian class?

        On the one hand we have the propertied class which owns the banks, the factories, the mines, transport, the plantations in colonies. These people see nothing but their own interests, their striving after profits.

        They do not submit to the will of the collective; they strive to subordinate every collective to their will. On the other hand we have the class of the poor, the exploited class, which owns neither factories nor works, nor banks, which is compelled to live by selling its labour power to the capitalists which lacks the opportunity to satisfy its most elementary requirements. How can such opposite interests and strivings be reconciled? As far as I know, Roosevelt has not succeeded in finding the path of conciliation between these interests. And it is impossible, as experience has shown. Incidentally, you know the situation in the United States better than I do as I have never been there and I watch American affairs mainly from literature. But I have some experience in fighting for socialism, and this experience tells me that if Roosevelt makes a real attempt to satisfy the interests of the proletarian class at the expense of the capitalist class, the latter will put another president in his place. The capitalists will say : Presidents come and presidents go, but we go on forever; if this or that president does not protect our interests, we shall find another. What can the president oppose to the will of the capitalist class?