What is your actual, unironic opinion of this person? I can never tell when people are joking or memeing

What is your actual, unironic opinion of this person? I can never tell when people are joking or memeing.

Evil, calculating psychopath who killed millions out of paranoia and desire to consolidate his power. His achievements in industrializing the USSR and defeating Nazi Germany are not to be dismissed, though.

He had the redeeming feature of making the USSR seemingly anti-Zionist… and in its authoritarianism it preserved something of the traditional European concept of hierarchy, which could more easily be adapted to a healthy Rightist orientation over time than was possible in the egalitarian United States at the time.

But things went terribly wrong for him. But Russia seems to be doing better "socially" than the US now, despite being objectively poorer and weaker militarily.

More of an idiot than an evil tyrant. The zig-zags in virtually every political issue show it's his incompetence that was the problem. By the mid-30s even Trotsky gave him the benefit of the doubt saying that if he knew how badly his power maneuvering would fuck everything up, even he would have the common sense to not do any of those things.

Dont know much about it because I can never tell which information to believe. I do think USSR was generally a big flop though not entirely indefensible, and that the terrible things that certainly did happen under Stalin (kulaks/gulags aside even, fucking ukrainian bards and other various cultures and indigenous groups did not need to be killed en masse because muh russification) were not because muh evil mastermind and there were material reasons for them and serious flaws in the Bolshevik system if he was able to come into as much power as he did.

Incompetent often but never the less prefferable to the capitalist west.

...

embarrassing

...

Hello mr. dataminer - how are consensus numbers looking so far?


good goy. To gulag anyway. No foulmouthing the chosen.

Unironically a good guy who did his best and did well for the soviet people. Had some personality problems and didn't keep the military sufficiently under control. Big mistake was letting Beria get close to him.

Did nothing wrong, kulaks deserved it

Stalin was one of the great men of the last century. He is probably a huge part of the reason for why Russia was not conquered by the Germans, he's also a huge part of the reason why the USSR did not collapse under subterfuge and capitalist agitation from within and without. He was a madman, a fiend and a buffoon. His anti-jewish policies and behavior, his general distrust for his closest associates and friends, his willingness to mass murder people he never met and his callous lack of courtesy or empathy towards those he conquered were all things I think a lot of nu-Leftists try to cover up or somehow make into virtues of his. The attempts to deny the Holodomer as genocide (which it was), to deny the mass murders and mind control in the gulags (which are well documented), to downplay the rabid nature of his purges and random autistic executions of "dissidents" are all just Holla Forums's version of denying the holocaust. He was a dictator and a genocidal one at that. Its embarassing how star-struck a lot of Leftists are, obviously Stalin is the most famous Leftist outside of Karl Marx and Lenin, its a shame more people don't champion actual leftists like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rosa etc

fuck off you liberal shill

...

Further prove its literally impossible to talk about things on imageboards without making it about Jews.

Seriously, out all things Stalin did (good and bad) you making this about Jews? Fuck you, and fuck Holla Forums for constantly being Holla Forumss big other.

He didn't kill 10 billion trillion people but he killed socialism for a century.

lol fuck off newfag

:^)

Pretty much this

No doubt a short and sweet answer.

I don't know, haven't read enough.

in proper marxist analysis, I don't believe he could've done better (historical circumstances)
but fuck, tankies need to stop fetishizing failed socialism

he had some issues like Gulaging homosexuals, killing his family members and purging jews but that's as far as the bad things go, I believe he is one of the greatest leaders in human history, purging out the counter revolutionaries (trots) fascists, nazis, destroying the nazis, ending WWII, turning the place into a full on superpower, from a feudal slave society off the back off Vladimir Lenin, I'm not a fan of Stalinism but it was neccesary only at that time and worked very well, the holodomor is a full on lie made by fascist ukrainians to distract from the german holocaust happening at that time, the famine was caused by bad weather, he rightfully gulag'd the kulaks and rightfully collectivized farming, so I think Mao was right when he said he was 70% good and 30% bad, I see him as an excellent leader of the time, I don't think he killed even 1 million let alone fucking 100 million or more like the imperialist liars liked to spew all the fucking time based off of baseless assumptions and things that have been proven wrong, not to mention under the American education system there is a fuck ton of bias against him and they even publicly teach fake quotes and so called genocides by Stalin that are fake in all it's glory then go on to praise horrible people like Margaret fucking Thatcher, he was an incredible leader, and I'm an anarchist saying that.

Pretty much this. He has a lot of blood on his hands, he was not a swell person, but he did a lot of positive things and made a lot of tough calls that had to be made. Take the rapid industrialization and collectivization for instance. That was something that had to be done, and I think anyone else in Stalin's shoes would know it had to be done. Did Stalin achieve it in the best way? Probably not. Almost anyone who was less of an asshole would have looked for better methods, but that's a hypothetical.

Many of his mistakes planted the seeds to destroy the Soviet Union, and for that reason along with his general shittiness, a part of me really wants to disown him and say he was not a socialist, but I think he really truly did believe what he was doing was building socialism. After all, he was an OG Bolshevik. I understand his thinking in expanding the bureacracy of the Soviet Union; expand the state to make them more efficient and speed up the DOTP process, it works on paper. But the bureaucracy he put in place meant that when Khrushchev liberalized the economy, those reforms were too entrenched in the structure of the nation to be reversed, so in that respect Stalin deserves a lot of the blame.

preserving the dialectics ain't free

He did the best he could and i dont think the USSR would've survived ww2 with bukharin or trotsky in his place

the better question would be this

if the ussr was run by a bunch of anarchists would they be able to fight the nazis and win ?

Probably not.

a Very intelligent and well intentioned human who unfortunately had severe paranoia and liked to hold grudges. He did a lot of good things for Russia, and despite all his terror he made a great many valuable contributions to Socialism. It's my opinion that Stalin is the most influential person to have ever lived, possibly after Jesus Christ, since we don't know how much of what is said about him is true, or even if it applies to one individual.

a peasant boy from the outskirts of an empire with an unexceptional childhood rose to be a revolutionary, autocrat, and generalissmo, winning the largest war in human history, standing up to America in Berlin and Korea, building Atomic bombs, and spreading socialism to 1/3rd of the world's population. in 1000 years, given civilization still exists, Stalin will be more reknown than Napoleon or even Genghis Khan. Hitler will be remember for the racist drug addicted administrative failure that he was.

Does anyone have a PDF of Khrushchev Lied handy? I've never read it, but I've heard it gives great perspective on the subject. Then again I've mostly seen it recommended by tankies, but I'd still like to read it.

Did a lot of good things.
But ultimately did so many bad things that he should never been seen as an inspiration or role model outside of what not to be.
Some controversial decisions were a necessity that those living in the present have the luxury of shitting on.
But many were total narcissistic bullshit that harmed leftism to the point that totalitarianism is now associated with it. There was once a time before the October revolution where Americans feared anarchism - after Stalin people thought that term was synonymous with chaos and had nothing to do with leftism.

He didn't go far enough in his authoritarianism, central planning and purging of subversives.

How can you speak of him in the same fucking breath as Jesus of Nazareth? Please elaborate

classic

it's true though, stop believing in ukrainian fascist lies

...

I literally just said I thought that was fake

More like hundreds of thousands, but you're not wrong tbh.

Those damned time-travelling Nazis financing Ukrainian Weekly reporting on it in 1933.

This shit is pure propaganda. All of the sources he sites are literal propaganda which he then doesn't investigate and takes at face value. I'm sympathetic to Stalin and the USSR but this is trash scholarship. I hate to say it but if you want objective scholarship on the USSR you're going to have to read critical but sympathetic Bourgeois Liberal scholars like Sheila Fitzpatrick and J. Arch Getty.

Carr, Cliff, and Kotkin are good too.

Christianity has been extremely influential, and is the largest religion in the world, however how much of that can you attribute directly to Jesus? many religious scholars can explain all the similarities that christianity has with greco-roman paganism and various oriental religions, and the historicity of Jesus, aside from the fact that there was one or several people during the first century calling themselves christ and having a following, is basically non-existant.

Stalin on the otherhand had autocratic control over nearly 1/6th of the world's land and lead his country, and 10 others in a totally different way from the Status quo, and won the largest war in history and built atomic bombs. that's influence.

The USA is trillions in debt. Mother Russia has less debt and actually had a large collection of gold to destroy the fiat system USA has. So Russia is objectively richer and has better trained troops than USA with their integrated units and old weaponry.

Only name I'm not familiar with. Who's this?

Trotsky would've made a far better leader.

Bad for Kulaks and Fascists, bad for Socialism. All in all a 5/10

Very authoritarian, putting his ideals before pragmatism and science (looking at you Lysenko), mad lad at war. His centralization of power, whatever his reasons may have been, ultimately allowed the ussr to be couped by the capitalists. Cool moustache. Shouldn't have killed that many people. Build lots of factories and allowed lives of people to be improved. The only personality trait of him I admire is his anti-nepotism.

Saved that last picture.

I think there's a lot oc disinformation about him and he's not nearly as bad as propagandous American schooling and whatnot make him out to be. He did some things that would be considered immoral but I think he just wanted to succeed in building socialism. Hindsight is 20/20 and whatnot. If there's such a place as hell, him and the devil are probably having a good time (not because he was "evil" but because the devil is a "good communist" as said by Stalin himself)
Also, he was a handsome lad and he retained his physical aesthetics, he aged well

/thread

While there were many things he fucked up on (namely the totalitarianism and the great purges), he ultimately was well intentioned. He also liquidated the kulaks which often kept the country at gun point agriculturally-speaking.

I would say his biggest achievement is the fact that it was largely him that made socialism technically feasible. For a mass socialist system to work, you need both a lot of industry and a skilled, technically-literate work force. Stalin was simply amazing in his rapid rate of industrialization, along with promoting literacy and scientific expertise.

Explain me holodomor please. Were there millions of dead or not?

Kulaks were kinda early stage farmers

...

Georgian Socialists, thats like… Unicorns.
This guy was a fucking genius at outsmarting rival Bolsheviks.

Kulaks were bourgeois, exploited the actual farmers they employed, and were so fucking greedy that during times of famine they would rather let their fellow country men starve then give up their surplus crops. They burned their grain and killed their livestock just to spite the Soviet system.

Seriously, fuck the Kulaks. I know it's a meme-phrase, but they deserved it.


He was. It was brilliant how well we used Trotsky's under estimating to his advantage.

He fucked it up. That's really all that matters. To be fair he did succeed in rapidly industrialising the country, but he also pretty much killed any chance for the Soviet Union of becoming socialist. Don't really know who would have been better, tbh. Bukharin maybe, but the NEP had its own share of problems. Doubt Trotsky would have been much better.

The problem was that not everyone who was repressed as kulak was an actual kulak

Don't trust any sort of "ironic" apologism, 90% if the time they have actual sympathy or outright support for who they're "ironically" saying did nothing wrong

This but industrialization would have happened without him and playing at warfare in Europe as the Russians is babby mode.

Yes but they wouldn't have died if the Kulaks hadn't hoarded the grain. Stalin could maybe have shipped food to the region to save the proles, but he was a 20th-century racist who saw the Ukrainians as a unit rather than as just more people, some of whom were shits.