Serious question to anti-Stalinists

How many of you leftcoms/anarchists have bothered to read any of the man's writings, specifically "Foundations of Leninism"? Doesn't it make sense to read someone's work before lambasting them?

Other urls found in this thread:

Wait, are you asking if we hate Stalin, Stalinists, or Stalinism? Because those are all separate things and I have mixed feelings about each.

Few on this board have read more than a wikipedia article about a different ideology and it shows in discussion.

It's just odd to me that most anti-Stalinists have never read his works and actually aggressively avoid it. Just a week or so back on Holla Forums a ☭TANKIE☭ recommended someone a leftcom/anarchist to read Stalin - the response was "nah". I just don't get the thought process.

It doesn't seem odd to me that people don't read what they're not interested in. What anarchist/leftcom works have you read?

None, but I don't base my identity around opposition to anarchism/leftcommunism.

Most anarchists/leftcoms base their entire identity around opposition to "Stalinism", yet most have never read a single book by J.V. Stalin. Kinda dumb, don't you think?

I think that most people who are critical of Stalin are criticizing him for his actions not his theory.

Not just Foundations either, I haven't seen a single anti-Stalinist who has read "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" either. It's probably the most important Leninist theory because it was written at the same time as Stalin was directing the efforts to build socialism in the USSR, and all the individual challenges therein, it's probably the most practical socialist theory out there.

So you don't have a problem with his theory?

most anarchists/leftcoms don't oppose Stalin for his writings but for the things he did.

Whatever theory Stalin claims to have come up with was mostly made up to justify his own actions and the purging of the more well read communists who he disagreed with.

Have you read "Mein Kampf"?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You make all of these claims about Stalin's theory, yet I seriously doubt you've ever read "Foundations of Leninism".

Why not? If Stalin was truly a bad guy, wouldn't reading his writings give you a better understanding of his evil?

I've read Hitler, and it only made me hate Hitler even more. So why are anarchists/leftcoms literally terrified of reading the guy?

more like its not worth anyones time to read Stalin. Even if he was 100% correct in his interpretation of marx the conditions of 1930s USSR do not exist anywhere else in the world today.

I did, it made me hate Hitler way more than before I read it. Most neo-Nazis have never actually read Mein Kampf - otherwise, they'd know Hitler in the 1920s was the first public figure in history to advocate anuddah shoah (eliminating Poles and other Slavs, replacing them with racially superior Germanics).

Weird how you think the first person in history to effectively lead a socialist society "isn't worth reading". Yet people like Bookchin who have accomplished nothing in life are worth reading? Pretty fucking dumb as shit IMO.

So you hated Hitler before you read it. Are you under the impression you were justified to do so?

Stalin never lead a socialist society.

Let's assume you're correct (you're not). What society did Bookchin lead? What about Bordiga?

None. What about Marx?

Except he did? Lenin led to NEP state capitalism, it was Stalin who fully socialized the remains of private ownership in both industrial and agricultural spheres.

As I suspected
That's bullshit. No one sits in their armchairs or squats thinking about "Stalinists" or "Stalinism". That they are opposed to Stalin's actions and bring it up in conversations is indicative of a different opinion than MLs concerning a topic that is brought up frequently.

Good point, which is why I always recommend starting out with Lenin-Stalin-Mao and only then reading Marx.

Imagine unironically thinking this guy was a bad person. Lmao.

Like what? Stalin's purges were class struggle in it's most basic form. The communist party was full of liberal opportunists, anti-communists, and even pro-fascists who joined after the revolution who wanted to overthrow socialism. The army was full of former Tsarist officers from before the revolution who would have switched sides to Germany the second they invaded.

Anarchists are just American liberals who don't understand that revolutions are about blood.

Except he didn't.

Anyway, the point here isn't to find out whether Stalin did lead a socialist society or not. The point is that "you ok should read Stalin because he lead a socialist society" doesn't makes sense to those who doesn't share this analysis of the Russian society. That's not an argument for reading Stalin.

Lenin asides (he was a true Marxist), you may as well recommend starting out with Churchill-Hitler-FDR and only then reading Marx.

Joseph Stalin was objectively one of the most influential people in human history. Not reading him is pure intellectual laziness on your part.

Not being able to safeguard against revisionists who took over after his death, supporting bourgeois liberals in cuckalonia over revolutionaries, and socialist realism.
And you're an edgy socdem who thinks larping as the red guard will bring revolution.

"Funny" note: I read John Reed's "Ten days that shook the world" recently. Every time the name of a Bolshevik appeared (as they were taking part in the revolution), the editor added a short note explaining who he was and was he did later. There were dozes of them, but only for a handful of them didn't the note say: "Died in the purges." The Mencheviks, on the other hand, seem to have had a better fate.

deporting the entire population of Chechans and Tatars is class struggle now.
There were plenty of revisionists and opportunists who joined the communist party for personal gain but don't act like the purges weren't politically motivated. The purges were mainly a way for different factions within the party to eliminate their opposition. You can't seriously argue that Bukharin or Zinoviev were pro-fascist-disagree with their policies all you want, but they were loyal communists who just happened to disagree with Stalin's faction on policy.
The purges of the army also included communist generals which directly led to the USSR's utter failure to mobilize once the nazi invasion began. Imagine how many lives could have been saved if Stalin hadn't purged his most capable commanding officers.

He was. His writings weren't.

Come on OP, even the most tanky of ☭TANKIE☭s concede that the man was not a theorist nor author of any measure.

lmao. Do you really believe this shit?

Until you've read "Foundations of Leninism" by J.V Stalin, your opinion about any subject is literally irrelevant. Come back once you've read the book and maybe I'll consider taking you seriously.

You didn't answer my question

Why not ask all three? Do you hate Stalin? Do you hate "Stalinists"? Do you hate "Stalinism"?

No, yes, no.

Stalinists are truly amazing.

Given the propensity of Bourgeois historians to make everyone "die in purges", I have to option but to doubt the veracity of those notes - even given the fact that John Reed was primarily interacting with Trotsky and his friends (i.e. it is not impossible).

It's Chechens (of which was deported nowhere near the "entire" population, mind you) and Crimean Tatars (also, a very small subset of actual Tatars). And - no. This had nothing to do with class struggle.

Something like 80% of Chechen recruits deserted (of which many later collaborated with Fascists) - please note: IRL desertion is usually punished by execution, not deportation with families to other places to live. On the other hand, Crimean Tatars went full Nazi and manned death camps in Crimea - which is why local started simply murdering them en masse (without giving a fuck about legal procedures) after Reich was driven out.

I.e. in both cases the alternative was extermination.

You are aware that Lenin was demanding to kick them out of Party in 1917 for their attempt to sabotage October Revolution - to which they did not agree?

How do you define "Stalinist"? I have an extremely positive attitude towards the unprecedented achievements of the Stalin period. Yet I would never call myself a "Stalinist", because no such ideology exists. Stalin himself detested the term and asked people not to use it. "Stalinism" is just applied Marxism-Leninism.

Nope. A lot of what he did had to be done, both right and left wing of the politburo knew this. The way in which he gained and held power was symptomatic of the problems of the USSR, not his supposed devilish nature or whatever.

Nope. "Stalinists" are either youngish LARPers online, or weird old people in nostalgic and irrelevant communist parties scattered around mostly in Europe. I don't hate furfags or furfag conventions either, nor old people and retirement homes.

It literally doesn't exist. Certainly not in the sense and extent Leninism existed in the 20th century, or Maoism still exist in the 21st.

which justifies punishing the civilian population why?
yes, every single Crimean Tatar was a nazi. All of them. This completely justifies Stalin's racist deportation scheme that destroyed thousands of lives and probably inspired a lot of Crimeans and Chechens to side with the axis powers. (not to mention the Koreans, Ingush, and other ethnic minorities who were administered collective punishment for the actions of a minority of collaborators.)
look at all those sources you posted.

Reality check: this is not contemporary US of A.

Deportation together with the family was not considered punishment as such. It was standard procedure in Russia, where family without support (that was provided by the exiled person) could simply starve.

Retard who can't read? Locals didn't give a fuck who was or wasn't, but it was Stalin's fault.

Yes. Because time travel.

You are a retard. Educating you is counterproductive.

doesn't make it justified.
I was talking about how Stalin deported Crimean Tatars indiscriminately regardless of who collaborated with the Nazis and who didn't.
If you know your soviet history you'd know that Stalin began forcibly relocating ethnic groups who were accused of being axis sympathizers as early as the 1920s.
You still haven't sourced your claim that Lenin wanted to expel Bukharin. Usually Stalinists can at least produce an out-of-context angry letter from Lenin to ""prove"" that Lenin and Stalin agreed with each other.

You must recall, comrades, that two of the deserters, Kamenev and Zinoviev, acted as deserters and blacklegs even before the Petrograd uprising; for they not only voted against the uprising at the decisive meeting of the Central Committee on October 10, 1917, but, even after the decision had been taken by the Central Committee, agitated among the Party workers against the uprising. It is common knowledge that newspapers which fear to take the side of the workers and are more inclined to side with the bourgeoisie (e.g., Novaya Zhizn ), raised at that time, in common with the whole bourgeois press, a hue and cry about the "disintegration" of our Party, about "the collapse of the uprising" and so on. Events, however, swiftly refuted the lies and slanders of some and the doubts, waverings and cowardice of others: The "storm" they tried to raise over the efforts of Kamenev and Zinoviev to thwart the Petrograd uprising proved to be a storm in a teacup, while the great enthusiasm of the people, the great heroism of millions of workers, soldiers, and peasants in Petrograd, in Moscow, at the front, in the trenches and in the villages, pushed the deserters out of the way as easily as a railway train pushes aside splinters of wood.

This is your brain on leftcom

axis sympathizer was the wrong phrase-capitalist sympathizers would be more accurate, axis sympathizer came later.
god fuck no.

and besides the fact-nazism did exist even in the 1920s even if the nazis hadn't taken power yet-and nazi propaganda was already beginning to make its way across the border to the USSR, hence why the stalinists were paranoid about defectors at the soviet border region.

Find me a single source which agrees with your claim that deportations happened in the 1920s.

Welll I have read foundations of Leninism, economic problems of the USSR, but I don't like Stalin that much. I like Lenin a lot more.

Ive read Foundations of Leninism and it was pretty shit tbh.

I read all of Lenin's major works and they where shit. What makes you think that I would like Stalin?

Well, which is it?

Do you think only founders of movement can contribute to theory?