What did Stalin do wrong?

So comrades, did papa Stalin do anything wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=K37U1vJIosQ
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Other than being a fascist?

Yes.

he was too kind and diplomatic to his enemies

Lol ur gay

just off the top of my head

Nice meme

d i n d u n u f f i n

This is an easy bait thread for tankies and other stupid USSR apologists and historical revisionists to defend a totalitarian regime, starving Ukrainians and seizing their grain, mass propaganda, gulags,etc.

It's interesting to see so much apologism for the USSR. If anything, you would think the Left would be intelligent to avoid defending a mass murdering totalitarian state. Yet it wants to turn back time, with some weird rose glasses view of the USSR as some 'workers utopia'.

nothing wrong with:

also have you actually read his theory?
Some of it is pretty good

you are right about the rest (maybe the purges would be okay if he didnt kill or imprison them all)

confirmed not to have read anything but shit tier propaganda

You mean the part where he didn't understand Marx or the part where he misinterpreted Lenin?

Good workers

Which of his works did you read, friend?

...

Stalin was a fascist, not a communist. There's nothing anti-communist in hating him.

What do Stalin do right?

Nice try, Mr. Mises.

...

He would be a wet dream to right wing with all that fascism. Sadly he was left.

Stalin was not a fascist. I wish people would stop abusing this term.

Win the world war and establish warsaw pact. Hes cold bloodiness was useful in time of war.

He was extreme authoritarian. The opposite of commuism.

>This non-aggression pact will surely stop Hitler from invading us. Don't call me Shirley

Oh boy, talk about fucking things up.

I really don't see why anyone would bother asking this question here, you might as well have asked Holla Forums. The problem isn't necessarily that people here don't like Stalin, but that they religously hate Stalin like it's their only purpose in life. Every time I try to offer a view that differs even slightly from the standard bourgeois propaganda narrative people tend to react badly, usually sperging out and using words like fascist, authoritarian, and dictator in sequence. It is actually impossible to discuss Stalin and the Stalin-era USSR like normal people here, the anti-tankie cult is just too strong.

But still, I might as well offer something against the endless current of shitposting.

Why should this be seen as a negative event? The stability of the Stalin government was never really confirmed until it was obvious they were winning the war, the earlier purges quelled dissent and incentivised party members to do their jobs properly.


This is something that simply had to be done and no sane person should contest that, the countryside was still run by landlords in the feudal fashion and modernising the Soviet economy was a entirely worthy goal. If you want to uncover any mistakes made during the process no doubt you could find a million. The whole "with us or against us" mentality resulted in widespread paranoia and unnecessary damage and the management of the 32-33 famine was unquestionably botched. Some of what happened really was inevitable given the circumstances but no doubt you could pin more than a few hundreds of thousands of casualties on the CPSU without venturing into absurdity.

For all of it's immense costs though the collectivisation was not a total failure. The successful class struggle waged on the rural capitalists resulted in increased grain delivery to the cities and a larger urban labor force.


We're never going to get anywhere if we accept liberalism's distinction between our "dictatorship" and their "democracy." Every state is a dictatorship by default, was Stalin himself acting as the state dictator? He certainly had a lot more executive power than the average head of state but any brief glance at the Soviet system should tell you it was very far from an autocracy. Augustus could rearrange the senate membership as he liked and ignore any of their proposals entirely, powers Stalin could only dream of.


Trotsky was actively sowing dissent within the party and threatening the stability of the Soviet Union. Whatever contributions he might've made to the revolution were things of the past.


Why even bother bringing him up? Stalin tried to kill many far better people than this generic anti-communist.


Plainly countries where socialism had to be imposed by bayonets. Typically not managed by the most sane or competent of men but there really weren't many options of the table. There was proper economic rebuilding and growth for a while though and things could've gone in the right direction if the USSR did, but it didn't.


Stalin's leadership style left nothing to chance. Did innocent people suffer for this? Of course, but paranoid is not the word for it. It's not like he mindlessly slaughtered people at random. Nobody has ever contested the fact that the "Stalinist" system was one that ruthlessly stamped out all resistance to industrialisation and the war, not to mention many others who didn't. We only think harsh times call for an equally harsh system. We think, for all it's numerous flaws, the Stalin cult might've just been a necessary element to transform the sacrifices of the Soviet people into success.

Fascist != authoritarian.
Fascism means more than that including nationalism and corporatism

It is the most authoritarian form of capitalism.

Yes,

Sounds like the Soviet Union.

Am I on Holla Forums still? Wtf is happening to this board?

On par with fascism? No. Authoritarian capitalist state it still was though, and a hindrance to the progress of more legitimate socialist movements both domestically and abroad.

Just people having no idea what fascism really is.

"muh stalin and gulags"

USSR existed for a long time after stalin.
Gulag isn't the same as "you jew, you camp".
You can even say modern 'Murican prisons are more or less gulags.

Absolutely haram

Relax its just anarchiddie bantz. Im sure this totalitarianism will work next time.

Do you see apologism in this thread? I don't.

Nothing. The man was a true innocent to think otherwise is a crime in itself.

Now let's not go overboard with the hate train here!

Only the dead can know peace from this ideology.


"Oh but fascism still has a little bit of a market!"

Obligatory pic related

Yes indeed. Even if you disagree with the thesis that fascism is the "last resort" of a capitalist crisis, you cannot ignore the trend among all fascist powers to evoke a call for tradition. It is a system that sees the state or nation to be flawless, that only isn't running smoothly due to an outside Other.

The only remotely close comparison I could make regarding Stalin would be his cult of personality and the divine right of kings under the Tsar. Still, I'd take that as a stretch.

Stalin was not a fascist.

...

Kill yourself

...

This is a great, sober, response.

please consider suicide

just this

youtube.com/watch?v=K37U1vJIosQ

Regardless, the figure of 30 million people is not accurate. The number is more likely around 12 million.
I'm not a Stalinist, but we also shouldn't take these numbers at face value as how many people he killed. The statistic is silent to the historical contexts Stalin dealt with, besides existing inefficiencies and new ones he created.


Are you suggesting that Stalin was a fascist?

Sweet vid fam, thx
How are that channel's other videos? They seem to cover a range of topics I'm looking to learn about, and seem relatively short (compared to the 400 page books some of you guys slap on here).

I figured it was worth speaking up a bit. People just buy into the "dictatorship" narrative about how Stalin single-handedly manufactured a tyranny without really feeling any need to check their facts. The traditional narrative ironically puts a lot more importance on Stalin than Marxist-Leninists do. Stalin was just a guy who played his part in governing the Soviet state like everyone else. But our political opposites, betraying their ignorance of Soviet politics, see him as some kind of absolute despot that single-handedly molded politics on a national scale. Taking the view that the USSR was an autocracy certainly simplifies things a lot, and if you're an anti-communist the narrative fits especially well as you can blame Stalin for quite literally everything that went wrong under during the whole period. This is just silly. Stalin struggled all his life and with all the authority he had to maintain the Soviet Union's democracy against the ever-present threat of bureaucratic oligarchy.


I often warn people here of how dangerous it is to rely too much on elections to realise a democracy and the USSR was no exception. The elections held under the Stalin government did play a key role in weeding out corruption, but the problem wasn't that they were held, it's that they weren't enough. The fact that regular anti-bureaucratic campaigns had to be carried out for democracy to be maintained just shows they had some serious problems that never really got worked out. The system was initially still heading in the right direction after the war but it was still susceptible to failure and the first signs of a reversion to capitalist society unfortunately appeared very soon after Stalin's death.

Too bad most of left is now Anarkiddis and libleles
Also for a comparison consider India, a place where socialist tried to bring forth a socialist revolution democratically and failed spectacularly(Their first PM was a socialist). Now everyone there is reactionary as fuck.
I think Stalin as more a victim of circumstances rather than a brutal dictator. Now anyone could say everyone was a victim of circumstances but Stalin's conditions are quite different. Socialist revolutions were failing around the world and the threat of capitalist attack is highly possible. His brutality e was just a reaction to the above threats. The fact that he turned Russia to a fuedal backwater to a industrialised super power is an evidence that he worked hard.

This fucking liberal word.

Literally the least shit thing he ever did
nothing wrong with this
not inherently wrong but the way it was handled yes
still mad at him for going after my boyo ;_;

To be fair the KMT really did have every conceivable advantage in terms of men, equipment, and organization at the time

TAKE THAT BACK >:c