Hi, can you guys please help me to understand Stalin? Everytime I'm trying to study his part in history, appears people that could say the following stuff:
So what's the deal? Where can I read something trustful about him? What's even trustful about him?
Please, help me to educate myself.
Other urls found in this thread:
quora.com
marxists.org
youtube.com
8ch.net
marxists.org
twitter.com
He had a cool mustache that puts Hitler to shame.
OOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Not again ,read a fucking book
Plz dont start arguing again
That's what I wanna do, read a fucking book! But I want something that I know I can trust.
Read Grover Furr
Sry op but those thread end up always shit
There's a thread about Stalin like if you just scroll down you absolute retard.
I think there's something you could pick from there.
I dont think Furr is trustworhy
1st read the theory of the man and his critics
and then
The important thing is never to idolize or demonize people, they all have their own thoughts, motivations, and reasonings. No Stalin wasn't satan incarnate who personally sliced 60 billion people in half with the people's sickel, but he's also not the dindu nuffin gud boi that tankers make him out to be. Personally I think he made more fuckups than good decisions.
It's impossible to read anything about Stalin that isn't biased; in fact, the authors who claim to not be biased are probably the most biased of all.
Just read different sources until you start to develop a clearer picture. Read Stalin himself, then read his contemporaries, his critics, his followers, etc. Read histories that demonize him and read histories that exonerate him. Just fucking read.
Some stuff on the "gorillions"
Stoner and shitposter, he would've been one of us if he were alive today.
t. Stalin
The cult of stalin is probably the most decent of them all, he at least did win a world war against fascism, remember? Trots, maoists and other assorted shit can't claim that. They all got gibs from the Soviets under Stalin but sperged out for whatever reasons later on.
There are more honest and unbiased works on Stalin, they just get pushed out of the radar in favour of anti-communist academics
Mao's army was vital to winning WWII.
I've seen many people say (on here) that J. Arch Getty's books on him and on the Great Terror are very good. Getty, while being apparently a very neutral historian, is not a socialist, so rightists can't claim his books are propaganda as they will with any leftist historian.
Personally I think Stalin was far from being as bad as mainstream history portrays him and had to work under extremely hard conditions for most of his rule, however he also made unforgivable mistakes, especially the excessive political repression, the large-scale repression of religious figures, the different ethnic transfers and the fact that he ended the NEP way sooner than Lenin intended.
Getty literally falsified documents to make Soviets look worse.
If you want to understand him start by reading his own books, start with "Dialectical and Historical Materialism"
he was basically a brainlet
Read this.
You do realize that Stalin wrote his books with the intention to be easily accessable literature for the working class, right? Stalin's books don't carry new great insights (except maybe his latest work) but are supposed to introduce people to basic materialism and Marxist terminology. This is why ML reading circles still recommend Stalin as an introduction (for which they are made fun of) because it is very basic.
Stalin was most certainly not a brainlet. He read Letourneau and Victor Huga when he was 15. He, despite being lower-class, managed to get into the Georgian priest seminar, which was the intellectual center of Georgia and had great grades in school. He was made class representative despite everybody being much, much higher in social class than him.
basically what any normally fucntioning human being can do in order to escape poverty.
He failed as a leader of the USSR
He was the right man for the fucking job.
I sometimes want to live in the Universe Anarcho-Kids live in
Sure, I know so many sheppards from a Georgian village that become the most powerful man on planet earth in 50 years. Piece of cake! Especially in 1900!
I am not defending CEOs and Investors so don't even think about implying I support Crappies, but there is a clear sign of "doublethinking" here. Either the results of such events were caused by a multitude of factors, or you are implying that Stalin was the sole responsible of it.
Had Stalin contracted an illness or got killed someone else with a similar profile would have reached that place, or do you unironically think that without Stalin, there would have been no General Secretary after Lenin?
Stalin was merely a result of being at the right time at the right place (or perhaps the wrong one) He knew how to climb up the ladder but once we has at the top he failed miserably, and while this could also be supposed as a result of the material, social and economic conditions that forced him to basically kill everyone around him and harshly enforce his power, it makes sense to belive thatnot only Stalin, but anyone who had the profile needed to become such political figure would have resulted in the same outcome.
the fact is the Soviet Union is dead and it did not abolish production for profit and ceirtanly did no achiev production for use, so to believe that any of the leaders that ruled it, and by having the power that they did, failed to do so proves how retarded they were
just start out with reading his own words
marxists.org
i could make a few suggestions, the obvious ones such as "economic problems of socialism in the ussr", "marxism and the national question", "anarchism or socialism" and so on
but letters, interviews and also congress speeches are interesting
trust comes only with experience, don't presuppose it if you want to learn about something new
you should exactly NOT just put trust into whatever you read
further i suggest "Moscow 1937" by Lion Feuchtwanger, and "Mission to Moscow" by Joseph E. Davies.
pretty sure i saw both of those online, you can probably find it yourself though
concerning the trials, for example, you could also read the transcripts
marxists.org
I didnt claim he was solely responsible for it
You claimed he was a failure as a head of state
because he did?
it's not me who on a personal basis who is claiming that he failed as the leader of the USSR, it's the fact that the USSR lost the war against the west which demonstrates it
nice strawman, dunce
praising yourself?
...
see
you can't be this disingenuous and retarded
blackflagposters truly are the worst idiots
You are a mystic.
??
It literally fucking does
Lenin managed to put someone who was loyal to him after his dead, why couldn't Stalin?
Actually I am a materialist who understands that people are the result of their material conditions.
the USSR did not abolish commodification
That does not mean that through some heathen magic historical figures are replaced 1:1. It's ironic, really, as Stalin gets criticized for his mechanistic understanding of dialectic materialism yet you seem to be more Stalinistic than the guy himself with your takes
What goods were commodified?
The Soviet Union was not an absolute monarchy.
Someone with the qualifications similar to Stalin's would have ceirtanly be the one who would have ended up there (and you would be shooting yourself in the foot here if you believe so), because then you are implying that Stalin had a margin of free will, and if that's the case, then we can safely asume that some of his failures were because of him. As a result, it would be safe to say that he indeed failed both due to his hisotrical and material position and his own convictions.
Just because I am a materialist doesn't mean I am a fucking power hungry ☭TANKIE☭.
kek, love me a good ironic memepost
...
...
This has nothing to do with free will. Stating that Stalin influenced world history in a certain way is not anti-materialism. Even if you deny free will (which I do too, but from a materialist standpoint that "will" is just chemical reactions in your brain), you seem to claiming that someone who would make the exact same decisions as Stalin would have come into place. You still havn't criticized Stalin for his policies or theory in any way.
That's not what I meant and you are a dumbass.
Yeah, so according to 14 year old Stirnerposter a socialist state should have their great leader to formulate a testament about his successor.
No, something definitely doesn't add up. Stalin was a tyrant who only wanted to consolidate as much power as possible, but he didn't even choose a successor who would be in 100% agreement with his line and instead let the party elect the next GenSec? Hmmmm…
it never claimed to have it abolished in all spheres
"Of course, when instead of the two basic production sectors, the state sector and the collective-farm sector, there will be only one all-embracing production sector, with the right to dispose of all the consumer goods produced in the country, commodity circulation, with its "money economy," will disappear, as being an unnecessary element in the national economy. But so long as this is not the case, so long as the two basic production sectors remain, commodity production and commodity circulation must remain in force, as a necessary and very useful element in our system of national economy. How the formation of a single and united sector will come about, whether simply by the swallowing up of the collective-farm sector by the state sector - which is hardly likely (because that would be looked upon as the expropriation of the collective farms) - or by the setting up of a single national economic body (comprising representatives of state industry and of the collective farms), with the right at first to keep account of all consumer product in the country, and eventually also to distribute it, by way, say, of products-exchange - is a special question which requires separate discussion.
Consequently, our commodity production is not of the ordinary type, but is a special kind of commodity production, commodity production without capitalists, which is concerned mainly with the goods of associated socialist producers (the state, the collective farms, the cooperatives), the sphere of action of which is confined to items of personal consumption, which obviously cannot possibly develop into capitalist production, and which, together with its "money economy," is designed to serve the development and consolidation of socialist production."
says a fucking illiterate
Stalin was murdered, but besides that, you're just having your retarded anarkiddy mind going off the rails again
there was no such appointments, they were voted for
btw. at that time khrushchev was a huge beta sucking up to Stalin like a bitch, he even came up with the genius idea of calling him "vozhd"
he wasn't even succeeded by khrushchev either but malenkov
there's really not the least bit of thought put into those anarkiddies shitposts except "stalin is bad mkay :DDD"
What can I read about this?
I knew this thred would be shit
Stalin maked sure USSR would turn revisionist by killing anyone better than him
meme theory cause people cant accept that great men could die naturally
Stalin was a tyrant who wanted to consolidate as much power as possible and by doing so he failed to create a big enough loyal base to defend his honor post-mortem.
But again, if the decisions were made by this person's chemical's brain reactions, which are in a way that is completly different and unique compared to anyone else. then it safe to assume that he himself was the culprit. If not then he himself is simply a result of material conditions, and that no one would have had the power to make history develop in a different manner
close but no cigar
so then whatever shitting he did was literally; irrelevant
nice delusion, he was a deppressed drunktard drank himself to death
seething
Tankie's delusions, Tome 3
Who exactly? inb4 ⛏️rotsky
you have only been posting for a day and you're already by far the worst poster here, good job
utopian retard
illiterate retard
youtube.com
retarded.
I've been posting here for years
you can feel free at any time to prove that any of the goals determined in his 5 year plans were met within the timeframe they were proposed, and that the plans themselves weren't fucking retarded to begin with
you can feel free to prove that they weren't met and that they were retarded
retard
the USSR lost the war against the west and we still live in a commodified economy
gg no re
i can prove you without much effort that you are a fucking retard, i'll do just that
and done.
the USSR won the war during Stalins time, against the fascists propped up by the West, while expanding the revolution
i'll add your post to
you're retarded
literally seeth more cuck
continue to sperg like a little retarded autist
the USSR won WW2 , along with the allies, thanks to massive help from the lend-lease deal and the fact that Hitler ran out of oil.
the USSR lost the war against the west which is why the USSR doesn't exist anymore.
talk about being a strawmanning cuck
an expansion that failed as the USSR doesn't exist anymore, retard
tbh that's all your arguments amount to from the start so i'm glad you dropped the pretense
the USSR failed decades after Stalin, going against everything he said
it won during his times
you are only giving further proof that Stalin was a badass comrade
you're retarded.
it existed exactly because they later went against Stalin
you are retarded.
we had a thread on it already
no need to go through the motions again for that retard that can't read and is to retarded and fails on his own claims that are in itself already too retarded to stand by their own
he's retarded.
the CNT and Free Territory don't exist anymore, so by your logic anarchism also doesn't work.
stop siding with the capitalist west as well holy shit nigger
Love me a good "historical revisionism but with red flavour" shitpost
literally coming from the autist that made this post
wrong, several of his 5 year plans were also massive failures
and that's a good thing
only my special snowflake version of anarchism does
classic "if you are not with us you are against us" shit-tier drivel.
Anarkid will literally parrot capitalist propaganda if it means owning the communits for not sending enough gibs to Catalonia. Honestly I hate anarchists more and more with every day spent browsing leftypol. Left unity my ass.
ok retard
stop pretending the lend-lease was the only form of cooperation between the allies you fucking faggot
0/10
you brought lend-lease up yourself, retard
...
yeah, as an example of the cooperation that took place between the allies.
then you should have mentioned them instead of crying when we talk about lend-lease you fucking sperg
next you are going to tell me the NEP didn't involve any western support
start arguing anytime
nice strawman, faggot.
why would the west support the NEP when it was literally put in place because the west destroyed the soviet economy in a war.
That's pretty funny coming from this board, where disagreeing with anything Marx wrote is usually an insta-ban.
(actually not true)
source?
You misspelled "Assad"
Nice prosecution complex nerd
"Had Stalin contracted an illness or got killed someone else with a similar profile would have reached that place" - Hegel, Die Explication von das Dialektisches Prozess
...
>click "Marxism vs Liberalism" (marxists.org
Stalin didn’t win WW2, the people and material forces of the Soviet Union did. History is driven by the collective actions of billions of people acting upon each other simultaneously and interacting with the material forces of economy and environment. Cults of personality of any kind are fundamentally anti-Marxist.
This. I always thought about how ironic it is that socialists who are so aware CEOs can't run their business without the labor of millions of working class people will still present the Soviet leaders as demi-gods who could change the world by their mere will.
This place has gotten so bad that people literally had to create an entirely new board if they wanted to do anything other than angrily circle-jerk. That's why anyone who wanted to have serious conversations all moved to Zig Forums.
Doesn't exist.
hello totally not the same poster
you can't bitch about muh circlejerking when Zig Forums is like 99% people circlejerking about hiw much they hate Zig Forums and da ebil ☭TANKIE☭s
Zig Forums is dead save for threads complaining about BO and muh ☭TANKIE☭s
Actually it’s not, there’s a containment thread for that. Zig Forums is more of a circlejerk of people who like to be able to discuss and critique political issues and various perspectives without getting banned for saying mean things about some reactionary dictator.
While this is somewhat true(the 1st upopular opinions thread was there tho we should have a new one here)
They are a little triggered about there bans
And are easily raided
I think you have that a little backwards.
When the mentally ill tranny that runs this board shuts everything down and throws around bans when people disagree, that's getting triggered.
Saying "Wow, this place is shit" is not getting triggered.
Furr sources everything he writes shitposter
r/fullcommunism is on reddit kid
Why hasn’t there been a peer review of Furr’s work anyway? Not even by more Soviet sympathetic writers like Getty or Parenti?
Cause many people prefer history books on the history section and not fun fiction
And inb4
No i am not saying Stalin was the devil and leon ⛏️rotsky is my papa
My biggest problem with Furr is that while he can be inerpeted as a guy on ideology he really likes actung like every honest historical view of Stalin is bloqed by a conspiracy of cultural capitalist ,while there are university supported books with a positive view of his rule(tho not Furrian dick sucking)
So the flag isn't for shitposting, you really are a liberal
anarchists in a nutshell
Russians love him.
I’m not an anarchist, and I’m not endorsing Makhno. Also when I said “reactionary dictator” I was referring to third world nationalist dictators more like Assad, not Stalin, who I actually like to an extent. I thought that was fairly obvious.
Yea dude historians are shit
You should expect a ban
Assad is a hot topic
It wouldn’t be my first, but as much as I don’t like Assad himself I don’t support western intervention and see the benefit of critically supporting him and people like him. What I oppose is letting critical support turn into shameless shilling, dick sucking, and a rejection of all legitimate leftist criticism.
This mentality is literally what leads to Zig Forums tier delusions since anything that challenges your view is automatically dismissed as propaganda.