Is Stalin worth reading?

Is Stalin a revolutionary worth reading? If so, which of his works do you recommend?

Was he just an evil dictator, Zig Forums, or an unsung hero of the great communist cause?

Attached: Anarkiddies.jpg (2592x2160, 818.03K)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1934/07/23.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Stalin was more of a popularizer of Marxism than a philosopher in his own right. He didn't have many ideological revelations, but simply laid out Marxist and Leninist thought in a simple and accessible way. If Marxism 101 is what you want, he's your man.

Foundations of Leninism

This

No

This is actually a predicament. Stalin is really good for beginners to read, but the name carries so much wait that you usually scare people away when you tell them to read Stalin. I know MLs get made fun of because the give people copies of Stalin instead of Marx, but this is precisely because Stalin is just the introduction.

weight*

In all candor, no. I don't fall to the cheap critique of supposing that the absence of writing capacity is indicative of a an absence of substantive knowledge - as he was well steeped in the language and practice of the form of revolutionary work that characterized his time; however, he was an awful writer, that should not come into contention. At least better than Mao' poetry.

He'll stand as an important figure in the history of the movement, and being that history ends up being simply the summation of a series of appraisal and reappraisal of history and its value, I'll reserve final judgement and say a great myriad of mistakes were made - none endangering the communist idea, and will prove fruitful if ever again a revolutionary bulwark should emerge.

I see him as this Robespierre-like guy who really believed in the revolution and not only sought to micromanage it but was willing to defend it at all costs. One difference is that Robespierre got his head chopped off and Stalin didn't want that to happen to him so he went further.

Yes. Particularly if you don't know the basics. I.e. he is recommended for regular Americans, as most of the stuff they get exposed to presents a very one-sided (and flawed) understanding.

1. Foundations of Leninism (and follow-up Concerning Questions of Leninism)
2. "Short course" (History of the All-Union Communist Party)
3. Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR

I would argue that SioC and intensification of class struggle were kinda important, even if importance is primarily revealed through the fact that some people were opposed to them and claimed that they did it based on Marxist reasoning. But I can't say that intensification of class struggle really got enough coherent theoretical elaboration - which came back to haunt Soviets with a vengeance by 1950s.

I.e. he is useful not just for beginners, but also for those trying to understand the problems of creating Socialist society. People can acquire incredibly simplistic understanding of social processes if they don't try to understand how they work IRL.

Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR is definitely worth reading. Foundations of Leninism is alright if you just want a basic introduction to Marxism-Leninism.

w*Sternoid scum

stop this

Very important point.

More accurate imo: Lenin=Robespierre, Stalin=Napoleon

to say it with Stalins words
Historical parallels are always risky. There is no sense in this one.

Honestly, no.

- Foundations of Leninism (1939)

Not really.

You missed out on Stalin:
1) saying that both Trot version (Socialism is impossible) and Bukharin's version (complete Socialism is possible/already achieved) are wrong.
2) admitting that peasantry is not Proletariat, and does not actually participate in Communist mode of production (i.e. not functioning in Socialist manner); nevertheless it is asserted that such a country will be Socialist.
3) explaining why there is a necessity to expand Socialism.

That's what Stalin's defenders thought about Trotsky, who was a war leader after all.

but the paragraph I cited doesn't mention any of that and explain about it, it would've been better just to write a single sentence and then maybe follow it up with the rest of the stuff you mentioned, which is what I was getting at.

The paragraph I cited, this is what we call "padding" and its a staple of college papers: it's needlessly filling up page space in an effort to seem smarter than it actually is, and in college, its used to meet arbitrary word count/page requirements, when you basically already ran out of everything to say. I've been to college, people do this all the time.

He was a dictator who genuinely believed in socialism, but also that it could only be achieved through harsh means. In doing so he made both great achievements as well as. mistakes that in the long term damaged the Soviet Union and the socialist cause. However these mistakes weren't necessarily his fault since he was acting according to the conditions at hand, not what may happen 40 years down the line.

It does.


> After consolidating its power and taking the peasantry in tow, the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build up a socialist society.

> For this [complete and final victory of socialism, i.e., … consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against intervention and, consequently, also against restoration] the victory of the revolution in at least several countries is needed. Therefore the development and support of revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution.

Every single nation that is not allied with US is a tyranny in need of liberation via carpet bombing.

Again, he doesn't mention this as a refutation to Bukharin's and Trotsky's point; this would have to assume that the reader already knew and understood the context, but it doesn't mention that. Maybe I'm not explaining this well enough, but I mean he would have to actually say "by the way I am going to offer a refutation to the other points of view" and then say such that would refute the claims, and without it, it's just padding.

Why are you putting words in his mouth?

Or you could, ya know, read Marx.

Attached: communist manifesto.png (500x804, 185.78K)

Marx is a fairly daunting read user. Reading core Marx and Lenin could take one months. For a beginning leftist reading Stalin's crash courses could be very useful instead of instantly breaking their brain with Capital.

Marx never wrote a "babbys first introduction to Marxism" except for maybe the Manifesto which would still tends to be confusing/misleading to most people

There are plenty of works by Marx and Engels which lay out simple explanations for that found it much more advanced works. Even the Manifesto essentially has this, with Engel's Principles of Communism laying out a simplified groundwork. Critique of the Gotha Programme, Wage Labor and Capital and Valur, Price and Profit all cover (basically) simplified versions of certain aspects which can be found in more advanced works like Capital.

if you want a babby's introduction read engels' pamphlets

stalin is worth reading but you should probably read whatever you can get your hands on, really
i greatly prefer reading lenin but stalin's interview with H.G. Wells in 1934 is just a really good read to me for some reason, idk why
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1934/07/23.htm
no, of course not
on both accounts
he was sung all the fuckin time

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

If someone wants to get into Marxism and finds this to difficult then I think you should redirect them to something else like Peppa Pig.

Attached: 1541713086195.png (170x260, 79.32K)

Except Principles were considered by both Marx and Engels to be too simplistic and didn't really influence Marxism (nor were they peer-reviewed). Practically speaking, Principles also suffer from imprecise phrasing which lends support to all kinds of revisionist bullshit. Hence, despite their accessibility, they are not a good introduction.

Because their resistance to this will emerge only later (as Foundations were written in 1924).
Either way, do you consider "There, I just summed up an entire paragraph in a single sentence." refuted?

Imagine unironically thinking that the only possible positions on Stalin are that he was a gud boi who dindu nuffin just needed money fo dem factories or that he was literally Satan who needed the CIA to bring democracy to his country. Imagine also thinking that the USSR under Stalin was anything close to a democracy, then imagine thinking that the fact that it wasn’t a democracy means I don’t still want it to succeed. Really fires up the pecans.

CotGP is pretty straightforward.

I've yet to see anything that disproves existence of democracy.

True democracy has never existed so I don't know what your example of one is.

bump

No, since he hated jews.

Extreme strawmanning of user's position here especially since he explicitly did not reject Stalin whatsoever. All he did was point out Stalin had disproportionate power within the USSR and enacted forced rather than democratic collectivization, which are things I'd find hard to deny despite the admiration I have for many of the guy's achievements.

he was a hero but any sort of the idea that that peasants can't be radicalized unless through intellectuals, is dumb af. look at my flag. IT. CAN. BE. DONE.

...

Elucidation on the extreme nature of US propaganda: it is taboo for US-centric academia to mention any facts that might suggest that US could've been (or is) enemy of democratic regimes. There are plenty other taboos, obviously.

For example, how many historians mention Bolshevik party discussion of 1927 - when Left Opposition was supported only by 4 thousand votes out of 730 thousands participants? Almost nobody mentions this. So people get impression that it was Stalin alone who somehow kicked Trotsky out with his magical "authoritarian" powers - because no other impression is possible. If there was such a major event, surely historians would mention it, right?

But they do not. The fact that Left Opposition was extremely vocal tiny minority (0.5%) which routinely resisted, and sabotaged decisions of overwhelming majority is ignored and obfuscated. And when overwhelming majority finally decides to either kick the minority out? Why, it is the tyranny of Stalin alone.

My dearest, I have full right to say everything I said. This is no strawmanning.

Let us dispose with weasel-words: the term used was "dictator".

Why? Because consensus says that Stalin was a dictator? Or do you have any arguments?

That’s what oppositions forces within governments do all the fucking time. Do you seriously think that smaller parties in bourgeois governments don’t obsfuscate and undermine the party in power? The role of the party shifts fundamentally once it takes power, it can no longer afford to act as if it’s a revolutionary underground movement. It’s a government of and by the people, meaning that it has to tolerate opposition, and the opposition trying to push its own agenda at the expense of the others ought to be expected. You can’t have a functioning democracy otherwise.

We are not talking about "smaller party". We are talking about the faction within one party. Majority has the full right to kick offenders out.

It is not government. It's a party. You can even have multi-party system, Bolsheviks simply didn't have that as an option, as even Left SR went reactionary and attempted Right-wing coup in the summer of 1918.

The party was effectively the government. In order to have a functioning democracy minority factions need to be allowed to operate. The ban on factions within the party was a mistake. You’re basically justifying destroying proletarian democracy based on a technicality.

"There is no contradiction between an absence of factions and democracy, just as there's no contradiction between a single party and democracy.

Factionalism entails replacing service to the party with service to the particular faction one belongs to. Lenin wrote that "factionalism in practice inevitably leads to the weakening of team-work and to intensified and repeated attempts by the enemies of the governing Party, who have wormed their way into it, to widen the cleavage and to use it for counter-revolutionary purposes."

When the party comes to a decision on something, factions can easily disrupt the carrying out of that decision by functioning as miniature, rival parties with their own memberships, periodicals, platforms, etc.

Through regular meetings of the party at all levels of society (from the nationwide level to the local environments like towns and apartment blocks) members can disagree on what course to pursue or suggest changes in existing policies. The important thing is that once a decision has been arrived at, it is to be carried out by all members until the next meeting of the membership where disagreements or criticisms can be voiced."

says Ismail

I agree on that position if we are talking about a revolutionary party before it takes power. After a revolution is an entirely different story. After the revolution there needs to be tolerance of dedicated opposition forces which will seek to carry out their agenda in the legislature, and will seek to prevent other factions from carrying out theirs. I fail to see how there could be a functioning democracy without an opposition to the governing faction that can openly and continuously criticize that government and work to convince others of its own ideas. Unless that opposition devolves into literal sabotage (ie terrorism, destructive acts, not just criticism and voting against the governing faction) and subversion of the state entirely, it’s normal and healthy for it to oppose and work against the government. In a democracy even the minority has the right to try to carry out its agenda.

No, it wasn't.

Why should opposition be permitted to claim that it is speaking on behalf of government and party it criticizes?

It wouldn’t be. It’s speaking on behalf of the opposition within the party.