My point is just that the ussr was not some righteous world hero, as was seemingly being alluded to

what

So did the USSR not defeat 80% of the Nazi military, liberate every territory East of Berlin that the Nazis had captures, capture Berlin, and liberate the concentration camps? Or did they do that but you need to make sure everyone is aware that they only did that to protect themselves and shouldn't be considered heroes?

I mean, cuz what it sounds like you're saying is that defeating the Nazis isn't enough, you actually also have to be morally good according to a standard that you will never admit the USSR into but also could never apply to any country in the history of the world.

Enough for what? Extreme gratitude, yes. But the post is asking why so many people on the left seemingly ignore the faults of the Soviet Union. And no, winning ww2 does not justify turning a blind eye to any fault of the Soviet Union, that's ridiculous, as it would be for any nation. And especially so when they entered the war out of necessity.

Seriously. How are you able to say these things without a hint of self awareness. You know what it looks like to enter a war voluntarily? It looks like the US and Israel bombing Iran. It looks like the Third Reich invading every country on the path to Russia. Like what the fuck do you imagine you are saying? The USSR knew that engaging in war with the Third Reich was a necessity as soon as they got a copy of Mein Kampf. It's such a ridiculous statement to say that because the USSR joined the war out of necessity that therefore it is not appropriate to consider that their defeat of the Nazis was a good thing that the USSR did. Ludicrous.

Most leftists do NOT ignore the flaws of the USSR. In fact, those flaws are studied as part of the process of historical materialism. For example, every leftist knows that Stalin was a violent paranoid control freak. Every leftist knows that the repression of religion was a major mistake. Hell, even the USSR figured that one out and reversed the policy.

If you think leftists ignore the USSR's faults, that's on you. But if your problem is actually that you believe the faults of the USSR erase anything good that could possibly be attributed to them, then that's a different problem and it's intellectually dishonest to say that the only proper way of acknowledging the flaws of the USSR is to condemn the entire project, denounce it, and never use it as an example of something good. Those positions are not equivalent

“No the Katyn Massacre was good actually because…”

no one says this

not to start on the HexBear emojis.

what is the charge? using an emoji? a perfect Hexbear emoji?

For the most part Stalin is used to trigger the aggressive anti-communists.

Like, there are enough "How could Hitler have won the war?" types around for me to be overly concerned with memes that defend/don't condemn Stalin.

A form of tribalism specific to the Left known as Campism where people will justify any bullshit by people who oppose "the West" in some way.

Well I think that's ignoring the segment of fake tankies that are just trying to spread militant ideologies in general as a destabilizing tactic

One of that things the CIA had to explain is that enormous, even dictatorial personal power isn't necessarily the same thing as absolute and unchallenged power. Their power bases are dependant on support from others, and that support isnt guaranteed, that's just the reality of being electrically charged meat with social structures.

So US politicians would come to power believing Stalin could do literally anything he wants and all you have to do is convice one man and then the CIA would explain that some things you want him to do would result in Beria or whoever launching a coup to seize power for themselves.

TL;Dr some people believe dictators can do whatever they want when in reality all power structures are based what people will accept without violent reprisal

That doesn't mean they aren't a dictator, it just means pretending one person holds all power and blame is naive

Pop quiz though, how many times did the USSR offer to ally against the Nazis with Poland and who torpedoed that?

Minor historical detail really.

If you mean the non-aggression pact they had, then it would also be the USSR, yes

No I mean when the USSR offered to fight the Nazis with Poland, France and the UK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_alliance_negotiations

So... still USSR, represented by Molotov eventually deciding to side with Nazis. Really unsure how it's Poland's fault, as you implied previously

That is such a ridiculous take even British historians disagree with you.

Are you interested in understanding history and trying to learn from it?

There were many talks, the British and French governments refused to commit, prefering to let the Nazis kill Slavs. They told the Polish government that despite Hitler loudly saying how he was going to kill Slavs and take their land this would not happen. The USSR said they would fight, first in Czechoslovakia when it was annexed, second when the Nazis were building up forces on Poland's boarders. Both times they needed permission to send armies through (and later in obvs) Poland.

The polish government, being capitalist shitbags, were terrified of a revolution and denied this. Preferring to take their chances with Hitler and the dubious guarantees of the British. This worked out famously well for them.

The ussr, having been a nation of serfs 20 years ago, and being unable to fight alone abandoned the talks that were being deliberately sabotaged for a NAP to buy time. Literally the same strategy as the UK yet somehow this is an example of the USSR being evil? Despite this being their backup backup plan.

Framing it as the evil USSR carving up Poland with Hitler is not just subtly wrong, it's almost the opposite of reality.

Oh, my bad, I didn't recognise Cowbee's alt

I'm actually db0's if you check my bio.

Why resort to name calling though? I've been only polite and genuine to you.

When people talk about "Stalinism," they usually mean one of 2 things:

1. Marxism-Leninism, the synthesis of Marxism with the advancements made by Lenin. Stalin synthesized Marxism-Leninism, so this gets called "Stalinism" despite Stalin's minor contributions compared to Marx and Lenin.

2. The policies of the USSR while Stalin was General Secretary of the CPSU.

The former, Marxism-Leninism, is the largest tendency of Marxism by far. This is because it has proven its utility in practice, establishing socialism in many countries with varying local conditions and contexts. Lenin's contributions to Marxism are near universally accepted by Marxists, and Stalin did not change from them in synthesizing Marxism-Leninism.

The latter, Stalin's policy positions, are largely either contextualized and explained, rather than actively defended, or are genuinely good feats. For example, under Stalin, literacy rates skyrocketed from ~30% to 99.9%, life expectancy doubled, education and healthcare were made free at all levels, jobs were guaranteed, and much more. Genuine faults, like criminalizing homosexuality, are recognized as such by Marxist-Leninists.

As Weng Weiguang says, The Evaluation of Stalin is Essentially an Ideological Struggle. Marxist-Leninists don't idolize Stalin. At the same time, Stalin synthesized Marxism-Leninism, and oversaw the world's first socialist state during its most turbulent period. The CPC rates him as 70% good, 30% bad, and this rating is roughly orbited by most communist orgs. Those who denounce Stalin entirely, also denounce the USSR, and existing socialism.

Stalin was a committed Marxist-Leninist, and oversaw the world's first socialist state for the overwhelming majority of its most tumultuous period. He was no saint, but at the same time was no monster either. He is remembered by liberal historians as far worse than comtemporaries like Churchill who in actuality were far worse than Stalin.

As Nia Frome says, we can either distance ourselves from Stalin, and by extension the USSR and actually existing socialism, or we can fight back against bourgeois narratives about Stalin and the USSR, acknowledging their faults while being able to uphold their tremendous successes as examples of the possibilities of socialism in power. Historical nihilism, and throwing Stalin and by extension much of the early soviet union under the bus, was ultimately what allowed for liberalization within the USSR and partially contributed to the death of socialism in eastern Europe.

If you want an intro to Marxism-Leninism, check out my new basic ML study guide!

Here's a good question for you, why are you such a reactionary? And why does this comm keep attracting reactionaries?

Somebody in this thread said Churchill was way worse than Stalin lol. I must have missed the chapter about the English gulags and millioms murdered in them.

The only alts I have are ones named "Cowbee" on other instances.

It is okay to be categorically wrong about a historical time period. It wasn't Molotov in that phase. Molotov replaced Litvinov, who was the foreign minister of the USSR until 1939. Litvinov was the proponent of allying with the West against Germany. (For what it is worth Litvinov likely would've signed the Pact with Germany anyway.) But Stalin supported him, and even after being dismissed wasn't even disgraced.

The important subsequent development here is that Britain and France then actively tried to support Finland against the USSR during the Winter War while still technically at war with Germany, who was also supporting Finland. The Phoney War was a real thing that played out, after all.

Unless these are too minor of details.

Churchill was largely responsible for starving over 4 million Indians to death, and had this to say to defend himself:

I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.

On top of this, Churchill was very close with the Nazis, to the point that Hitler was certain Britain would side with the Nazis in the coming war. When FDR and Stalin joked about executing Nazi officers after the war was over, Churchill stormed out of the room, as "those men were defending their country."

As for the soviet prisons, an enormous number of prison deaths occured during World War II, when famine was widespread due to the Nazis storming Ukraine, the USSR's breadbasket. On the whole, soviet prisons and the justice system itself were more progressive than their peers, Mary Stevenson Callcott documented it quite well in Russian Justice.

The soviet union, despite having a progressive legal system, was in a state of constant turmoil caused by pressures both external and internal. They couldn't simply delete all previously existing ruling-class people and ideology, class struggle continues under socialism. Further, pressure from the imperialist west, invasion both in threat and in action, and intentional sabateurs meant that the prisons certainly weren't empty. The soviet union never had a single year of normal, stable growth, free from intense opposition on the outside and counter-revolutionary forces on the inside.

You haven't heard anyone say this, you haven't talked to every tankie in existence. I have heard someone say it, and yes they were dumb but of course that goes without saying since they were tankies who think the vanguard party will actually "dissolve on its own when the time comes" LMAO as if.

But more importantly is the whole "hey dummy they're going to kill you next like they've historically done" part. Don't help hopeful autocrats, they are not "on our side" because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The enemy of my enemy is also my enemy when they're just going to kill me next.

The closest I have seen is 'Are we to believe SS death squads that they found the evidence for it in 1943?'

So, not a good thing, and possibly just more Nazi shit, further not good.

I've spoken quite a bit about Katyn, and have not really seen any Marxist saying "the soviets definitely did it" and "that's a good thing." Katyn gets pinned on the Soviets because Goebbels reported on it and it became a useful story, but the execution method was distinctly Nazi, ie killing men, women, and children from behind into mass graves. The ammunition was German-produced in 1941, and the rope used to bind the hands of the victims was German made.

The Soviets absolutely killed Polish soldiers, but the character of their involvement was not anywhere close to what the Nazis reported.

The one questioning the love for autocrats is a "reactionary," and the ones defending the autocrats are the "anarchists?" Frankly imo love for any rulers kind of disqualifies one from being an anarchist. Lot more tankies in here than anarchists by my count, if those were the reactionaries you meant.

I guess that completely justifies occupying half of Poland and murdering a bunch of locals, my bad /s

Where are you from? Country of origin? I'm genuinely curious.

Statesian.

Because they have to latch onto “great men”, it helps with their simplistic cult minded tendencies to defer to authority.

It doesn't, and it shouldn't be taken as such. It's just historicity.

Pretty much between 1914 and 1946/53 you have an impenetrable web of colonial empires colliding and crashing apart. There is very little purity to be found, so accuracy is about all you can rely on. Not knowing about Litvinov, (or Pilsudski, or the Phoney War, or whatever) is fine and normal.

Like, there are often counter/fingerpointing on this subject about Churchill being a pile of shit (and sure, super racist) but in this specific context we're still in the Chamberlain era. Pointing that out is neither support for Chamberlain nor a judgement on Churchill.

And there's plenty about Stalin-era USSR to complain about. Lysenkoism or Beria, for instance. It's such a deeply complex subject that accuracy tends to be the most damning evidence.

So many .ml/hb users commenting on an anarchist comm, and predictably with the worst takes trying to defend it, pretend it doesn’t exist, or that it’s all cia.

To answer your question. I suspect because it makes them feel good. Look at how Christians love their god, despite the fact he kills people frequently for the a slightest transgression and is all around a selfish demanding prick. They ignore those parts and construct an idealised character in their head that emboldens only what they see as positive and anyone complaining is part of the out group, the enemy and as such doesn’t have a real complaint.

It is not inherently anarchist to blindly oppose all authority especially when used to push a reactionary agenda

Mhm. I get that your country is hostile to the world and its own citizens. I do. But that doesn't make Stalin - or any era USSR - good. This dichotomy of white vs black, good vs evil is the most USian brainwashing that is afflicted on your people. From your post I can see you preemptively dismiss any critisizm or argument and while you said MLs don't idealise Stalin, it seems that you do.

Those who denounce Stalin entirely, also denounce the USSR, and existing socialism.

I'm from Poland. To us, to a country betrayed by the Allies and sold to Stalin, their occupation did not bring prosperity, or equality, nor socialism. We were systematically robbed by the USSR from the wealth, intellect and industry (as noted by then governments and listed as a plea for USSR to stop), and even lives. We were made to take loans to invest in the Empire, while staying a satelite country and tying our planned economy to better native Russian territories. We did call then the Red Army - Red Locust. You need to realise that when you glorify it, you automatically dismiss our traumatic past. It is like getting told by a stupid child that if we're hungry we should eat cake.

Since USA wages war outside its territory and was never invaded nor conquered, you might not know that trauma - especially from war and being a conquered nation, worse nation - is transgenerational https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_trauma

Were there people who thrived under USSR occupation? Yes, but they are thriving currently too, both politicians and capitalist leeches. Did Poland progress under the occupation? Yes, like every damn other country in Europe. We would progress more as free people, no historian thinks differently.

The latter, Stalin’s policy positions, are largely either contextualized and explained, rather than actively defended, or are genuinely good feats

When I read your comments I can't not see you as anything else than a guilt feeling nepo baby. Or at least someone so privileged, that they never ever thought about other people lives outside of statistics. An empty headed academic.

Tl; dr; the revolution was made into abomination of itself and claiming otherwise is blindness

Mhm. I get that your country is hostile to the world and its own citizens. I do. But that doesn’t make Stalin - or any era USSR - good.

The USSR was good based on its own progressive merits.

From your post I can see you preemptively dismiss any critisizm or argument and while you said MLs don’t idealise Stalin, it seems that you do.

I don't.

I’m from Poland. To us, to a country betrayed by the Allies and sold to Stalin, their occupation did not bring prosperity, or equality, nor socialism.

I've spoken to people from Poland that have the opposite to say. The fall of socialism in Poland brought a dramatic collapse in any kind of left, which is why Poland is so far-right today.

We were systematically robbed by the USSR from the wealth, intellect and industry (as noted by then governments and listed as a plea for USSR to stop), we were made take loans to invest in the Empire, while staying a satelite country. We did call then the Red Army - Red Locust. You need to realise that when you glorify it, you automatically dismiss our traumatic past. It is like getting told by a stupid child that if we’re hungry we should eat cake.

Again, I've heard much the opposite. That's why anecdotes are terrible measures of truth. The collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe brought skyrocketing poverty rates, prostitutuon, drug abuse, homelessness, and 7 million excess deaths.

Since USA wages war outside its territory and was never invaded, you might not know that trauma - especially from war and being a conquered nation - is transgenerational https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_trauma

I'm aware.

Were they people who thrived under USSR occupation? Yes, but they are thriving currently too, both politicians and capitalist leeches. Did Poland progress under the occupation? Yes, like every damn other country in Europe. We would progress more as free people, no historian thinks differently.

And yet Poland is now in a far-right spiral with far greater disparity.

When I read your comments I can’t not see you as anything else than a guilt feeling nepo baby. Or at least someone so privileged, that they never ever thought about other people lives outside of statistics. An empty headed academic.

Cool story, you know nothing about me. Believe it or not, statistics and historical fact do outweigh simple anecdote, and the idea that I have never thought about people's lives outside of statistics is deeply wrong.

Mmhmm. "Anarchism is when some autocrats good actually." Ok.

Well, that's not my type of anarchism. You have fun with that.

What anecdote? I've made no anecdotes? The only person mentioning any anecdotes is you, e.g.

Again, I’ve heard much the opposite

Regarding USSR stealing industry:

• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0966692307000713#%3A~%3Atext=Introduction%2Cby+Soviet+Red+Army+troops.

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grabież_i_przejmowanie_mienia_poniemieckiego_na_Ziemiach_Odzyskanych#%3A~%3Atext=Grabież+i+przejmowanie+mienia+poniemieckiego+na+Ziemiach+Odzyskanych+–+Wikipedia%2C+wolna+encyklopedia

(I'm sorry wo don't really translate that to English). But you can try to Google for sources in English.

I’ve spoken to people from Poland that have the opposite to say

You might've spoken to people who remember the late 80's fondly. Not 50-70s. Or ZOMO (secret terror police) or similar, they always had privileged lives.

Unless you were in the Party, Army or Zomo, life was not roses at all, e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_October

The collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe brought skyrocketing poverty rates, prostitutuon, drug abuse, homelessness, and 7 million excess deaths.

1. Poland is not Eastern Europe

2. prostitutuon, drug abuse, homelessness <- you might be confusing that with what is common in the USA.

3. Excess deaths https://wol.iza.org/articles/mortality-crisis-in-transition-economies/long#%3A~%3Atext=Features+of+the+transition+mortality%2Climited+changes+in+family+stability.

4. skyrocketing poverty rates

Not really, no? After we detached from the ZSSR everything had to be restarted and the first decade was hard. We had to start from little, figure out export routes, rebuild a damn lot of industries etc? We were economy attached and made dependant on USSR, how could the split not be hard?

This is the shit that gets to me. Like half this thread is people talking about silly people wanting to divide history into goodies and baddies while doing exactly that.

History just is, the good and bad we must analyse with clear eyes if we are to learn from both the triumphs and failures so we can build a free world.

The USSR did wonderful things, terrible things, and banal things. On the whole it vastly improved the lives of people in it, and even outside of it the threat of revolution was used to advance worker's rights massively. Acknowledging this is not excusing or justifying the failures, explaining why the failures occured is not excusing them. To learn we must understand the whys and the hows so we can replicate triumphs and avoid tragedy.

The whole point it to do better. I don't understand why people don't see that.

Splitting this to a separate comment because it was too long:

The fall of socialism in Poland brought a dramatic collapse in any kind of left, which is why Poland is so far-right today.

I mean dude, not even close. Polish leftist parties were antiworker from the 90s. Anything further left was dismissed as "USSR was saying the same lies". Fool me once kind of thing.

Add to that the short time where there was upwards mobility in the country when it first became "capitalists", as well as fhe fact that in the past 20 years median personal real wealth grew.

And yet Poland is now in a far-right spiral with far greater disparity

Yup. The current generation is seeing that the wealth is unequally distributed (1% owns 45% of wealth), as well as all those rentier leeches, banks making record profits year after year, and the Facebook/Tiktok ( or generally USA right wing) propaganda is turning like 10% into MAGA-style idiots, and the rest is also slowly radicalizing. We do see that in the below 35 age group the left-leaning is still strongest, but the PIS and Konfederacja are following Repulican party strategies and gaining tracktion.

Poland, prior to socialism, was 2/3rds controlled by foreign capital, and was severely lagging behind the rest of Europe industrially. By 1948, Poland's industrial output was 153% of what it had been in 1938. Post-war, the economy grew over 300% from 1945 to 1948.

In the 1930s, Polish life expectancy was ~46 years old. After the introduction of socialism, and improved healthcare, it reached 70. Before socialism, literacy rates were ~80% in urban areas and ~30% in rural areas. With socialism, total literacy rates were 98%. With socialism came legalized abortion and greatly expanded women's rights.

The dissolution of socialism, as I said, brought ~7 million deaths around the world. You didn't dispute that, the argument seems to be on your end that these were necessary for economic growth. What Poland could have done is remain socialist.

So in other words, the far-right used the standard red-scare playbook to purge communists and socialists, and now Poland has immense disparity and is entirely controlled by the far-right.

No, don't hyperbolize. This isn't your narrative.

the far-right used the standard red-scare playbook to purge communists and socialists

No. It was everyone in the free Poland. We were rebelling constantly under USSR occupation.

and now Poland has immense disparity and is

No. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=PL&start=1985
But we do see foreign corporations leeching from us and actively enshittifying. The home ownership rate is decreasing.

and is entirely controlled by the far-right.

That depends what you mean by far right. I'd call the current political landscape of Poland as right-centrist PO in coalition with centrists (the rest of the coalition) vs (oppositon) right-centrist PiS with (growing) republican-clone Konfederacja

Everything else tomorrow, its 1am

The dissolution of socialism, as I said, brought ~7 million deaths. You didn’t dispute that, th

I literally added a link it was 8400. You gave no sources. Trust me bro is not a source.

7.7 million excess deaths in the first year. Stop minimizing millions of deaths.

No, it was not "everyone in the free Poland." Many Polish people opposed the dissolution of socialism. Further, disparity in Poland is high, and the foreign companies plundering Poland is a direct consequence of the dissolution of socialism, purging of the left, and the dominance of the far-right.

Nice job losing the argument.

well i guess we can just speculate on the why… but either way it’s definitely disingenuous