Is it simply over-correcting in response to western anti-communist propaganda? I'd like to think it's simply memeing for memes sake, but it feels too genuine.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 6 months ago (84 children)

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!

  • source
  • hideshow 84 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (83 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 83 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (82 children)
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (79 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 79 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (78 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 78 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (37 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (36 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (35 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (34 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (33 children)

    The Polish economy was hit particularly hard by the 2008/2009 crisis.

    ??? We're famously the only country in the EU that wasn't affected by it. Please be critical of what you read.

    What a garbage article you sent here.

    Further, disparity in Poland is high,

    I literally send you a credible source that shows its similar to 1985 year. Are you saying that it was high during USSR occupation or ignoring the source?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (32 children)

    From the source linked:

    EU membership ought to have been a boon for Poland, a country which in 2004 was still recovering from the dead years of communism. Access to Western European markets ought to have supercharged that recovery.

    Initially that is what seemed to happen. Between 1992-2004 the Polish economy more than doubled in size from just under $100billion to $250billion, according to the World Bank. Between 2004 and 2008 it doubled again to peak at $500billion. But since then Polish GDP has flatlined.

    Of course the global recession of 2008/09 affected all economies yet for the Polish economy to be a little smaller in 2015 than it was in 2008 is a shocking indictment of EU membership. The EU has managed to turn a high-growth economy into a stagnant one.

    Why was Polish GDP flatlining? Why did millions leave Poland?

    I literally send you a credible source that shows its similar to 1985 year. Are you saying that it was high during USSR occupation or ignoring the source?

    Not only is the gini coefficient misleading, but it only goes back to 1985 in your source. Upon the adoption of capitalism, Poland has had unstable growth to even flatlining, is now being sold out to foreign companies, and again, has purged its left in favor of the far-right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • load more comments (32 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (39 children)

    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://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grabie%C5%BC_i_przejmowanie_mienia_poniemieckiego_na_Ziemiach_Odzyskanych#%3A%7E%3Atext=Grabie%C5%BC+i+przejmowanie+mienia+poniemieckiego+na+Ziemiach+Odzyskanych+%E2%80%93+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%7E%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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (38 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago* (37 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (36 children)
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (35 children)

    Why did you send me a link to https://www.academia.edu/1072631/Review_Red_Plenty_by_Francis_Spufford review of Red Plenty by Francis Spufford, where reviewer names the genre science-fiction? The fuck?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (34 children)

    Because Paul Cockshott is an economist, and references real facts in his review. Just what I had on hand. Here's a grab from the PDF:

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (33 children)
    1. Dude. It is a review of a fictional book with no sources attached. How do I know it's fiction? Author says so on Goodreads.

    2. We were talking about Poland being conquered by the USSR and that it was better without it. The excess Russian deaths you're quoting - if they were true and not from a fiction book - still wouldn't matter for Poland being better off without USSR? Do you see the distinction between those 2? One is USSR, the other is Poland, and the excess deaths (I linked before) in Poland were 8400?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • load more comments (33 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)