As other have pointed out those numbers are way off but also i think its worth pointing out that Stalin didnt invent gulags (or political purges) it was a long standing system by then fuck Lenin was sent to one before the revolution, he and many other people in positions of power in the early USSR just used the tools they knew and were available.I think there are a lot of situations where socialists in the past have done things that are wrong but only in the sense of they should have been better rather than merely the same as capitalist and thats just a fucked way of thinking because they WERE better in so many other places. Also no one is saying Stalin was literally flawless but compared to what he is accused of he might as well be.
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
808 readers
20 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I dont think you can compare Lenins exile to gulags. Lenin had a generally chill time and enjoyed his exile. Gulags were not so pleasant.
Gulags were a continuation of the Tsarist Katorgas. The katorga camps weren’t some vacation.
They were starved of resources, employed forced labor for the empire, and inmates could be sentenced there for anything from common crimes to revolutionary beliefs (even common liberalism).
From the turbulent times post-revolution to post-WW2, the Gulags were a tool of their era to keep the country afloat while handling counter revolutionaries, actual Nazis, and common criminals.
I now know those numbers were wrong. Like most other internet historians, I used Wikipedia and didn't have time to double check those numbers as I was in the bathroom at work (always poop on the clock ;) ). That's on me. Even Wikipedia has largely differing numbers on that matter. One said 1.8 million, another said 14, and I think it'll be almost impossible to get right numbers because of the secrecy the USSR had during that time (especially during the Cold War). I know he did great things, but I truly believe that those are far overshadowed by the shady and cruel things he did. Another specific example would be his infamous Order 227. I acknowledge that he did a great job of mobilizing the economy and industry to help defeat the Nazis while being in an active invasion. That being said, I believe we can find better communist leaders that didn't kill at least 700,000 of his political opponents to maintain power, with some sources estimating between 650,000 and 1.2 million. That last link is directed to a PDF from the Jackson School of International Studies. Like I said, I know he did great things, and we should draw a light to those actions, but we shouldn't blindly say he was great. I think we have different people in history that set a much better example, like Fidel Castro for one. None of this was meant as a personal attack, just trying to back up my points of view and explain why part of my post was just numskullery :)
I think it’ll be almost impossible to get right numbers because of the secrecy the USSR had
We have perfectly fine accuracy regarding the numbers for most things in the USSR. In the 90s, the USSR archives were open to researchers from across the world and many propagandized narratives about the USSR were promptly shown to be false, at least in serious academic circles.
I believe we can find better communist leaders that didn’t kill at least 700,000 of his political opponents to maintain power
Firstly, Stalin didn't do any of this on his own and neither did any other communist leader. Secondly, around 700 000 people were executed in the entire ~30 years Stalin was the leader, not just during the purges. Thirdly, he didn't "just do this to maintain power". Our job is not "to find better communist leaders" from the past. It's to accurately analyze concrete historical situations, the material reality in its social and historical context and learn from that analysis as much as we can - both the good and the bad. However, ceding any ground to baseless anticommunist propaganda does not benefit us at all. No one is going around saying Stalin was flawless but any nuanced discussion is impossible in mainstream spaces.
Jackson School of International Studies
This doesn't mean much at all. It's a liberal institution connected to a university in the US. It cites the CIA world fact book as a good source and even mentions The Gulag Archipelago in a positive, uncritical light. Not to mention all your other sources which include wikipedia and the history channel website which cites Business Insider articles and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty all of which serve as explicitly anticommunist propaganda.
I think we have different people in history that set a much better example, like Fidel Castro for one.
You cannot just pick and choose who you like and don't like from history. You have to study all of it fairly. The situation in Cuba from the 50s onward is not the same as in the USSR around WW2. We aren't looking for good examples to blindly follow form the past. We are looking to learn, based on their specific examples, how to in general better analyze and approach our situation today. We cannot just replicate any past socialist strategy, we have to formulate our own that is specific to our current circumstances.
I would recommend you read Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti or Stalin: History and Critique of A Black Legend by Domenico Losurdo to better understand the history and historiography concerned with past and current socialist states, and Stalin in particular.
This is why I posted this question! I had no idea my sources were basically sponsored by the CIA. I appreciate the book recommendations. I realize that 50's Cuba and WW2 USSR are fundamentally different due to almost every aspect from time to culture, I was just confused as to why it seemed like Stalin is exalted while nobody mentions Fidel when (due to bad and/or misinformed information) Stalin seemed like a more brutal....dictator? Is that the right word? I'll definitely read those books, thanks again
I'm glad you found my comment helpful!
why it seemed like Stalin is exalted while nobody mentions Fidel when (due to bad and/or misinformed information) Stalin seemed like a more brutal…dictator?
This comes from the fact that the USSR was a lot more powerful than Cuba (and every other socialist state that existed then) and could thus much more effectively, and on a much greater scale repel western imperialism and colonialism - the clearest example of this is the USSR's victory in World War 2. In the West, a lot more propaganda and effort to demonize was directed towards the USSR, and Stalin in particular as he sort of embodied the greatest victories of the Soviets. You can also see a similar dynamic with how the broader left in the West tends to like Che Guevara (who represents revolution but died young and can be idealized as a handsome, charismatic rebel) while in comparison demonizing Castro (who successfully lead a socialist country permanently blockaded and threatened by the US).
After the war, mainstream liberal philosophy and history, instead of promoting actual material analysis, proceeded to paint a picture of WW2 (and the Soviet Union in general) that didn't correspond to facts. The US wasn't instrumental in the defeat of Nazi Germany, and wasn't even ideologically opposed to it. It joined the war to protect its imperial interests which could be threatened by the rise of German (and Japanese) imperialism - this is only one part of the whole war. A second, key part of WW2 was the anticolonial war fought by the USSR and China (and Korea) against the colonial invasions by Germany and Japan. To obfuscate this reality, liberal theory often falls back on concepts like totalitarianism which seeks to falsely equate Nazi Germany and the USSR, and subsequently also Hitler and Stalin. This concept is flawed in many ways and, as we know, Nazi Germany and the USSR were polar opposites. Any similarities between the two could also be found in the "liberal" countries at the time.
Still to this day in the West there exists a sort of knee jerk reaction to Stalin and the need to quickly denounce him as nothing but bad which is a result of the propaganda I've described and also a way to try and demonize present day communist movements by associating them with Stalin. Both of these are erroneous and done in bad faith, as you can see from the articles I've linked.
... nobody mentions Fidel...
Stalin might get more attention here, but there's no shortage of appreciation of Fidel.
I get what u are trying to say but its kinda hard to acknowledged your point when u say shit like the ""infamous" order 227" clearly there is a lot more western propaganda to unpack on your side, because there was nothing wrong with telling generals to stop retreating when conditions werent just right especially when u consider that at that point in time the nazi hoards controlled more territory than the USSR, no it was not an order to kill deserters there werent many to begin with since people knew what giving up to the nazis meant it was an order for generals to stop spreading fear and fucking around and while it included a provision for death as a punishment it was only ever used a handful of times and again against high ranking officers not common soldiers.
There were actual bad things done by the USSR's government while Stalin was in power some of them he could have been personally responsible for, like the exile of the Crimean tartars or the fact that relief efforts for the famine in Ukraine were carried out in secrete (and therefore were less effective) seemingly to save face. There is no need to invent reasons for critique. Rest assured we are all well aware of his flaws after all we had to read plenty of his history to debunk the made up flaws u fell for, we dont blindly like him, his flaws and mistakes (the real ones) just dont outweigh the good he did if u disagree thats fine its a line and its gotta be drawn somewhere, as long u know the facts its not wrong to draw that line such that his more bad than good. Either way im not gonna go tell a lib about how amazing Stalin was (tho i will certainly correct any misinformation) nor is anyone here trying to replicate the bad parts of the USSR during his time in power, we just think he did more good than bad and theres a lot of hate for him out there so someones gotta love him.
The soviet archives were opened after the dissolution of the USSR, the idea that these things are unknowable is wrong. Anti soviet historians with a shred of decency revised their analysis following those events and retracted many of their extreme claims. Conquest called the Holodomor a genocide prior to the opening of the archives and later admitted he was wrong.
"Not a step back" was a policy introduced because generals believed that the size of the USSR territory meant that they could afford to tactically retreat more often, which resulted in civilian deaths and a large amount of soviet resources being taken by the Nazis.
They needed to make a stand somewhere, and Stalingrad might've been the turning point of the entire war.
14 million gulags 💀 was there anyone left in the USSR after Stalin imprisoned them all???
Do you know how absurd the logistics would be for the imprisonment of 14 million people???
To put this into context, the United States imprisons about 4.3% of it's population and represents 20% of the global prison population... It's like 2ish million people in American prisons.
Well I'm gonna hold on to this statistic for later use. The absurdity of 14 million being imprisoned is enough that is should stand on it's own but maybe the direct comparison to the US prison system might drill it home a bit more.
Exactly, how could the Nazis have killed off 12+ million people systematically while also losing troops in a war and still have people left?
By exterminating them you Nazi piece of shit. They didn’t care if they starved, got sick and died, had adequate housing, died from exposure, were infested with parasites, had adequate clothing, had enough water, or so on.
That’s why they massacred them right off of the trains and left the rest to work to death.
Eat shit you Nazi. Take your Holocaust denial and get lost.
It's funny how these people can't realize how absurd their myths about communism are. The myth about Stalin arresting people who were first to stop applauding him after a speech is one of my favorites.
Regarding the USSR:
- Where did you read that 14 million people were sent to prisons as slave labour in the USSR?
- Where did you read that millions of people were killed in purges in the USSR?
- Where did you read that the USSR didn't have collective leadership, and that Stalin had ultimate authority?
Regarding modern Russia:
- Saying "Putin is ruling" is a very liberal standpoint. He is a president, not a monarch.
- Where did you read that Putin's party is interfering with elections? It's entirely possible considering it's a capitalist country and they don't want to lose to the KPRF, but it's still important to be skeptical of sources, particularly those with a bad track record.
- Russia has not started any war. In Ukraine, they intervened in and escalated a nearly decade-long civil war ignited by the NATO coup in 2014. The war with Georgia was initiated by Georgia. The war in Syria was started by imperialists, and Russia joined by the Syrian government's invitation.
Communists are materialists. If capitalist countries make claims about socialist countries without evidence, the default assumption should be that those claims are either entirely untrue or massively inflated. That doesn't mean they're always false, but you wouldn't trust a habitual liar to suddenly tell the truth. There is no way to "prove" if or how a historical event happened, and Amerikan propaganda is extremely effective despite a severe lack of convincing evidence.
This is a link to a BBC article about potential election tampering in Russia. There is a video of people stuffing ballot boxes with papers, but I ran out of time to find it. Can you explain and maybe share a source on the coup and following civil war in Ukraine?
Firstly, the BBC is a UK state-controlled media outlet that routinely spreads imperialist propaganda (and even lies about left-wing movements within the country, as shown by their defamation of Corbyn); it has absolutely no credibility. With that said, the the only citation I could find that wasn't the BBC itself (and I checked recursively at a depth of 3 before stopping) was this, which is an article by an organization called "Golos" alleging forced voting; I've never heard of it before, so I can't say whether they're trustworthy. Aside from that citation, it seems to be nothing but anecdotal "evidence", the credibility of which is proportional to that of the media outlet.
I can't speak to the video as I've never seen it.
Here's a summary of the coup in Ukraine. As for post-coup Ukraine, you could start by looking at a few of the sources here (I recommend that entire document for learning more about Marxism and imperialism, even if it's a bit messy). We've had several people asking about the conflict, the most recent being this one; you can use the search function on Lemmygrad, just check "Local" and search by posts using a keyword like "Donbas". Alternatively, you could make another post asking specifically about this (I'm not particularly good at saving my sources, but crowdsourcing would give better results)
Thanks! I'll look into that. I apologize for using BBC as a source. As a recovering liberal, it was one of the few news sources I had access to that wasn't Fox News and I'm finding it hard to find better sources in the US. I'm finding Ground News is helpful, but even that app doesn't really include any communist sources, just a bunch of US news sources
It's understandable to cling to some mainstream Western media sources in the beginning. It took a few months for me to realize that they all have a history of warmongering and telling blatant lies in the service of imperialism, and when you actually try to fact check them you'll find that they either just reference themselves or reference other bourgeois outlets (and so on). That's not to say that they're always wrong (there's usually an element of truth if you read between the lines and exclude the writer's commentary) or that all journalists working there are deliberately lying, but when there are no solid sources all you can use to judge an article's truthfulness is the outlet's and writer's track records (contrast this with a journalist like Seymour Hersh -- his article on the Nord Stream bombing uses anonymous sources, but he has a history of telling the truth about US imperialism, so while it's not proof, he's a significantly more reliable source than more or less anyone working for bourgeois media). Bourgeois media articles can be useful to expose inconsistencies in other bourgeois media (sometimes from the same outlet), and some journalists focus mainly on doing this; I would recommend the YouTube channel The New Atlas for this type of content, particularly on Xinjiang as well as historical context for the war in Ukraine, even if he has some political views that don't align with Marxism-Leninism.
It was also initially shocking to learn that the history taught in schools in the imperial core is largely either manufactured or manipulated to reinforce anticommunism, but if you look at your old history books I'm sure you'll find a lot of missing citations, a lot of dubious sources, and/or a lot of extremely important omissions
"Russia has not started any war. In Ukraine, they intervened in and escalated a nearly decade-long civil war ignited by the NATO coup in 2014"
So this is one of those communities. I forgot the part where Ukraine requested Russia to invade. Or the part where intervening in another country's political affairs was a thing that neither Russia nor NATO have ever done.
Russia, DPR, LPR, and Ukraine signed a treaty, and the treaty was broken, the DPR and LPR requested aid
Related, but does anyone know how much truth their is to the idea that Vavilov was sent to the gulags because of his opposition to Lashekoism?
I’m just going to leave these here:
https://www.idcommunism.com/2016/08/solzhenitsyn-rotten-legacy-of-fascist.html?m=1
It's also worth noting that we don't support everything Stalin and the soviets did, necessarily.
To my understanding, the point is to acknowledge the reasoning behind the actions and understand the errors.
This is a video from yesterday about this very topic: https://youtu.be/pDSZRkhynXU
I'm also not the most knowledgeable person here, so take my understanding with a few grains of salt.
The numbers of people executed or gulaged are widely exaggerated. For the Great Purge, he and Molotov set a maximum of 72,950 executions and 186,500 prison sentences. At the peak of the gulags, only 2.4% of the population was imprisoned (less than the percentage imprisoned in the US: 2.8%), and most were common criminals instead of political prisoners. When Khrushchev released many of them after Stalin's death, most committed new crimes and got sent back to prison.
Comrade, do you by any chance have sources for this? Always trying to look for them, but most if not all search engines are biased or straight up empirialistic.
- The Triumph of Evil Pages 74–76
- The Truth about the Soviet Gulag - Surprisingly Revealed by the CIA
- Referenced CIA document (bullet point 10)
Thx comrade!
It’s worse than you think... As a result of Stalin's purges and famine, only communists remained in Russia. As soon as he finished killing everyone, he started running super fast and kicked a baby in the face like a football for no apparent reason...I don't understand...Like he shouldn't have done this.
That's without even mentioning the big grain spoon, smh