this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
15 points (64.2% liked)

Socialism

5246 readers
49 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I believe in socialism, but I feel Stalin shouldn't be idolised due to things like the Gulag.

I would like more people to become socialist, but I feel not condemning Stalin doesn't help the cause.

I've tried to have a constructieve conversation about this, but I basically get angry comments calling me stupid for believing he did atrocious things.

That's not how you win someone over.

I struggle to believe the Gulag etc. Never happened, and if it happened I firmly believe Stalin should be condemned.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago

Not a great socialist

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

He killed loyal communists, many falsely accused of treason, and became the poster boy of the Red Scare, providing anti-communists with propaganda to equate socialism with totalitarianism. His oppressive policies, human rights abuses, and betrayal of socialist principles alienated global leftist movements and set back the progress of socialism by decades.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

he was s power hungry megalomaniac that felt no shame in killing anyone who crossed him

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago

When you get your politics from Marvel movies

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Shouldn't the dictatorship of the proletariat have been disbanded after the revolution was successful?

Why were the people not free to self organize into communes of their own design that best reflects their values?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

At what point do you think Marxists believe the DotP is to be ended? Moreover, what do you think a DotP is? People weren't allowed to dissolve government into small communes because they were invaded by more than 14 Capitalist countries, and in addition the Soviets were Marxists and not Anarchists, they wanted full public ownership and central planning as the goal.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 12 hours ago

Sooner the Soviets I guess. A shame there was no peace to see what could have been.

Same as it ever was.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The USSR never had a single year of peace, in its entire existence. Following the revolution was a brutal civil war in which 14+ nations (including the US) landed troops to try to stop the republic. Even after the reds won against the whites, they had years of intrigues against them, then rising fascism, which a lot of historians see as a continuous conflict in eastern europe from the years between the twe world wars.

Stalin presciently stated that "we have 10 years to industrialize in the time it took capitalist nations 50+ years, or we're toast". Then you have operation barbarossa and the nazi onslaught, with its scorched earth policy and genocidal onslaught of the USSR, the eastern front of ww2 being the bloodiest conflict in history, with the soviets saving the world from fascism.

Then you have the US atom bombing civilians as a warning to the soviets, and 60 years of a cold war arms race, and too many other threats and incursions to count.

The USSR wouldn't have lasted a single year if they disarmed and followed that advice, and europe would probably be all speaking german now if it weren't for Stalin.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 12 hours ago

Appreciate the reply m'dude.

load more comments
view more: next ›