Comradeship // Freechat

He was too good, and people can’t be allowed to see that socialism is good.

Warning, I went a bit off topic, also went over the character limit (TLDR at the bottom)

His time was one of drastic changes, that means both positive things (that IMO far outweigh the negative) but also some errors, that are often exaggerated. Like:

Industrializing at a breakneck pace, in a country that lagged way behind western Europe and North America.

Ending pseudo-feudalism in the countryside by establishing collective and state farms in the countryside and expropriaring the landowners (oh no poor kulaks, they must actually work now!)

Developing a strong army worthy of the great powers of the time, one strong enough to be crucial in the defeat of fascism in WW2 and good enough to rival the world hegemon in the cold war, all without sacrificing the welfare of his people in the maintaining of that army, unlike the USA today. A strong and indipendent country with a mighty army who doesn't follow orders from the US is bad enough for the unipolar alliance, if we add socialism to the mix... You get the idea.

Making the USSR an indipendent country, getting rid of foreign influence, a big one. If you read Lenin's imperialism, he illustrates how Russia at that time was yes a huge empire, but also victim of financial imperialism by foreign superpowers, expecially France. the western capitalist league didn't like that, they couldn't make easy money from the Soviet people anymore.

Ending famines and misery once and for all. The 1933 famine (itself a hugely propagandized about fact) was (with the exception of WW2 and the shock therapy of the 90s) the last time Soviet people witnessed such misery, famines were a regular occurrence before Socialism.

That said his presidency had some flaws, criticisms who, while being valid are brought about like things who make Stalin a monster, they aren't. The good outweighs the bad, and the bad is often exaggerated by propagandists and demagouges. Facts like the deportations during WW2 (very complex point popular between misguided comrades, not much between anticommunists who are attracted 9by bigger numbers like the trillions from holodomor way more), his, understandable for his times, but still inexcusable, reactionary social views, or the fact he stopped at Berlin and didn't march on Tokyo(the worst of them all).

When you have a leader who managed to get a country that was barely in the 20th century in the cities, and still pseudo-feudal in the countryside, and turn it into a modern, indipendent, strong and egalitarian nation in the span of ~30 years, people start having thoughts about emulating his actions and start believing in his ideals. And his ideology (and the practical applications of such ideology) are very cumbersome to the capitalist class, the class who, by means of their capital control: Newspapers, Radio stations, TV stations and more recently online publications, social medias, fake universities on YouTube and "independent thinkers" (the irony). And can influence the government by many means if they need.

When you want to know what the capitalists do to keep their wealth and the derived power and privilege, I think it's useful to imagine yourself as one of them. They're just people who, by various, 99% of the times immoral, means acquired wealth, invested it into wealth-generating assets (our beloved means of production), and aren't really interested in giving them up along with all their newfound (or again, 99% of the times inherited) wealth, who consents them to live a very comfortable life. It's the most logical thing to do if you're a rich asshole and I think it's important to understand their thinking.

Imagine you own a newspaper in an imperialized country in the 40s-50s, you obviously don't want to just give away your house, money, business etc. You live comfortably while others work on your assets and make you money, so what do you do to keep the toiling masses in line? We are still not in a full-blown ancap society so you can't just hire a paramilitary squad and kill everybody who dissents (not on the open market. You can do it and it has been done tons of times, most notably in Indonesia, but it would be bad press if you're caught!) so what do you do? Well you have your newspaper, you could look for somebody who's an expert in influencing people, and who's political views align with the ones more useful for you to keep your wealth at the time (in pre-1990s Europe was social-democratic corporatism, today it might be neoliberalism and tomorrow who knows) you might hire and pay them a fraction of your wealth, even not turning a profit on their work in order to spread their ideology to the masses through your media. And in due time convince people your way is just "the way it is" and that leftist alternatives are "too far", "murderous", "inefficient" or "barbaric" (in our example, the USSR hasn't "failed" yet)

If people believe in something, then (for this example) Stalin wants to attack, abolish or kill that. Are you religious? Well, the USSR abolished religion and turned everybody into r/atheism redditors. Do you like to travel? Enjoy your state-sanctioned travel to bumfuck nowhere, 2000km from where you live, oh you wanted to go to another place? Too bad. Do you like literature and the arts? I hope you like censored and pre-approved "art" by state-sponosred propagandists. Do you own the small store down the street? Believe it or not, gulag for you! Oh you also recieved a grant from the CIA, as long as you talk bad about that Stalin guy (and other US adversaries) they're going to give you millions, and you can keep the difference.

You still think Stalin is a good president? What are you, a commie? Don't you know Stalin killed x million people? You are clearly an extremist who shouldn't be taken into account, in fact, let's just ban/censor in some way your party and maybe arrest your lead figures. If we think we could get away with it we'll also beat you up, put you in jail or worse. Your movement will become irrelevant and soon enough nobody will be there to hear what you have to say. And of those few who would be ready to hear, many will just be scared, and join our controlled opposition instead.

Maybe it won't work at first, but these guys are playing the long game. There were magnitudinally more people who viewed Stalin in a good light during his time than today (and he wasn't portrayed as a saint in his times too, not even in WW2 when they had to not smear him in the same amount of shit as before, or after the war) over time people bought into the hegemonical proganada and now Stalin, who's not seen as a recent figure, but as a distant, dark and "historical" figure, transcending time, is much easier to smear. And we are seeing it. The majority of people living in ex-Soviet countries who lived under him or knew people who did still appreciate his job, while the younger generations, grown up with hegemonical propaganda (expecially western, but also domestic) don't see him as favorably.

After a while you don't even need to blast anti-Stalin propaganda 24/7, after you have a majority of people believing you, they will just spread the rumors themselves, free of charge and with infinitely more manpower and reach than even the best of CIA propaganda operations could ever hope to achieve.

TLDR He was the leader of a country who witnessed the fastest economic, industrial, social, military and political development in history, along with Mao's China (and we know Mao is loved in the west) When you have a country who manages to get it's indipendence from imperialists, their democracy and their industry and to feed everybody, all of this while under embargo, western slander and two enormous wars, people (expecially in poor, imperialised countries, who can compare their conditions with the ones of Russia) start to get ideas. And people can get organized and lead revolutions to change the current ststr of things. Add to this that some of those movements succeeded and the bourgeoise is in a tough spot, they have 3 choices:

Making temporary concessions. Thing they do when they deem fit, like in the west during the cold War or to a milder extent in 2020.

Or they suppress the radical movement in cold blood, another thing they did and do. But they must be careful not to overdo it, else the damage to their reputation will be too great.

Or they smear their opposition to try to make the masses sleep, either by making the socialist alternative seem undesirable, by making the status quo (or a controlled opposition) seem palatable or both. They mainly use two tactics:

Exaggerating mistakes. Stalin had reactionary views on things such as Gay marriages, abortion and the like, and that sometimes reflected in Soviet policy. That's a fair criticism. But it is foolish to think the USSR was sole in opposing those progressive policies. No country except Germany for a couple years had legalised same-sex marriage and abortion. His position was wrong, but at least understandable. But they still use this to smear him.

Straight up inventing things, or mixing things that happened with fiction. Think about the western version of the Holodomor: a genocide perpetrated by Stalin on the Ukrainian people by mean of starvation. Yes there was starvation and Ukrainians died, but no qualified person in good faith would claim Stalin had a specific quest to erase the Ukrainian people, these half-thruths are so insidious because pulling up actual academic sources gets you associated with holocaust deniers and the like. All while they sometimes literally cite nazis

They know if they don't make every alternative look demonic, and the status quo comparably "tolerable" people will flock to socialism and they will lose their status. People aren't stupid, just propagandized.

Sorry for the very long rambling rant, just felt like exorcising some brainworms.

To make a long story short: The USSR was a massive threat to Western hegemony so they had to go.

He killed Hitler. Really, that's it.

The economic growth and societal transformation under Stalin (in particular under his Five Year Plans from 1929-1955) registered the fastest growth in the history of humanity that has never been surpassed.

Not even China with all its achievements came close to what transformed the USSR from a poor feudal backwater of Europe into a space-faring nation within a single generation. And the USSR achieved all this while being isolated and without relying on cheap labor (workers rights were on par with Western European standards) and influx of foreign capital.

If you’re a Western capitalist, you’d be worried too. A country full of illiterate peasants and barely electrified, is now threatening to overtake us because of communism?

Khrushchev reversed much of Stalin’s policies that worked and marked the beginning of an end to the greatest socialist project of the 20th century.

stalin shouldn't have stopped at berlin

Well we are talking about a guy who called himself the Man of Steel.

His writing is clearer than almost any other Marxist, which imo is another factor