this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Socialism

5249 readers
8 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.

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

The gulag system was infinitely more humane than America's prison system. They weren't death camps, it's difficult to understand what the stigma around them is other than the fact that they have a spooky Russian name. Prisoners were paid a full wage, and were permitted to leave the prisons for short times.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (13 children)

Wasn't Stalin a communist dictator? We aren't looking for communism or a dictatorship. Claiming otherwise is just misleading.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Stalin was a Communist leader of the USSR. He was not a dictator according to the CIA. Moreover, the idea that Socialists do not seek Communism is a bit strange, the two most major camps of Socialism are Marxism and Anarchism, neither of which has "Socialism" as an end goal. Anarchists seek direct implementations of full horizontalism and decentralization out of the shell of the old, so to speak, while Marxists seek full public ownership and central planning, ie they wish to implement Communism.

The idea of a stagnant, static, never-changing system is foreign to the overwhelming majority of Socialist ideologies, ergo it must continue to advance. This advancement in my opinion is of course going to be Communism.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I call myself a socialist but do not support a full horizontalism or full decentralization. I support partials of both.

I do believe that optimizations for quality of life and value and stability are rarely at the ends of the spectrums, but sometimes somewhere in the middle and subjective to democratic agreement and changing based on reality.

I want my system to be flexible to have times of more centralization, times of decentralization, times of horizontality, times of independent nodes, etc.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Why is it that you believe the correct answer is "in the middle?" Moreover, why do you believe that you can simply stop the progression towards full public ownership, and therefore full centralization, assuming productive forces continue to develop? The point of Marxism is that there is no such thing as a stagnant system, and competition within markets further results in centralization, paving the way for public ownership to be superior.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I don't think I'd be "stopping" the progression, just that the progression is not towards some absolute idealistic end. (and to note in my ideal system, my individual ideals are secondary to the populations average), just that the natural maximum optimization, say of organizations type, an amount of organizations would be publicly controlled by a government, and an amount would be controlled by the employees themselves in a coop structure.

I think this makes sense as there will likely be products that a niche set of people want, but is not at such a scale that the government and the people behind it would want to dedicate collective resources towards it directly.

Fundamentally I believe the uniqueness and fickleness of people I believe will always outpace any collective structure, and so allowing for that to be represented in a society is key to success, and that entails organizations outside of collective-control which rely on consensus.

I do want a socialist system were all shares of an organization are either public ally owned or owned by the employees themselves, with no rent seeking capitalists involved.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Out of curiosity, have you read Marx? Much of what you're saying goes against standard Marxist consensus. As an example, cooperatives are not "Marxist," they allow accumulation despite eliminating bourgeois exploitation of proletarians. To that extent, they also must retain money, and trade, which becomes superfluous in the context of the rest of a Socialist society that would rather be fully planned.

Moreover, you are separating the idea of "government" from the "people" in a manner that confuses what Communism would actually look like. In retaining private property, you retain the conditions for Capitalism to emerge, and you retain groups that potentially stand at odds with the interests of the rest of the economy. This is why Public Ownership and Central Planning becomes superior to market-based systems once the productive forces have reached sufficient levels of development, and why Marxists say a system like that which you describe would eventually turn into Communism anyways as it works itself out to be more efficient.

If you want a starter guide, I recommend my own introductory Marxist reading list.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I have not yet, but i do plan to, thanks for the reading list, I will check into it.

At least at the moment and from what I know so far, I do not identify or align with Marxism or Communism, I do with socialism and i do not view socialism as some half step.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

What do you say in response to the notion that no system is static, and ergo is either moving towards full public ownership and planning or is regressing? Markets have a tendency to centralize in order to combat a tendency for the rate of profit to fall, which leads to inefficiencies. At some point, these markets coalesce into syndicates with internal planning, at which point it becomes far more efficient overall to fold them into the public sector. There remains no use for said markets.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Right, communism and socialism aren't the same thing though, why are you conflating them? Regardless of sillyness.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Before Marx, the term communism was used by many utopian socialists to describe an idealist, egalitarian society.

Its modern usage is almost always traced back to Karl Marx's usage of the term where he introduced the concept of scientific socialism alongside Friedrich Engels. The theory of scientific socialism described communism not as an idealistic, perfect society but rather as a stage of development taking place after a long, political process of class struggle. Marx, however, used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably and he drew no distinction between the two.

Lenin was the first person to give distinct meanings to the terms socialism and communism. The socialism/communism of Marx was now known simply as communism, and Marx's "transitional phase" was to be known as socialism.

Prolwiki > Communism > Etymology

So yes, there is a distinction between the two, but I have a feeling this isn't the distinction you were referring to.

Could you be talking about Social Democracy? Because, that's not socialism, or communism.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (20 children)

Socialism, in my opinion, inevitably leads either towards Communism if maintained. What matters is which has supremacy, Capital, or Humanity. I am not conflating them, but pointing out that Socialism, in the eyes of Marxists, is simply pre-Communism.

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

We aren't looking for communism

I-was-saying

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Me to other Communists: Stalin was a complex character who did make mistakes, went too hard on some stuff and not hard enough on others, but overall was a force for good, and I can never fault him for leading the USSR in defeating the Nazis.

Me to libs: You will not talk badly about uncle Joe Steel, ender of the holocaust, killer of fascists, beacon of hope to the global south.

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

Constantly repudiating historical socialists for being the wrong type of socialist hurts the cause far more, and is exactly what the feds want you to do.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Yeah, I feel the same towards Stalin as I feel towards most figures and places that have been relentlessly smeared by Cold War and Red Scare propaganda.

And that is that the entire reason these figures are so viscously demonized is because capitalism cannot survive the threat of a good example. The ruling class needs the most radical allowable criticism of their system to be, "Sure, we have many faults, but all of the alternatives are far worse so you better not dare even thinking about fighting for positive change."

That narrative can only function if every victory of the global proletariat is smeared as a dystopian hellscape ruled by cartoon villains. And I don't think it's to our benefit to cede that rhetorical ground wholesale out of fear that challenging it might be unpopular among Cold Warriors.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

He is an ambiguous person. He certainly did a lot of good things, but there were mistakes and even from our point of view, quite cruel decisions. It is difficult to assess why he made certain decisions. There is a lot of unconfirmed information and ambiguous accusations around him, although, of course, there are very bad decisions, maybe we don't know all the information, or maybe he was wrong. It was a difficult time back then. According to some reports, at the end of his life, even Lenin treated him ambiguously and was afraid of the concentration of power in one hand and even wrote a letter to the congress, but some doubt this, so it may not be true. To truly understand this, you need to be a historian and read a lot of original documents by yourself. But I don't think that we should consider him only a complete villain, as he is often exposed.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Regarding Lenin, he specifically had beef with Stalin over his rude treatment of Lenin's wife, and wished someone would replace him who was in all manner the same except kinder. Ie, Lenin fully backed Stalin's positions, theoretical understanding, etc and wished he was simply a kinder person towards comrades when interacting with them.

Stalin tried to resign over this, and his resignation was rejected.

For further reading: Archival evidence and records show he tried to resign no fewer than four times, all rejected.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

This comically evil understanding of the Soviet prison system is based off only a handful of unreliable sources.

Robert Conquest's The Great Terror (published 1968) laid the groundwork for Soviet fearmongering, and was based largely off defector testimony.

Robert Conquest worked for the British Foreign Office's Information Research Department (IRD), which was a secret Cold War propaganda department, created to publish anti-communist propaganda, including black propaganda; provide support and information to anti-communist politicians, academics, and writers; and to use weaponized information and disinformation and "fake news" to attack not only its original targets but also certain socialists and anti-colonial movements.

He was Solzhenytsin before Solzhenytsin, in the phrase of Timothy Garton Ash.

The Great Terror came out in 1968, four years before the first volume of The Gulag Archipelago, and it became, Garton Ash says, "a fixture in the political imagination of anybody thinking about communism".

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago (published 1973), one of the most famous texts on the subject, claims to be a work of non-fiction based on the author's personal experiences in the Soviet prison system. However, Solzhenitsyn was merely an anti-Communist, Nazi-sympathizing, antisemite who wanted to slander the USSR by putting forward a collection of folktales as truth.

Anne Applebaum's Gulag: A history (published 2003) draws directly from The Gulag Archipelago and reiterates its message. Anne is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) and sits on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), two infamous pieces of the ideological apparatus of the ruling class in the United States, whose primary aim is to promote the interests of American Imperialism around the world.

However, in contrast to these depictions, we have this interesting report produced by the CIA regarding the nature of the gulags, or "Forced Labor Camps" as they describe them. Let's take a second to note that this year, California voted to uphold their forced labor practices in the state, and that the US still maintains constitutionally protected forced labor as a form of punishment.

A 1957 CIA document [which was declassified in 2010] titled “Forced Labor Camps in the USSR: Transfer of Prisoners between Camps” reveals the following information about the Soviet Gulag in pages two to six:

  1. Until 1952, the prisoners were given a guaranteed amount food, plus extra food for over-fulfillment of quotas
  2. From 1952 onward, the Gulag system operated upon "economic accountability" such that the more the prisoners worked, the more they were paid.
  3. For over-fulfilling the norms by 105%, one day of sentence was counted as two, thus reducing the time spent in the Gulag by one day.
  4. Furthermore, because of the socialist reconstruction post-war, the Soviet government had more funds and so they increased prisoners' food supplies.
  5. Until 1954, the prisoners worked 10 hours per day, whereas the free workers worked 8 hours per day. From 1954 onward, both prisoners and free workers worked 8 hours per day.
  6. A CIA study of a sample camp showed that 95% of the prisoners were actual criminals.
  7. In 1953, amnesty was given to 70% of the "ordinary criminals" of a sample camp studied by the CIA. Within the next 3 months, most of them were re-arrested for committing new crimes.

In terms of scale, Solzhenitsyn estimated that over 66 million people were victims of the Soviet Union's forced labor camp system over the course of its existence from 1918 to 1956. With the collapse of the USSR and the opening of the Soviet archives, researchers can now access actual archival evidence to prove or disprove these claims. Predictably, it turned out the propaganda was just that.

Unburdened by any documentation, these “estimates” invite us to conclude that the sum total of people incarcerated in the labor camps over a twenty-two year period (allowing for turnovers due to death and term expirations) would have constituted an astonishing portion of the Soviet population. The support and supervision of the gulag (all the labor camps, labor colonies, and prisons of the Soviet system) would have been the USSR’s single largest enterprise.

In 1993, for the first time, several historians gained access to previously secret Soviet police archives and were able to establish well-documented estimates of prison and labor camp populations. They found that the total population of the entire gulag as of January 1939, near the end of the Great Purges, was 2,022,976. ...

Soviet labor camps were not death camps like those the Nazis built across Europe. There was no systematic extermination of inmates, no gas chambers or crematoria to dispose of millions of bodies. Despite harsh conditions, the great majority of gulag inmates survived and eventually returned to society when granted amnesty or when their terms were finished. In any given year, 20 to 40 percent of the inmates were released, according to archive records. Oblivious to these facts, the Moscow correspondent of the New York Times (7/31/96) continues to describe the gulag as “the largest system of death camps in modern history.” ...

Most of those incarcerated in the gulag were not political prisoners, and the same appears to be true of inmates in the other communist states...

This is 2 million out of a population of 168 million (roughly 1.2% of the population). For comparison, in the United States, "over 5.5 million adults — or 1 in 61 — are under some form of correctional control, whether incarcerated or under community supervision." That's 1.6%. So in both relative and absolute terms, the United States' Prison Industrial Complex today is larger than the USSR's Gulag system at its peak.

Regarding the "death rate", In peace time, the mortality rate of the Gulag was around 3% to 5%. Even Conservative and anti-Communist historians have had to acknowledge this reality:

It turns out that, with the exception of the war years, a very large majority of people who entered the Gulag left alive...

Judging from the Soviet records we now have, the number of people who died in the Gulag between 1933 and 1945, while both Stalin and Hitler were in power, was on the order of a million, perhaps a bit more.

  • Timothy Snyder. (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin

(Side note: Timothy Snyder is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations)

This is still very high for a prison mortality rate, representing the brutality of the camps. However, it also clearly indicates that they were not death camps.

Nor was it slave labor, exactly. In the camps, although labor was forced, it was not uncompensated. In fact, the prisoners were paid market wages (minus expenses).

We find that even in the Gulag, where force could be most conveniently applied, camp administrators combined material incentives with overt coercion, and, as time passed, they placed more weight on motivation. By the time the Gulag system was abandoned as a major instrument of Soviet industrial policy, the primary distinction between slave and free labor had been blurred: Gulag inmates were being paid wages according to a system that mirrored that of the civilian economy described by Bergson....

The Gulag administration [also] used a “work credit” system, whereby sentences were reduced (by two days or more for every day the norm was overfulfilled).

We can comb over the details all you want, but I don't think you care about the details. You are looking to reinforce your own personal bias, not correct it. You are not taking an objective and materialist view of history regarding the Stalin era of the USSR. Not even, at a minimum, drawing comparisons between the prisons in the Soviet Union and the current for-profit systems that exist today in America.

All this effort in this post will go on to be wasted, I feel. I do it, though because your post will attract others with similar questions, and hopefully those more willing to deprogram themselves will read it and do more investigating.

You're not going to build a socialist movement if you build it off the back of Cold War era red scare propaganda. You came to us with a simple question, and to fully understand the answer, you need to read more and deprogram yourself.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Until 1954, the prisoners worked 10 hours per day, whereas the free workers worked 8 hours per day. From 1954 onward, both prisoners and free workers worked 8 hours per day.

While he is at this labor, the convict works under the same conditions, and with the same protections that he would enjoy in outside labor. His hours are seven or eight a day, depending upon the nature of his work

Did it change between 1935 and 1954? Are Callcott and the CIA talking about different things? Genuine question, I wish to know.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

So I think the CIA is talking about specific camps, and it could be possible that these camps were operating different working hours, but maybe what Callcott is describing is an average or generalized notion of an eight-hour day across the entire system. From the first page of the CIA report, section (2), subsection (a), it states:

Forced Labor Camps ia the USSR: This six-page report provides detailed information on the organization of labor camps and on working and living conditions in camps the area of Bratsk (N 56-02, E 101-4O) and Tayshet (N 55-57, E 96-02) in Irkutsk Oblast. The bulk of this information concerns Ozerlag, [ REDACTED ] Other camps described In the report are Kraslag near Tayshet, Minlag in the Vorkuta area, and Vyatlag rear Verkhne-Kansk in Kirov Oblast.

So these camps might have been operating 10 hours days for a reason, and then changed that policy later.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Good: industrialized a poor country under extremely difficult conditions, maintained the integrity of the socialist project, defeated the Nazis, supported China and the DPRK

Bad: forced relocation of ethnic minorities, imposed sedentism on nomadic and semi-nomadic groups, betrayed and isolated Yugoslavia

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

From my limited understanding Stalin tried to change things too fast. A comparison that would piss everyone off is like Elon Musk going all-in on robotics in an underdeveloped country.

In the long term Stalins policies paid off, but a lot of people starved because as it turns out putting all your points in technology means you don't have farms.

Gulagging bourgeoisie also isn't bad per se. But Stalin definitely sacraficed innocent people in the crossfire.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Not worthy of his role. Not nearly smart enough, surely not intellectually honest enough to reject a lifelong position of leadership as a mean to pursue world equality.

Somebody Lenin himself did not want to see in that position.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is ahistorical.

First, Stalin evidently was intelligent. He wasn't a genius, but he was consistently proven to know what he was talking about. See his interview with H.G. Wells.

Secondly, Stalin did try to reject his position, even desiring to have his position itself permanently liquidated. Archival evidence and records show he tried to resign no fewer than four times, all rejected.

Thirdly, there is no actual evidence that Lenin was opposed to Stalin, the anger Lenin felt towards Stalin towards the end of his life was due to Stalin's treatment of Lenin's wife. Additionally, Stalin was democratically elected, the Soviet Union was not a monarchy. Regardless of who Lenin may have wished to succeed him, Stalin was elected, and furthermore one of his attempted resignation attempts was over this spat with Lenin over treatment of his wife in Lenin's final days (which, again, was rejected).

Stalin was no saint, but it is important to place him in a correct historical context and sepparate fact from fiction.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

That was my opinion according to the sources I have been exposed to. I'm glad to deepen my understanding on the matter, I'll just point out that in the history of mankind most leader pushed to stay in power, when they were meant to step down, and stayed in power when the choice was purely up to them.

Isn't it weird that the rejections were unanimous? Don't you think there may have been a certain, I don't know... Hesitation into suggesting they found the head of state not fit for the role?

As I said, I'll look better into it, but I am not currently convinced Stalin was an exception to the trend that affected most of the highest ruling class through history.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Stalin wasn't an exception himself, the Soviet system of democracy is, which coincides with other AES states. It allowed more democratic and meritocratic methods of selecting candidates. Stalin personally seemed to want nothing more than to retire to a quiet post, free from the sheer amount of responsibility placed on his shoulders. This does not make him some virtuous figure, he had genuine, selfish desires of living out the rest of his days in a more peaceful manner. This is only further proven by his paranoia. It's difficult to comprehend the amount of stress he was in.

Moreover, Stalin was not "ruling class." He was only the "ruling class" with respect to the fact that the proletariat was in control. Such a confusion of government figures as uniquely non-proletarian flies in the face of Marxism itself, which sees class as relations with respect to the Mode of Production. Having a government and central planning is a key aspect of Marxian Communism.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Old habits die hard. I meant people with a lot more power than the other people.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm aware, my point is that I believe your analysis of power with respect to ideas of "corruption" don't actually follow when applied to alternative modes of production. Capitalism naturally selects for those Priests of Capital that best serve its alien interests in profit and accumulation, as those who do not do so end up cast aside. Capital is a fickle god.

On the other hand, under a Socialist system, Humanity becomes supreme to Capital. "Power" in a Socialist system comes with far less excess wealth compared to Capitalist systems, and moreover the ties to accumulation just don't exist as the driving factor of a centrally planned economy. What this means is that leaders of AES are frequently in it more out of ideological reasons, rather than personal enrichment.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You seem to conflate power with money.

I don't think there's many way to be more powerful than holding power in a society where the different access to goods are irrelevant.

You think ambition fueled by money are more powerful than the ones fueled by idealism, purity, rightfullness and, of course, narcissism and domination?

Do you really think it's all the same to those people, to Stalin himself, if he was farming potatoes or signing the 5 year plan under oh-so-genuine thundering applause of the assemply?

Come the fuck on.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I tie "pursuit of power" to actual, mechanical drives. What is the purpose of power? Why do you believe humans pursue it? I quite specifically mentioned that Capitalism itself selects for those in power within it by selecting the most ruthless and willing to do whatever it takes to accumulate the most, because the system requires it. Socialism does not, ergo you need to justify a "pursuit of power."

Secondly, I want to know where you are getting the notion that Stalin was not popular among his peers. Rather, he became more popular until the "Secret Speech," where Kruschev attempted to delegitimize Stalin in pursuit of his own interests. I think you would do best to read some of the books listed here by other comrades.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I quite specifically mentioned that Capitalism itself selects for those in power within it by selecting the most ruthless and willing to do whatever it takes to accumulate the most, because the system requires it. Socialism does not, ergo you need to justify a “pursuit of power.”

Luckily for us, we do live under capitalism, so there's no need to speculate there. As i'm sure you have plenty of chances to verify daily, it's not as efficient as you make it sounds. It tends to embolden those that are narrowly focused on the accumulation of capital, but even in doing that, it's an inefficient and rather messy machination.

In a similar way it could be said of power under socialism. It's possible despite its "best" effort that capitalist adiacent pulsions survived the new structure of... guidance? action? decisiont making? coordination? (it's still power)

Another point of touch can be personal greed. Capitalism leaves it unchecked by design, but it has always accompanied scarcity. It's hunger, if you will, and if you could argue such pulsion have been imposed onto the natural man, of conquered by ascetism, none of those equate the background of a pre-1917 Russia.

Some of those people, no matter the books they read, could potentially still thirst and hunger for "more".

I once again ask you if the simple asimmetry between giving orders and taking orders does not justify, theoretically, a selfish "pursuit of power".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The concept of hierarchy itself within democratic institutions does not justify a pursuit of power. Additionally, I don't depict Capitalism as "efficient," the priests of Capital merely guess at what Capital wills, and the ones closest survive.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The concept of hierarchy itself within democratic institutions does not justify a corrupting pursuit of power.

Of couse it doesn't "justify" it. It sure builds a nice playground for whomever loves doing it though.

That's why every democracy has an attempt to prevent exploitation, such as a limit to the terms of their leaders, popular referendum, separation of powers...

But of course you know that. It seems you are convinced that, by virtue of messiatic powers, somehow the Communist (transitional) apparatus was immune to that corruption.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

When I say "justify," I mean "justify the existence of." You hint at an almost supernatural drive for power that is not materially supported by real economic and democratic structures. You claim it "builds a nice playground" with no further elaboration as to how or why it does so.

Communism is not immune to corruption. Communism lacks the economic foundations for corruption directly selected for within Capitalist frameworks, yet you seem to be posturing as though the opposite is the case without providing a materialist explanation of how or why.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (10 children)

You are surely well aware of the nefarious propaganda the west did against Stalin.

Imagine it was true and you have the perfect depiction on how such corruption would potentially look like.

Another simple example? Stalin could have promised an administraive role to a person in exchange for sexual favors.

I'm not saying he did, but, under Communism, or rather under the trasition toward communism, that would have been a possible abuse of [not power].

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Stalin attempted to step down multiple times and was talked out of it by party members. Now, there’s a criticism to be made that the party worked the way it did, but if that’s your level of historical knowledge you’re certainly not the one who can make it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›