Most Marxists do not “love” Stalin. We understand his role as the first long-term leader of the world’s first long-term socialist state, appreciate his synthesizing of Marxism and Leninism into Marxism-Leninism, and uphold him as a genuine Marxist that, while not free from sin, absolutely has been systematically demonized by the west in a manner that distorts reality and erases the far worse nature of his contemporaries, such as Churchill. Mao famously gave him a final “score” of 70% good, 30% bad, a “score” that is generally orbited around by the various Marxist-Leninist orgs worldwide.
Demystifying Stalin
I know that after my death a pile of rubbish will be heaped on my grave, but the wind of History will sooner or later sweep it away without mercy.
Stalin's Major Theoretical Contributions to Marxism
I have come to communism because of daddy Stalin and nobody must come and tell me that I mustn’t read Stalin. I read him when it was very bad to read him. That was another time. And because I’m not very bright, and a hard-headed person, I keep on reading him. Especially in this new period, now that it is worse to read him. Then, as well as now, I still find a Seri of things that are very good.
Rejecting any and all comparative analysis in favor of a simplistic “countries bad” stance is just a willing desire to cede decisionmaking to the status quo, recusing yourself of any genuine input or responsibility. The truth is that Churchill, Jefferson, and Washington are all whitewashed by bourgeois historians despite being far worse than Stalin and Mao.
I’ll defend good actions and condemn bad ones. Defeating the Nazis? Very good. Doubling life expectancies? Very good. Tripling literacy rates, providing free, high quality healthcare, affordable housing, rapid economic development? Very good. Re-criminalizing homosexuality? Very bad.
It’s incredibly easy to just say “everything is bad and I support nothing,” but that just cedes all input to others.
So open eco-fascism, got it. You do have agency, you can join an org and try to contribute to building a better world, but instead you just say everyone is evil and all deserve to die. It’s nonsense.
The struggle is neither easy nor impossible, but merely very difficult. We aren’t Sisyphus, the world is changing, and we can make a difference. Eco-fascism is the wrong answer.
Most Marxists do not “love” Stalin. We understand his role as the first long-term leader of the world’s first long-term socialist state, appreciate his synthesizing of Marxism and Leninism into Marxism-Leninism, and uphold him as a genuine Marxist that, while not free from sin, absolutely has been systematically demonized by the west in a manner that distorts reality and erases the far worse nature of his contemporaries, such as Churchill. Mao famously gave him a final “score” of 70% good, 30% bad, a “score” that is generally orbited around by the various Marxist-Leninist orgs worldwide.
Demystifying Stalin
[8 min]
[6 min]
[30 min]
[16 min]
[42 min]
[38 min]
[9 min]
[5 hr 51 min]
[5 hr 25 min]
Stalin's Major Theoretical Contributions to Marxism
Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
History of the CPSU (B)
The Foundations of Leninism
Marxism and the National Question
Removed by mod
Rejecting any and all comparative analysis in favor of a simplistic “countries bad” stance is just a willing desire to cede decisionmaking to the status quo, recusing yourself of any genuine input or responsibility. The truth is that Churchill, Jefferson, and Washington are all whitewashed by bourgeois historians despite being far worse than Stalin and Mao.
I’ll defend good actions and condemn bad ones. Defeating the Nazis? Very good. Doubling life expectancies? Very good. Tripling literacy rates, providing free, high quality healthcare, affordable housing, rapid economic development? Very good. Re-criminalizing homosexuality? Very bad.
It’s incredibly easy to just say “everything is bad and I support nothing,” but that just cedes all input to others.
Removed by mod
This is basically eco-fascism. You get that, right? Not only is it wrong, but it’s a vapid statement that again cedes all agency.
Removed by mod
So open eco-fascism, got it. You do have agency, you can join an org and try to contribute to building a better world, but instead you just say everyone is evil and all deserve to die. It’s nonsense.
Removed by mod
The struggle is neither easy nor impossible, but merely very difficult. We aren’t Sisyphus, the world is changing, and we can make a difference. Eco-fascism is the wrong answer.