does one have to support stalin to support marxism-leninism?
oh and this is my 10th post here on this lemmy instance.
As Weng Weiguang says, The Evaluation of Stalin is Essentially an Ideological Struggle. Marxist-Leninists don’t idolize Stalin. At the same time, Stalin synthesized Marxism-Leninism, and oversaw the world’s first socialist state during its most turbulent period. The CPC rates him as 70% good, 30% bad, and this rating is roughly orbited by most communist orgs. Those who denounce Stalin entirely, also denounce the USSR, and existing socialism.
Stalin was a committed Marxist-Leninist, and oversaw the world’s first socialist state for the overwhelming majority of its most tumultuous period. He was no saint, but at the same time was no monster either. He is remembered by liberal historians as far worse than comtemporaries like Churchill who in actuality were far worse than Stalin.
As Nia Frome says, we can either distance ourselves from Stalin, and by extension the USSR and actually existing socialism, or we can fight back against bourgeois narratives about Stalin and the USSR, acknowledging their faults while being able to uphold their tremendous successes as examples of the possibilities of socialism in power. Historical nihilism, and throwing Stalin and by extension much of the early soviet union under the bus, was ultimately what allowed for liberalization within the USSR and partially contributed to the death of socialism in eastern Europe.
As a side note, “Stalinism” is either used as a fearmongering term by Trotskyists to refer to Marxism-Leninism, or to refer to policies specific to the Stalin era.
If anyone wants a place to start with Marxist-Leninist theory, check out my intro reading guide.
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.
- J. V. Stalin
- Nia Frome’s “Tankies”
[8 min]
- W. E. B Dubois’ On Stalin
[6 min]
- Domenico Losurdo’s Primitive Thinking and Stalin as Scapegoat
[30 min]
- Domenico Losurdo’s Stalin and Stalinism in History
[16 min]
[42 min]
[38 min]
[9 min]
- Domenico Losurdo’s Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend
[5 hr 51 min]
- Ludo Martens’ Another View of Stalin
[5 hr 25 min]
- Anna Louise Strong’s This Soviet World
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.
- Che Guevara
“support” isn’t really the right word, seeing as he is long dead and so is the USSR. Even the Cosmonaut guys, who aren’t really MLs after like an 8 hour long discussion on the topic of Stalin and his life came to the conclusion that he made mistakes, did good stuff, and anyone else would be hard pressed to do any better in his shoes considering the circumstances. a better phrase would be to understand Stalin and his contributions, and not buy into all the lib/nazi bs about his life.
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. — Joseph Stalin
- Domenico Losurdo, 2023, Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend — PDF
- Hakim: 📺 There was never a “Hitler-Stalin” Pact
- ICSS Marxist 📺 Grover Furr: ‘Stalin, waiting for… the truth’
- Second Thought: 📺 We Need To Talk About “Authoritarianism”
what does stalin mean when he said that?
He was saying that history would be rewritten by reactionary forces to cast him as a villain, and boy was he right about that.
He was also saying that the reactionaries have no future and cannot make a future, and the truth would return as their narrative control inevitably decays.
I guess it’s later
lol
why
I’ve seen people idolizing Thatcher and pissing on Stalin, at the same time. But, answering your question, no, you can be a ML even without aprooving Stalin’s job in the USSR, unless, probably, if you lived in the USSR in the early 1950s.
so i can support a synthesis of marxism and leninism without supporting the actions of stalin?
On the contrary, the most marxist-leninist thing you can do is condemn Stalins betrayal and bureaucratization of soviet union
can i condemn stalin’s betryal and bureaucratization of the ussr while supporting marxism-leninism, and can i call ml “orthodox leninism”?
No; in fact, Lenin himself was very critical of Stalin, even though he appreciated Stalin’s revolutionary efforts and his role in Soviet politics.
Most prominently, it was mentioned in the Lenin’s Testament, particularly the postscript, but it is also present through other pieces of evidence.
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol02/no01/lenin.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin’s_Testament
Besides, every Soviet leader brought ideological changes, so it’s natural that you might follow through with one but not the other.
- Grover Furr, 2022, The Fraud of the “Testament Of Lenin”
- 📺 Lenin’s Last Testament is a Fraud Grover Furr
Any evidence that goes against my beliefs is a fraud…
who do you think would’ve made a great successor to lenin, other than bukharin or trotsky?
I’m more of a “history doesn’t tolerate subjunctive mood” person.
Each of the top candidates had issues, and I’m not too deep into the history of every single Committee member to suggest entirely different options.
Still, if you want my opinion, I think history proves Lenin’s aversion to “administrative” leaders is a bit overstated. Pyatakov, for example, could likely reform Soviet economy in a more planned, predictable and efficient manner without much of the issues (and horrors) associated with Stalin’s rule. However, if he would extend his rule as far as Stalin did, this would certainly cause major issues, too.
What I fully agree on with Lenin is that power shouldn’t have concentrated in the hands of a single leader in the first place, no matter who said leader would be. Back then, however, workers were not as experienced in the destructive ways of authoritarian power, which has lead us where we are.
so lenin would prefer a troika instead?
Lenin would like for Soviets to be Soviets, worker’s councils to have local power and for the party to make collective decisions that would genuinely benefit the country and the Communist International.
Do we think that the level of development of the local Soviets and the higher order Soviets was sufficient enough to coordinate the necessary response to the threat of the Third Reich? As far as I understand it, even with Stalin’s significant control he still had opposition to the idea that Germany would be such a near-term threat and such a massive one. Maybe I am wrong about that.
The military command was fairly solid, although Stalin indeed played an important role there.
It’s hard to assess properly, not in least part because Stalin was in office for almost 20 years when Hitler invaded USSR and plenty could go differently in that timeframe, but I believe USSR would win regardless, first because of other important people in the chain of command, second because allies lended significant help pressuring the Reich on other fronts (and also conducting joint operations with USSR) and third because plenty of people did understand the risks.
Either way, it would be very devastating, even if someone else properly reinforced the Soviet troops ahead of time. Stalin did what he could, given the circumstances.
It was an industrial war. Yes, the command was critical. Yes allies were critical. But Stalin directed the economy on the basis of a prediction of the war in a way that I don’t think any other economic thinker at the time would have
so who would lenin want as a successor if NOT stalin, bukharin, trotsky or the person you mentioned?
Sverdlov was the most likely candidate due to his skills with politics and administration. After his and Lenin’s deaths, that pretty much left Trotsky and Stalin, and the former was ideologically lacking and prone to menshevist tendencies, while Stalin was theoretically and practically more competent, so he was chosen.
Ultimately, though, the USSR was run collectively. Stalin had a major impact, but the idea that problems he faced would not be faced by Trotksy is essentially Great Man Theory. Trots try to imagine a perfect USSR with Trotsky at the helm, and thus smear Stalin because that fanfiction isn’t reality.
