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
uhhh thanks for that comprehensible reading list! i actually needed that in particular for a little presentation i was working on for my local group :)
thx cowbee o7
No problem, comrade! I hope it works well for you! 🫡
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”
I guess it’s later
what does stalin mean when he said that?
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 party 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.
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.
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
Stalin didn’t betray nor “bureaucratize” the soviet union. Marxist-Leninists uphold Stalin and his leadership, even if we don’t believe him perfect. 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
can i condemn stalin’s betryal and bureaucratization of the ussr while supporting marxism-leninism, and can i call ml “orthodox leninism”?
Of course. You would be a real marxist-leninist
you DIDN’T say anything against calling marxism-leninism “orthodox leninism”, did you?
