The people before us weren't perfect. Their mistakes are blueprints to learn from and build a better world
this post was submitted on 20 May 2026
121 points (84.6% liked)
Memes
55829 readers
707 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm leftist but I am the first to admit that Stalin wasn't a good leader at all. For heaven's sake, his own guards were scared of him. In fact, he died because he instilled so much fear into them. Personally, I'm more of a collectivist who doesn't believe in authoritarianism.
im presuming that you're presenting yourself i good faith and you sound like me not long ago; i want to share something that's been helpful in dispelling the inception like nature of sources from the western that likely gave you this conclusion:
(i know that you're getting this from a western source because you used the word authoritarian).
the freedom of information act, passed in the 1960s, forces the us government to release files -- like they released the epstein files -- where the cia, fbi, state dept, etc. admit in writing that they make shit up.
you have to wait at least 25 years after the event, but you can already read some files -- just like people are reading the epstein files rn -- of shit they made up about north korea being “authoritarian.” (you can even see how they chose that word). but the key part is that they admit to lying to us about north korea’s authoritarianism.
so if your source calls north korea authoritarian, know the us government invented that in the 1950s, was forced by law to admit the lie to the public in the 1970s and that any source still pushing this narrative can’t be trusted.
you're never going to be a leftist if you don't question your own sources.
No you are a liberal who's trying to hijack the label.
This isn't really true. Stalin was often described as a quiet listener in collective meetings, and was widely beloved. He developed a cult of personality against his own wishes, due to leading the country successfully during its most chaotic and desparate periods. This happens to all leaders in such situations, FDR was almost revered as a god in the US. Stalin turned down awards like the Hero of the Soviet Union, and refused to change Marxism-Leninism to Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, essentially equating his own contributions (particularly on the national question and linguistics) to an extremely minor aspect compared to Marx and Lenin.
Khrushchev, in trying to cement his position, tried to attack each part of Stalin's legacy. His staunch dedication to preparing for World War II, his careful contemplation of the National question as one of the foremost theorists on it within the realm of Marxism, and as someone who detested undue praise. Khrushchev flipped each of these on their heads without base (such as suggesting Stalin planned front line battles on a globe), and instead of killing the cult of personality, turned it into a negative cult of personality and created a total nihilism for the prospects of building socialism. I highly recommend Domenico Losurdo's How to Cast a God into Hell: The Khrushchev Report.
As Weng Weiguang wrote, The Evaluation of Stalin is Essentially an Ideological Struggle. Repudiating Stalin is less about the historical figure and more about what was accomplished during his service. Demonizing Stalin demonizes the soviet union during its major industrialization, and therefore demonizes the most critical era for socialism in advancing on what came before.
In clearing Stalin's name, we clear the record of socialism historically, proving it can, did, and does work definitively. This isn't wasted effort, but is absolutely critical, especially as the demonized visage of Stalin is used as a club to beat Marxists and anti-imperialists in general (even non-Marxists!).
Ah yes, I always forget how the purges were just a big whoopsie doopsie misunderstanding and uncle Joe was actually a stoic, quiet voiced totally not good friend to that big bad Hitler guy.
Thanks for reminding me.
The purges were a popularly supported response to genuine threats and infiltration. They were not a misunderstanding, but they did exceed initial expectations, which is why they were stopped. As for Hitler (and the rest of the fascist movement), the Soviets (Stalin included) absolutely despised him. That's why the Soviets spent the 1930s ramping up industrial production as quickly as they could, and trying to form an anti-fascist coalition with the west (which the British and French tanked).
Stalin was said to have "obsessed over quantitative and qualitative" improvements in arms in the years leading up to World War II, and had soldiers stationed on high alert, preparing for a German attack. Despite the insistence of many Generals to muster forces on the German border, it was Stalin's insistence that forces not be so concentrated that prevented the Nazis from totally routing the Red Army, enabling the greatest counteroffensive in history.
Hitler himself was quite honest at times, to himself at least:
...
Statesian journalist and activist Anna Louise Strong actually met and spoke with Stalin, writing down her impressions:
I highly recommended the book Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend by legendary communist Domenico Losurdo. Losurdo's unique method in the book is to use near-exclusively western, anti-communist sources, including Goebbels, Hitler, the New York Times, and so forth to examine not just Stalin, but to explain why Stalin is both so hated and yet so loved. It's a critique of the legend surrounding Stalin.
Read Engels https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
Excerpt from Stalin - the History and Critique of a Black Legend by Domenico Losurdo
Impressive demonstrations of grief accompanied Stalin's passing. In his death throes, “millions of people crowded the center of Moscow to pay their last respects” to the dying leader. On March 5th, 1953, “millions of citizens cried over his loss as if they were mourning for a loved one."1 The same reaction took place in the most remote corners of this enormous country, for example, in a “small village” that, as soon as it learned of what had happened, fell into spontaneous and collective mourning.2 The generalized consternation went beyond the borders of the USSR: “Many cried as they passed through the streets of Budapest and Prague."3Thousands of kilometers away from the socialist camp, in Israel the sorrowful reaction was also widespread: “All members of MAPAM, without exception, cried”, and this was a party in which “all the veteran leaders” and “nearly all the ex-combatants” belonged to. The suffering was mixed with fear. “The sun has set” was the title of Al Hamishmar, the newspaper of the Kibbutz movement. For a certain amount of time, such sentiments were shared by leading figures of the state and military apparatus: “Ninety officers who had participated in the 1948 war, the great war of Jewish independence, joined a clandestine armed organization that was pro-Soviet and revolutionary. Of these, eleven later became generals and one became a government minister, and are now honored as the founding fathers of Israel."4
In the West, it’s not just leaders and members of communist parties with ties to the Soviet Union who pay homage to the deceased leader. One historian (Isaac Deutscher) who was a fierce admirer of Trotsky, wrote an obituary full of acknowledgements:
In summary, despite conditioned and in part disfigured by the Asiatic and despotic legacy of Tsarist Russia, in Stalin’s USSR “the socialist ideal has an innate and solid integrity.”
In this historical evaluation there was no longer a place for Trotsky’s harsh accusations directed at the deceased leader. What sense was there in condemning Stalin as a traitor to the ideals of world revolution and as the capitulationist theorist of socialism in one country, at a time in which the new social order had expanded in Europe and in Asia and had broken “its national shell”?5 Ridiculed by Trotsky as a “small provincial man thrust into great world events, as if by a joke of history”,6 in 1950 Stalin had become, in the opinion of an illustrious philosopher (Alexandre Kojève), the incarnation of the Hegelian spirit of the world and called upon to unify and lead humanity, resorting to energetic methods, in practice combining wisdom and tyranny.7
Outside communist circles, or the communist aligned left, despite the escalating Cold War and the continued hot war in Korea, Stalin’s death brought out largely “respectful” or “balanced” obituaries in the West. At that time, “he was still considered a relatively benign dictator and even a statesman, and in the popular consciousness the affectionate memory of “uncle Joe” persisted, the great war-time leader that had guided his people to victory over Hitler and had helped save Europe from Nazi barbarity."8 The ideas, impressions and emotions of the years of the Grand Alliance hadn’t yet vanished, when―Deutscher recalled in 1948―statesmen and foreign generals were won over by the exceptional competence with which Stalin managed all the details of his war machine."9
Included among the figures “won over” was the man who, in his time, supported military intervention against the country that emerged out of the October Revolution, namely Winston Churchill, who with regards to Stalin had repeatedly expressed himself in these terms: “I like that man."10 On the occasion of the Tehran Conference in November, 1943, the British statesman had praised his Soviet counterpart as “Stalin the Great”: he was a worthy heir to Peter the Great; having saved his country, preparing it to defeat the invaders.11 Certain aspects had also fascinated Averell Harriman, the American ambassador to Moscow between 1943 and 1946, who always positively painted the Soviet leader with regard to military matters: “He appears to me better informed than Roosevelt and more realistic than Hitler, to a certain degree he’s the most efficient war leader."12 In 1944 Alcide De Gasperi had expressed himself in almost emphatic terms, having celebrated “the historic, secular and immense merit of the armies organized by the genius, Joseph Stalin." The recognition from the eminent Italian politician isn’t merely limited to the military sphere:
No less powerful or uncommon was the prestige that Stalin had enjoyed, and continued enjoying, among the great intellectuals. Harold J. Laski, a prestigious supporter of the British Labour Party, speaking in the fall of 1945 with Norberto Bobbio, had declared himself an “admirer of the Soviet Union” and its leader, describing him as someone who is “very wise."14 In that same year, Hannah Arendt wrote that the country led by Stalin distinguished itself for the “completely new and successful way of facing and solving national conflicts, of organizing different peoples on the basis of national equality”; it was a type of model, it was something “that every political and national movement should pay attention to."15
For his part, writing just before and soon after the end of World War II, Benedetto Croce recognized Stalin’s merit in having promoted freedom not only at the international level, thanks to the contribution given to the struggle against Nazi-fascism, but also in his own country. Indeed, who led the USSR was “a man gifted with political genius”, who carried out an important and positive historical role overall; with respect to pre-revolutionary Russia, “Sovietism has been an advance for freedom, just as, “in relation to the feudal regime”, the absolute monarchy was also “an advance for freedom and resulted in the greater advances that followed." The liberal philosopher’s doubts were focused on the future of the Soviet Union; however, these same doubts, by contrast, further highlighted the greatness of Stalin: he had taken the place of Lenin, in such a way that a genius had been followed by another, but what sort of successors would be given to the USSR by “Providence”?16
You understand so little you would likely have to unlearn effectively everything you "know" to even approach 0 understanding.
Fuck you first of all you massively racist fucking loser. You don't get to be suspicious whitey.
Maybe, if you have no fucking idea what capitalism, socialism or communism actually mean.
Not understanding the firewall award.
Gulag archipelago reader award. (A book so terribly it's been disavowed by everyone involved bar the main author)
Depends do you mean the real issues that occured during the crackdown on ETIM or the Zenz/US state department fantasy.
Views stuck decades in the past award.
Categorically not a massacre but a clash between violent rioters and the military acting as riot police at the time, also funnily enough none of the violence was actually in the square.
I don't think you know what this word means
"My country is evil and constantly lies but I also believe everything they say about their ideological enemies"
I do think China has done some good, but it also doesn't cancel out the sketchiness. I do agree that we could learn from China, but there's also a damn good reason why their phones are banned in multiple countries. There's also a good reason why people are urging people to stop buying from fast fashion websites, which are mostly Chinese.
Please do explain to me how selling carcinogenic products worldwide (from sketchy AF factories) isn't capitalist. Explain it like I'm 5 years old, I do insist. With the way the world is going, I'm even going to use GrapheneOS for extra privacy.
Considering that China is known for its heavy censorship and is in good cahoots with Russia, it isn't racist to be suspicious. I'd be just as suspicious of a person from the USA defending Israel, so it's not like I'm not like I'm going after race. Not to mention, at least 250 people died during the Tianamen square incident. Some even estimate that thousands died, but it was at least 250 people.
I quite literally do not celebrate Canada day because it's built on top of the blood of colonialism. I am also largely not a fan of Christians and have very little patience for a lot of them.
Plus, China has billionaires. Any truly non-capitalistic country wouldn't have billionaires. Nor would they have factory workers working for 75 hours per week.
I'm not referring to any books when talking about the Gulag survivors, for the record.
I would define a transition from capitalism to socialism as
Merchants & lawyers out of power
and engineers (laborers) & academics into power,
which is what China has.
The US isn't failing true capitalism while still secretly being feudalistic,
just because land lords and TV evangelists exist,
while George Bush Jr, eldest son of George Bush Senior, became leader of the land in 2000.
China just had a capitalistic phase due to Deng's reforms,
just like the US had a socialist phase due to Roosevelt's reforms.
Both of those did not last, because ultimately those in power are
socialist for China (engineers & academics)
and capitalist for the US (merchants & lawyers).
The capitalist phase is already waning under Xi,
just like the socialist phase did under Nixon did for the US.
Lol. Do you really use such language with your own nation?
If not, you are selective and that begs the question as to why
and what pattern would emerge out of what you are selective to.
I highly doubt you ever said something along the lines of
"The EU/UK is in good cahoots with the US",
despite the fact that EU NATO chief Rutte openly called Trump "daddy".
I don't see Putin doing that with Xi. Putin is not even running
a socialist country.
And Putin talks about a multipolar world in which Russia is one of those poles.
To be honest, I am growing quite tired of the USA. I do not like the USA or what it stands for; Donald Trump is merely proof of what I've been saying about the country all along. I do think that countries that are buddy-buddy with the USA are frustrating as hell. As a Canadian, I've been done with their BS for so long that it's not even funny.
I actually criticise the country so much that I can genuinely say I'm a certified hater. Plus, I also believe that patriotism for being Canadian or American is celebration of colonialism; we should deconstruct these countries instead of maintaining status quo. People got genocided just so cranky old white people can cry about immigrants from India and eat hotdogs and burgers on Canada day.
the easiest first step in ensuring that the usa and it's ilk change their tune is to stop repeating the propaganda the usa already admitted to manufacturing thanks to the freedom of information act.
i'm referring to stuff like this:
if you're to repeat their propaganda, you should atleast be getting paid for it.
Selling products is not capitalism by itself. Capitalism is a system where private ownership is the principal aspect, and capitalists control the state. Socialism, on the other hand, is a system where public ownership is principal, and the working classes control the state. The backbone and commanding heights of China's economy are publicly owned, and the working classes control the state, ergo it is socialist.
Billionaires exist because private property exists, and private property exists because it speeds up development and integrates China with the global economy. This is a tradeoff used to build up the productive forces as quickly as possible, so that the social surplus can be redirected to developing underdeveloped regions, and because developed industry is easier to publicly own and plan. As these private firms grow, they are more tightly controlled and/or folded into the public sector.
Average working hours in China are 46 hours per week, not 75.
I wrote a more direct reply to this, but I have come to realise that in this situation it would most likely be unproductive. You appear to be a very new leftist of some description: you seem to like the idea of socialism or communism, but you do not yet seem to have a firm grasp of what they actually entail. So instead of arguing point by point, I am going to explain what socialism is, why China has been socialist since 1949, and then add some book and article recommendations so you can begin studying the question more seriously on your own.
To start, we have to define a term that is commonly used but rarely properly understood: the state. Many people use “the state” and “the government” interchangeably, but this is not accurate. The state is specifically the organised force by which class antagonisms are mediated through the rule of one class over others. The government, on the other hand, broadly refers to the administration, coordination, planning, record-keeping, infrastructure management, public decision-making, and the organisation of social production required by advanced societies. This distinction will be important later.
Next, it is important to define socialism. Socialism is the transitionary period between capitalism and communism. It still contains many contradictions inherited from capitalism: classes, class struggle, uneven development, commodity production, wages, bureaucracy, ideological struggle, and often limited market mechanisms. Socialism is not “when everything is already communist.” It is the period in which the proletariat holds political power and uses that power to transform society, develop the productive forces, suppress reaction, and gradually overcome the material basis of class society.
This stands in contrast to communism, where class society has been abolished as a meaningful social reality. Communism is classless because there are no longer opposed classes standing in antagonistic relation to one another (as only a single class, the proletariat, remain after the other classes have been proletarianised during the socialist period). It is stateless because, once class antagonisms have disappeared, the state as an instrument of class rule no longer has a function and withers away. This of course does not mean that organisation, administration, planning, or collective decision-making (the government) disappear. It means that the coercive state as an instrument of class domination disappears.
At this point you might ask: if contradictions remain under socialism, how is it different from capitalism? That is a reasonable question. The answer rests on one primary and one secondary characteristic.
The primary question is: which class commands the state? Under socialism, the proletariat commands the state through the people’s democratic dictatorship, also called the dictatorship of the proletariat. Under capitalism, the bourgeoisie commands the state, which communists refer to as the dictatorship of capital (even if they have a liberal democratic cascade).
The secondary question is: which mode of ownership holds primacy, public ownership or private ownership? This is secondary because public ownership under the dictatorship of capital functions as state capitalism, while public ownership under the dictatorship of the proletariat is part of socialist construction. Ownership forms matter, but they cannot be separated from the class character of political power.
Now, with this groundwork laid, we can finally look properly at the Chinese situation.
China has been socialist since October 1, 1949, because the old landlord-bureaucrat-comprador state was destroyed and replaced by a people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class through the Communist Party. The Communist Party of China has more than 100 million members as of the end of 2024 (slightly over 1/14 people). The commanding heights of the economy were brought under public ownership and workers state direction. The new state was built to suppress reaction, defend sovereignty, develop the productive forces, and transform society.
In China, the bourgeoisie still exists, but it does not rule as a class. Capitalists can own firms in non-commanding sectors, make profits, and accumulate wealth within limits, because developing the productive forces still serves necessary social goals at China’s current stage of development. But they do not command the state, the army, the land system, the central banking system, or the strategic direction of the economy. They do not stand above the people or above the people's organised political instrument, the Communist Party, as a sovereign power.
When capital conflicts with the long-term interests of socialist construction, it is disciplined, subordinated, investigated, broken up, fined, or otherwise brought to heel. Jack Ma and Ant Group is a useful example: its $37 billion IPO was suspended in 2020 and Jack Ma was made step away from public life as he attempted to put his profit before the benefits of the people by pushing for loosening banking regulations so he could provide micro loans. Foreign capitalists spent years crying about this as it showed the truth capital holds no power in China.
To put it briefly: China is socialist because the proletarian-led state holds political power, commands the strategic economy, subordinates capital to national and social development, suppresses reactionary threats, and continues the long transition out of capitalism under conditions of imperialist encirclement, uneven development, and a still-existing world capitalist system.
It would also be remiss not to mention that much of what you “know” about China has been manufactured through a mix of exaggeration, selective framing, omission, and outright lies. For example, you have likely heard about “996” as if it represents Chinese labour law or the normal working life of the whole country. In reality, 996 was an issue in ~40 of the large tech firms around the 2019 tech boom and was quickly ruled illegal which it now has been for half a decade.
For a proper explanation on how this kind of ideological manufacture happens, I would recommend reading Michael Parenti’s Inventing Reality.
Further reading recommendations:
I have to a plug @Cowbee@lemmy.ml and their beginner reading list
But for my recommendations more directly related to the topic at hand I would recommend:
I understand having such a long list dumped on you is likely off-putting however that's the unfortunate truth of being a real socialist/communist, constant reading, education and investigation is a must. If you have any specific questions on any of them I can try help you if need be.
Excellent write-up I'd like to point to one thing though
This doesn't mean anything to a westerner. What westerners hear is "The communist party officials presume/claim to speak in the interest of the working class with no direct input from them". Since this is what almost every party in the west has done since parliaments became a thing. The ones that didn't aren't included in textbooks. And since you're speaking positively of such a party you must be "shilling" for them. I know adding the "how" of how workers shape and influence the state would make your comment even longer, but as it is to most it's just an unbelievable, meaningless phrase.
Yeah I 100% agree but also felt that it was long enough that it was 50/50 they'd actually read past the first few lines anyway so I could clarify in any follow-ups if they did and if they didn't then it was fine as is anyway.
Thanks for the shoutout, and excellent comment as always!
In china, the state controls capital. In America, capital controls the state
It really is that simple. A market does not make capitalism ffs
On Authority is a pointed response to the thought-terminating pejorative of “authoritarian.” If you haven’t read it, you should! It’s short and important =)
You want a change in society? You don’t care that fascists don’t want that change? Then you’re an authoritarian. Everything after that is a matter of degree.
I care about the fact that leaders have a huge say in everything in our lives. I do not wish for a system where I must cater to the whims of whomever is in charge.
If you’re willing to do something about that wish, then you’re an authoritarian too.
And FWIW, casting it in personal terms makes that wish tautological. No one wishes for a system where they have to cater to the whims of someone else. I’m sure you meant to say “no one has to cater to anyone else’s whims,” and that’s all well and good. Still authoritarian if you’re willing to see anything at all done to overcome the desires of the powerful to maintain the status quo (and in case it’s not obvious, that’s a good thing to be authoritarian about).
The CIA, in an internal memo never meant to be released, made it clear that Stalin was not a dictator and that leadership was collective.
The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about.
Authoritarian is a meaningless pejorative. All states/countries/political groups etc. must be authoritarian by necessity in class society.
Major citation needed.
I don't even believe in a class society. I have several articles I can cite, but I'll use this one because it jumps straight to the point.
Lemmy.ml users are such obvious Russia/USSR propagandists. Y'all are so quick to suck up to sketchy leaders when you could be hoping for someone more classy like Thomas Sankara.
Sankara is just as "tankie" as Stalin, Castro, Mao, Huey P. Newton, etc. The difference is that he was killed before Burkina Faso really had a chance to develop socialism, and as such his name hasn't been dragged through the mud. Regarding Stalin, there are several books I can recommend, but I'll pick just one. Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend by Domenico Losurdo.
Also not sure what you mean by saying you don't "believe in class society." What does this mean? Do you deny the existence of wage laborers and capitalists, or do you deny that classes have similar interests and philosophies that come more naturally based on how we live?
Either way, we all love Sankara. Just because we disagree with bourgeois historiography on socialist leaders does not mean we don't also appreciate the ones that bourgeois historiography has largely left alone.
You may not believe in classes, but that doesn't negate their existence.
We will continue to support AES states (current and those sadly no longer extant). Go advocate for utopianism somewhere else.
Aka someone who dies before they can be effectively vilified
Western Marxism, the Fetish for Defeat, and Christian Culture (2020):
https://redsails.org/western-marxism-and-christianity/
How can you not "believe" in class society when it is a fact? Also, Sankara was a Marxist-Leninist, the very ideology you despise.
You don't think classes exist? Or you think it's possible to abolish classes at the press of a button without any transitionary phase? Either way this is idiotic.
Leader who believes the things I believe (Marxism Leninism) but was assassinated before the consolidation of the workers state began. You should probably investigate subjects before you speak on them.
This site won't load but from dealing with them previously I vaguely remember them as a liberal nonsense publisher however if you can provide an archive link or equivalent I can give my proper views on this article in particular.
You just posted a meme and said leftists fight too much and here you are, fighting.
Dictator defenders can kiss my arse, whether they defend Hitler or Stalin. There are far cooler leftists to learn from than f**king Stalin. For example, Thomas Sankara was an actual decent person. Not to mention, the fact that former colonies of the USSR flinch at the word "communism" indicates that he wasn't doing it correctly.
The majority of people who lived in Eastern European socialism regret its fall. The USSR had no colonies, it was an anti-imperialist, de-colonial federation. Sankara learned from Stalin, and was a Marxist-Leninist. Finally, equating Hitler and Stalin equates fascism with socialism, which originated as a form of Holocaust trivialization called Double Genocide Theory. I recommend reading Domenico Losurdo's Towards a Critique of the Category of Totalitarianism.
That's cool that being nice is the ceiling of revolutionary possibility in your brutally constrained mind, but the Chinese Communists did this:
Capitalist apologists: see how we reduced world poverty? /s