this post was submitted on 20 May 2026
121 points (84.6% liked)

Memes

55829 readers
707 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. 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
gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
121
Past failures don't define the future of socialism (lemmy.ml)
submitted 12 hours ago by Rindogang@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The people before us weren't perfect. Their mistakes are blueprints to learn from and build a better world

all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DarkSideOfTheMoon@lemmy.world -4 points 31 minutes ago (1 children)

Socialism really would never work without repression, they would need to take from the most rich and might need force, so people will not accept the new system might cause real problems, so it will need more repression

This why big revolutions always end up with repressive regimes, even the French Revolution (that was not socialist at all)

And when you have an authoritarian regime in power they will want to remain in power, the original goals of the revolution will be lost and the new regime always think about itself first. So you can’t control what this regime will find acceptable or not.

The democracy needs concessions, needs to accept in parts the other side, this why Nordic countries have a better social equality and a very capitalist oil extraction

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 20 minutes ago

The first part is unquestionably true, revolution is the exertion of the authority of one class upon the rest. The latter parts are entirely wrong, or misguided.

Socialist countries put the working classes in charge. The goals are not lost, it's that the goal of a working class state is the same as the general class goal of the working classes, the collectivization of production and distribution. This goal is not lost whatsoever, but it does require protecting against opportunists, as well as the former ruling classes, as they still exist and cannot disappear overnight.

The Nordics on the other hand are imperialist countries. They bribe their working classes with the spoils of exploiting the global south. This kind of class collaboration is why social democracy is often called social fascism by critics, as it's collaboration and agreement to perpetuate imperialism in order to have cushy safety nets. Without imperialism, the Nordics would need to turn socialist in order to retain their safety nets.

[–] 5ha99y@lemmus.org 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

But also the people of the future won't be perfect and will generate an imbalance again. The cycle continues in the end.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 20 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

History may not be a straight arrow, but it does progress, even if it rhymes. History is not a circle, but a spiral.

[–] 5ha99y@lemmus.org 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

This do be true but is the common goal then to reach ideal communism at the end of the spiral by your argument?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 13 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

The spiral doesn't end, communism will not be the end of history. It's going to be the end of class struggle, but everything is in constant motion and all development is driven by contradictions. Communism, the creation of a stateless, classless, moneyless society, "rhymes" with early communism that lasted for the bulk of human history. At the same time, it is forward in history, we are not returning to hunter/gatherer lifestyles but instead will stitch all of production and distribution together in one unified whole, scientifically planning how we develop in order to meet the needs of the people and advance collectively forward.

"Ideal communism" is not a thing. Such a notion draws more religious, holy implications than anything else. Communism is a real, material system naturally evolving out of socialism, itself evolving out of capitalism.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 17 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 52 minutes ago)

These are all great places to start for Marxist views on the LGBTQIA+ movement. Trans rights are human rights.

For an intro to Marxism-Leninism in general, I wrote this basic study guide.

[–] PlanchetteGhost@lemmy.world 15 points 11 hours ago (6 children)

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.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 1 points 47 minutes ago* (last edited 37 minutes ago)

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:

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.

(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.

[–] asdasd201@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 3 hours ago

I'm leftist

No you are a liberal who's trying to hijack the label.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

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!).

[–] KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works -4 points 56 minutes ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 39 minutes ago* (last edited 37 minutes ago)

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:

How can such a primitive people manage such technical achievements in such a short time!

...

The fact that Stalin has raised the Russian standard of living is unquestionable. People don’t go hungry [at the moment when Operation Barbarossa was launched]. In general, it’s necessary to recognize that they have built factories of similar importance to Hermann Goering Reichswerke where two years ago nothing but unknown villages existed. We come across railway lines that aren’t even marked on our maps.

Statesian journalist and activist Anna Louise Strong actually met and spoke with Stalin, writing down her impressions:

My first impression of him was vaguely disappointing. A stocky figure in a simple suit of khaki color, direct, unassuming, whose first concern was to know whether I understood Russian sufficiently to take part in discussion. Not very imposing for so great a man, I thought. Then we sat down rather casually, and Stalin was not even at the head of the table; Voroshilov was. Stalin took a place where he could see all our faces and started the talk by a pointed question to the man against whom I had complained. After that Stalin seemed to become a sort of background, against which other people’s comments went on. The brilliant wit of Kaganovich, the cheerful chuckle of Voroshilov, the characteristics of the lesser people called to consult, all suddenly stood out. I began to understand them all and like them; I even began to understand the editor against whom I had complained. Suddenly I myself was talking and getting my facts out faster and more clearly than I ever did in my life. People seemed to agree with me. Everything got to the point very fast and smoothly, with Stalin saying less than anyone.

Afterward in thinking it over I realized how Stalin’s genius for listening helped each of us express ourselves and understand the others. I recalled his trick of repeating a word of mine either with questioning intonation or a slight emphasis, which suddenly made me feel I had either not quite seen the point or perhaps had overstated it, and so drove me to make it plainer. I recalled how he had done this to others also. Then I understood that his listening has been a dynamic force.

This listening habit dates back to the early days of his revolutionary career. “I remember him very well from the early days of our Party,” said a veteran Bolshevik to me. “A quiet youth who sat at the edge of the committee, saying almost nothing, but listening very much. Toward the end he would make a few comments, sometimes merely as questions. Gradually we came to see that he always summed up best our joint thinking.” The description will be recognized by anyone who ever met Stalin. In any group he is usually last to express his opinion. He does not want to block the full expression of others, as he might easily do by speaking first. Besides this, he is always learning by listening.

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.

[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 18 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

I'm leftist

doesn't believe in authoritarianism

Read Engels https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

Stalin wasn’t a good leader

Excerpt from Stalin - the History and Critique of a Black Legend by Domenico LosurdoImpressive 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."3

Thousands 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:

After three decades, the face of the Soviet Union has been completely transformed. What’s essential to Stalinism’s historical actions is this: it found a Russia that worked the land with wooden plows and left it as the owner of the atomic bomb. It elevated Russia to the rank of the second industrial power in the world, and it’s not merely a question of material progress and organization. A similar result could not have been achieved without a great cultural revolution in which an entire country has been sent to school to receive an extensive education.

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:

When I see Hitler and Mussolini persecute men for their race, and invent that terrible anti-Jewish legislation that we’re familiar with, and when I see how the Russians, made up of 160 different races, seek their fusion, overcoming the existing differences between Asia and Europe, this attempt, this effort toward the unification of human society, let me just say that this is the work of a Christian, this is eminently universalistic in the Catholic sense.13

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

[–] brynden_rivers_esq@lemmy.ca 15 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] PlanchetteGhost@lemmy.world -2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] brynden_rivers_esq@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 hour ago

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).

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 6 hours ago

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.

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 16 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

doesn’t believe in authoritarianism.

Authoritarian is a meaningless pejorative. All states/countries/political groups etc. must be authoritarian by necessity in class society.

For heaven’s sake, his own guards were scared of him. In fact, he died because he instilled so much fear into them.

Major citation needed.