Stalin wasn’t a perfect saint nor a horrendous monster. Stalin was a real socialist, with personal failings and mistakes, but also real victories and advancements as the leader of the first socialist state in its most turbulent era.
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.
Agreed, and to clarify, I’m pretty much a socialist, just think co-operatives oughta be allowed to hold similar assets to a state, (within the laws of a state in question) ideally subsidiary to the state’s own collectivized system. The cold bit about Stalin was crediting the fellow with having more idealogical depth than the simple “funny gulag man” many paint him as.
Many socialist states do have cooperative sectors, the PRC has a pretty big cooperative sector, as did the USSR. At higher levels of development they become less useful, though, as production outscales simple cooperative formations. As for Stalin, again, he’s not as bad as the Red Scare painted him as.
True, why I count myself among y’all, I just quibble over the details frankly. Bad habit of mine. The results themselves overall in terms of quality of life speak volumes over the reduction in quality of life under capitalist systems generally. Even with failures like Mao’s famines.
Frankly the socialist states are generally more friendly to cooperatives over corporations. But again I call myself a social corporatist and folks usually imagine I’m arguing in favor of a techno-libertarian corporate congress. Pardon me for the lack of outright clarity.
Not to sound rude, but have you read much Marxist theory? There’s good reason why we generally see cooperatives as only really useful in certain levels of development and certain industries for a certain period of time, and not as the basis of production.
True, and yes unfortunately on Marxist theory and commentary. Part of why I’m a disillusioned corporatist if I still count as one and not an outright socialist. What can I say, Marx makes good arguments for economies of scale.
Mostly, a misguided attachment to libertarianism, and a lack of faith in a successful global proletariat revolution. Thus why in the original comment I clarified “tankie”; the other bit? The American feds. Real Red-scare vibes over here.
There’s no need for one big revolution, the revolution comes to different countries at different times. I think it sounds like you’re already pretty self-aware, why not commit?
Stalin wasn’t a perfect saint nor a horrendous monster. Stalin was a real socialist, with personal failings and mistakes, but also real victories and advancements as the leader of the first socialist state in its most turbulent era.
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
Agreed, and to clarify, I’m pretty much a socialist, just think co-operatives oughta be allowed to hold similar assets to a state, (within the laws of a state in question) ideally subsidiary to the state’s own collectivized system. The cold bit about Stalin was crediting the fellow with having more idealogical depth than the simple “funny gulag man” many paint him as.
Many socialist states do have cooperative sectors, the PRC has a pretty big cooperative sector, as did the USSR. At higher levels of development they become less useful, though, as production outscales simple cooperative formations. As for Stalin, again, he’s not as bad as the Red Scare painted him as.
True, why I count myself among y’all, I just quibble over the details frankly. Bad habit of mine. The results themselves overall in terms of quality of life speak volumes over the reduction in quality of life under capitalist systems generally. Even with failures like Mao’s famines.
Frankly the socialist states are generally more friendly to cooperatives over corporations. But again I call myself a social corporatist and folks usually imagine I’m arguing in favor of a techno-libertarian corporate congress. Pardon me for the lack of outright clarity.
Not to sound rude, but have you read much Marxist theory? There’s good reason why we generally see cooperatives as only really useful in certain levels of development and certain industries for a certain period of time, and not as the basis of production.
True, and yes unfortunately on Marxist theory and commentary. Part of why I’m a disillusioned corporatist if I still count as one and not an outright socialist. What can I say, Marx makes good arguments for economies of scale.
Any reason you still hold to corporatism?
Mostly, a misguided attachment to libertarianism, and a lack of faith in a successful global proletariat revolution. Thus why in the original comment I clarified “tankie”; the other bit? The American feds. Real Red-scare vibes over here.
There’s no need for one big revolution, the revolution comes to different countries at different times. I think it sounds like you’re already pretty self-aware, why not commit?
Che, please don’t call him that.
Yea it’s a bit iffy, lol.
I swear it don’t sound as bad in Spanish lmao, “papi” can even be something you call a friend
Oh, gotcha! Makes sense, my spanish is super rusty and I didn’t think about the different context it would have in spanish.