this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
437 points (100.0% liked)

Comics

167 readers
1 users here now

This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.

Rules:

1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules

2- Be civil.

3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.

4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine 🇵🇸 . Zionists will be banned on sight.

5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.

Guidelines:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (19 children)

It just happens that that was claimed to happen always, so you know, ban was only liften in 1989 as the article mentions lol. Funny how that happens.

Looks like it was true! Millions of people died when the USSR was illegally dissolved afterwards, and the majority of living former-soviets say they prefered the Soviet System.

Not even mentioning the lack of press freedom but Stalin famously purged a shitload of people on the basis of their political opinions. And voting in a strictly controlled single-party state, it does have the sound of a empty formality as the article had it.

Liberalism and fascism were banned. Additionally, it is not at all an empty formality, unless you think every human being in a political party shares the exact same opinions, which is laughably false.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's always the case that authoritarian countries use a foreign threat as the reasoning for being so authoritarian. Tale as old as time.

Liberalism and fascism were banned.

So you think capitalist countries banning communist parties is all fine and dandy? Because that's not terribly democratic if you ask me.

Additionally, it is not at all an empty formality, unless you think every human being in a political party shares the exact same opinions, which is laughably false.

It's an empty formality when it's a single party, loyalty to is is demanded and any real criticism can lead you to be fucking killed. Stalin did not take this shit lightly and lots of people died as a result.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's always the case that authoritarian countries use a foreign threat as the reasoning for being so authoritarian. Tale as old as time.

Indeed, Socialism has been deemed "authoritarian" by foreign countries.

So you think capitalist countries banning communist parties is all fine and dandy? Because that's not terribly democratic if you ask me.

Of course not. The difference is that Capitalism and fascism are antidemocratic and get lots of innocents killed. You don't have to defend fascism. It's the paradox of tolerance.

It's an empty formality when it's a single party, loyalty to is is demanded and any real criticism can lead you to be fucking killed. Stalin did not take this shit lightly and lots of people died as a result.

This is ahisorical and silly. Even 2 people with the same views are different in numerous other ways, and there is an entire history of change and diverse viewpoints in the USSR.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Indeed, Socialism has been deemed “authoritarian” by foreign countries.

I wonder why something like the Soviet Union under Stalin would be called authoritarian. It's preposterous!

Of course not. The difference is that Capitalism and fascism are antidemocratic and get lots of innocents killed. You don’t have to defend fascism. It’s the paradox of tolerance.

It's just that they banned every other party.

This is ahisorical and silly. Even 2 people with the same views are different in numerous other ways, and there is an entire history of change and diverse viewpoints in the USSR.

Not so much tolerance for those viewpoints under Stalin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

Weirdly even this site puts it very bluntly: https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/events/terror/index.htm

Based on the link I would've expected something else, but they are pretty upfront about it. Interesting website.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I urge you to pick up a history book on the Soviet Union if you think Stalin made up the entire political apparatus. Even the CIA disagrees with you there, because it was obvious.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Initially governing as part of a collective leadership, Stalin consolidated power to become dictator by the 1930s; he formalized his Leninist interpretation of Marxism as Marxism-Leninism, while the totalitarian political system he established became known as Stalinism.

Stalin's Soviet Union has been characterised as a totalitarian state,[673] with Stalin its authoritarian leader.[674] Various biographers have described him as a dictator,[675] an autocrat,[676] or accused him of practising Caesarism.[677] Montefiore argued that while Stalin initially ruled as part of a Communist Party oligarchy, the Soviet government transformed from this oligarchy into a personal dictatorship in 1934,[678] with Stalin only becoming "absolute dictator" between March and June 1937, when senior military and NKVD figures were eliminated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

I mean we talked if it was a totalitarian dictatorship or not. Sure does seem like it was.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Can you explain mechanically how he was a totalitarian dictator, yet did not have totalitarian control nor was he the sole director?

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But he does seem to have had a total control of the state through his position, control of tools such as NKVD, fear, intimidation, cult of personality, purging of opponents and so on. Unless you think it doesn't count unless you have an official position of dictator and has been named as such by the Roman senate, of course.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

He did not have total control. If you don't agree with Soviet records, then let the CIA themselves explain in an internal, never meant to be revealed document. Stalin was often contested, and did not have the ability to make anything happen. He had power as the head of state, but it was neither absolute nor all-encompasing.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It seems most historians disagree with your thought here, as shown in the earlier quotes. You claim he was often contested, did not have the ability to make anything happen and so on, but that doesn't seem to have been the reality. Even this document you shared just says it was "exaggerated", not that he didn't have those powers. But most considering his rule seem to have labeled him as a dictator and it's very easy to see why.

If you don’t agree with Soviet records

Soviet records on if their leader was a dictator or not? Buddy.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I never said he was powerless, I said he did not have sole control nor all-encompassing power. He was the head of state, of course he had power. The CIA is directly contesting your mythology here. The majority of evidence points towards Stalin not being an absolute and all-powerful demigod dictator, but a head of state in a large system with lots of moving parts that frequently went against what he personally wanted.

Soviet records on if their leader was a dictator or not? Buddy.

Soviet Records on democratic processes and political structuring.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I never said he was powerless

Stalin was often contested, and did not have the ability to make anything happen

"Did not have the ability to make anything happen" would make him seem very powerless.

The CIA is directly contesting your mythology here

The majority of evidence points towards Stalin not being an absolute and all-powerful demigod dictator, but a head of state in a large system with lots of moving parts that frequently went against what he personally wanted.

My mythology of just the normal historians' view on Stalin, as in, him being a dictator.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"Did not have the ability to make anything happen" would make him seem very powerless.

The stress is meant to be placed on anything, ie he couldn't snap his fingers and magically have his will be done. He played a large role in directing policy, especially during WWII.

My mythology of just the normal historians' view on Stalin, as in, him being a dictator.

What constitutes a "Normal Historian?" The CIA didn't agree with you and neither does historical evidence.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think it would've been clearer to say "everything" than "anything". Because now it just sounds like he couldn't do anything

What constitutes a "Normal Historian?"

Just historians who've looked into Stalin, Soviet Union, the sort. Historians meaning people who've studied history.

The CIA didn't agree with you

It's one review from CIA. Do we know anything else from this document, its significance, whether it was the consensus in the CIA, any of this sort of things?

neither does historical evidence.

Historians seem to disagree.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think it would've been clearer to say "everything" than "anything". Because now it just sounds like he couldn't do anything

Fair and valid point.

Just historians who've looked into Stalin, Soviet Union, the sort. Historians meaning people who've studied history.

There are numerous pro-Soviet historians as well, you're not referencing anything, just calling upon the mystical and undefined idea of "Normal Historians."

It's one review from CIA. Do we know anything else from this document, its significance, whether it was the consensus in the CIA, any of this sort of things?

It's one document, and yet more than anything you've provided beyond vibes. Do you have any actual evidence?

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There are numerous pro-Soviet historians as well, you’re not referencing anything, just calling upon the mystical and undefined idea of “Normal Historians.”

I'm not really talking about pro or anti-Soviet historians. just the majority of the prominent ones who have studied the subject. Preferably you'd want to trust historians who avoid thinking of historical stuff as some pro-anti thing as you've framed it.

It’s one document, and yet more than anything you’ve provided beyond vibes. Do you have any actual evidence?

Sources for the Wikipedia article are linked with as [1] that. I can paste them here if that's what you want, for easier access I guess.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not really talking about pro or anti-Soviet historians. just the majority of the prominent ones who have studied the subject. Preferably you'd want to trust historians who avoid thinking of historical stuff as some pro-anti thing as you've framed it.

Name one.

Sources for the Wikipedia article are linked with as [1] that. I can paste them here if that's what you want, for easier access I guess.

Are you saying you stand by all sources listed in the Wikipedia articles, even the ones that have been contested or outright disproven?

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Name one.

For the dictator claim? Martin McCauley is cited on Wikipedia. Oleg Khlevniuk too. Some others, but you asked for one.

Are you saying you stand by all sources listed in the Wikipedia articles, even the ones that have been contested or outright disproven?

I was just noting that the sources for the claims are there. Wikipedia is just a convenient thing to refer to, as you know.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Okay, and what did these historians explicitly claim? Did they say Stalin alone controlled the entirety of the USSR uncontestably?

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

As it relates to the conversation, that Stalin was a dictator. Khlevniuk's book is literally titled Stalin: New Biography of a Dictator lol. So they certainly believe that the requirements for calling him a dictator has been sufficiently fulfilled. Both "Stalin: New Biography of a Dictator" and "Stalin and Stalinism" are available to read, if you catch my drift, but if you want me to recite parts from them for you, you'll have to wait for me to get home.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm aware. What specifically did they say that led them to that claim? Did they change the definition of dictator, or did they provide sufficient evidence that Stalin had absolute and all-encompassing control of the entire USSR?

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm reading the Stalin and Stalinism (3rd edition) book and it just seems to be the run-of-the-mill dictator stuff. Violence, intimidation, cult of personality, so on. If you want a quote, then there's page 59-60, here's a short excerpt (because pasting from a pdf is a bitch):

How did Stalin’s state function? The twin pillars of power were the party and the government. The party acted as a parallel government and checked on the implementation of the plans. The flow of information was restricted. The more important an official, the more he was told. The party watched the government, but the political police watched both. Key decision making was centred in Stalin’s own chancellery, presided over by a trusted official, Poskrebyshev. All the threads came together in the chancellery, all the information was pieced together there, the jigsaw was complete. Stalin was the only person in the entire country who saw the whole picture and he skilfully used the information available to him. Stalin’s power was not based on control of the government or the party or the political police. It involved exploiting all three. It was vital to Stalin that he should maintain several independent sources of information; in that way he hoped to judge which source was misleading. After 1936 he successfully prevented any body, be it the Politburo or the CC of the party or the government, meeting as a group and taking counsel together independent of him. He preferred to consult individuals or small groups, and here his tactics were based on setting one person against another. This explains why there were only two Party Congresses between 1934 and 1953, for they were frankly unnecessary. Stalin very seldom left Moscow. He disliked mass meetings and was always con- scious of his Georgian accent. He restricted the number of people who had direct access to him and in so doing created a mystique around his person.

And so on. I haven't as much time to check out Stalin: Khlevniuk's book "Stalin: A New Biography of a Dictator" but it seems to have the same opinion and describes the usual features of a dictatorship and Stalin's role as one. Some short quotes, page 137 onwards:

Would a man living in serious fear of attack venture—let alone relish— such an excursion? The intensification of repression that came in late 1934 was prompted by more complex calculations. Kirov’s murder provided an ideal pretext for action of the sort any dictatorship relies on to promote its central task: solidifying the power of the dictator. Admittedly, by late 1934, Stalin was already a dictator, but dictatorships, like any unstable system of government, depend on the constant crushing of threats. During this period, Stalin faced two such threats, which at first glance appear unrelated. The first was the remnant of the system of “collective leadership” within the Politburo, and the second was the survival of a significant number of former oppositionists. These threats belonged to what might be called Bolshevik tradition. They hung over Stalin like a sword of Damocles, reminders that there were alternatives to sole dictatorship. His fellow Politburo members enjoyed significant administrative, if not political, independence. They ran the various branches of government and had a host of clients from within the party and state apparats. The bonds of institutional and clan loyalties, along with the vestiges of collective leadership and intraparty democracy, were the last impediments to sole and unquestioned power.

Between 1935 and early 1937, the persecution of former oppositionists was accompanied by shake-ups at the highest echelons of power. The Kirov murder strengthened the position of three enterprising young men: Nikolai Yezhov, Andrei Zhdanov, and Nikita Khrushchev. Yezhov’s promotion was especially significant. It was on his shoulders that Stalin placed direct responsibility for conducting the purge. After acquitting himself well in fabricating cases during the Kirov Affair, Yezhov was entrusted with a new assignment—the Kremlin Affair. In early 1935 a group of support staff working in government offices located in the Kremlin—maids, librarians, and members of the Kremlin commandant’s staff—were arrested and accused of plotting against Stalin. Among those arrested were several relatives of Lev Kamenev, who was charged with hatching the plot. 81 The arrestees came under the authority of Stalin’s old friend Avel Yenukidze, who over- saw the running of all Kremlin facilities, and he was accused of abetting the plot. 82 Stalin took a great interest in the Kremlin Affair. The archives show that he regularly received and read arrestee interrogation protocols, made notations on them, and gave specific instructions to the NKVD

This desperate act shows how helpless the Politburo members felt before Stalin, whose control of the secret police made him an indomitable force. The vozhd’s long-standing comrades-in-arms, to say nothing of middle-level functionaries, were a fractured force. They fell all over one another in an effort to ingratiate them- selves with Stalin, each hoping to save his own skin. Such was the state of affairs when the already thinned ranks of the nomenklatura convened for the February–March Central Committee plenum of 1937. During the plenum, Stalin ordered that repression be continued, and Yezhov made a speech calling for a case to be brought against the leaders of the “right deviation,” Nikolai Bukharin and Aleksei Rykov (their fellow “rightist,” Mikhail Tomsky, had already killed himself in August 1936)

Pasting from those books is such a pain that if you want further clarification, I hope you check out the book and maybe in turn point out what you disagree with in their characterization of Stalin as a dictator. To me it seems all very run-of-the-mill description of one.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You're getting your resources from Martin McCauley, a Pro-Western Anticommunist who wrote dozens of Anticommunist books during the Cold War. A grifter, so to speak. Additionally, he is a member of the Limehouse Group of Analysts, a Zionist, Islamophobic, pro-NATO, pro-Western group of political analysts with ties to the Defense Industries of Western Countries.

Additionally, he wrote your quoted texts from before Soviet Archives became public.

This is why it's important to vet your sources.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It's just that Khlevniuk seems to agree on the factual things mentioned in the books. So do other sources I look up. And this particular book is very highly regarded as far as I can tell. They do all paint a very clear picture if you ask me.

It's absolutely important to vet your sources but usually so you know to expect some factual errors. If there's something erroneous in the book related to his description of the Stalinist state and Stalin's position in it, you should definitely point it out.

Additionally, he wrote your quoted texts from before Soviet Archives became public.

The revised 3rd edition is from 2003. It does note in the foreword "Since the second edition of this book, there has been an explosion of published materials. Very revealing are the documents which permit a greater insight into the day-to-day decision making of the Stalinist state." Haven't checked if the chapter is unchanged in the 4th edition.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

As an example, no sources are put forward in your first exerpt, no references. This is an opinion piece from a Zionist, anticommunist grifter.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's just happens that his opinions seem to largely shared by other works about Soviet Union during Stalin. Such as the other book mentioned. It seems to be more fastidious with sourcing the claims too, so it might be more to your liking in that respect.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (15 children)

I wonder why books published by an Anticommunist country that went through a decades long scare would have anticommunist grifters with anticommunist opinions. I am also curious why said anticommunists also happen to be islamophobic, pro-NATO, Zionist, pro-Imperialism, and have ties to the Military Industrial Complex.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (8 children)

Soviet records on if their leader was a dictator or not? Buddy.

Okay you're just a deeply unserious person. A government modifying its own internally kept records for the purposes of propaganda? Baby brained premise chasing.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)