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 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 (1 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.

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

Khlevniuk is Russia. Not that I'd consider the nationality the thing I use to judge historians.

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

We are talking about Martin McCauley, who wrote Stalin and Stalinism.

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

We were talking about them both. You chose to focus on only one of them, despite both making the claim about Stalin being a dictator.

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

Because I didn't bother with the second after realizing you believe a fascist-written opinion piece to be worthy of respect.

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

I was under the impression it was the claims we were discussing, which Khlevniuk's book seem to support, not what or who deserves our respect. For that reason it might be worthwhile to check that out too. Totally up to you of course.

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

Respect, as in accept the opinions. Nothing you have shown has supported the idea that Stalin could not be opposed, and was not opposed, nor that he was all-powerful.

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

We were talking about whether Stalin was a dictator or not. Khlevniuk's Stalin: A New Biography of a Dictator makes that case.

Stalin could not be opposed, and was not opposed, nor that he was all-powerful.

Even Hitler wasn't a dictator on those grounds. And I think he is considered the epitome of a modern day dictator.

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

What is a dictator, in your opinion? What separates a dictator from a regular head of state?

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

Power. But for meaning of the word, I'd just go with something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator. Fair few mentions of Stalin there, but definitely second to Hitler.

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

What level of power? Like, is it just a vibe? If the vibes are off, or if they're alright? By your definition linked, the idea of Absolute Power, Stalin was not a dictator as we have shown.

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

If you take it literally, neither was Hitler. And at that point you might need to reconsider how you define it. But as commonly defined and used, most seem to consider them both dictators for similar sort of merits.

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

My point is that using "Stalin was a dictator" as a reason for why the USSR was bad is like saying "The US is bad because Biden is stinky." I am asking for actual, genuine, measurable issues, of which there are plenty, so that we can compare with other countries and see what should have been done instead. You haven't provided any of that.

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

The discussion was if Stalin was a dictator to begin with.

I am asking for actual, genuine, measurable issues, of which there are plenty, so that we can compare with other countries and see what should have been done instead. You haven’t provided any of that.

I did mention the purges, murders and sending political opponents to concentration camps. It's a side-effect from the dictator thing and I'd personally consider that a bit "stinky".

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

The question posed isn't whether or not Stalin was a good or bad person. I do not care about long-dead men, I care about structures. Stalin did not individually cause or carry out purges, how could he have done so?

The Soviet Model is one that had numerous growing pains. There were horrible crimes committed by the Soviet State, but at a far lesser extent than contemporary States such as the US, especially with the international aspect. Stalin's role was not as some Great Man (not Great as in Good, but Great as in influential), but as a steward of the USSR like any other would have been.

I do consider Stalin to have in many ways been reactionary, but also as a Marxist, and one that more often than not carried forward the will of the Working Class. I do not believe the claim of him to have had absolute power or control has weight.

Does this make sense?

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

The question posed that I started the discussion with was if he was a dictator.

Stalin did not individually cause or carry out purges, how could he have done so?

I mean it's not like Hitler did the gassing himself. But rather as a leader ordering it. Doesn't diminish the responsibility. And nobody claimed he personally killed these people.

Stalin’s role was not as some Great Man (not Great as in Good, but Great as in influential), but as a steward of the USSR like any other would have been.

I think that's the thing we disagree about, how much control he had.