I believe in socialism, but I feel Stalin shouldn’t be idolised due to things like the Gulag.

I would like more people to become socialist, but I feel not condemning Stalin doesn’t help the cause.

I’ve tried to have a constructieve conversation about this, but I basically get angry comments calling me stupid for believing he did atrocious things.

That’s not how you win someone over.

I struggle to believe the Gulag etc. Never happened, and if it happened I firmly believe Stalin should be condemned.

  • dwindling7373@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    The concept of hierarchy itself within democratic institutions does not justify a corrupting pursuit of power.

    Of couse it doesn’t “justify” it. It sure builds a nice playground for whomever loves doing it though.

    That’s why every democracy has an attempt to prevent exploitation, such as a limit to the terms of their leaders, popular referendum, separation of powers…

    But of course you know that. It seems you are convinced that, by virtue of messiatic powers, somehow the Communist (transitional) apparatus was immune to that corruption.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      When I say “justify,” I mean “justify the existence of.” You hint at an almost supernatural drive for power that is not materially supported by real economic and democratic structures. You claim it “builds a nice playground” with no further elaboration as to how or why it does so.

      Communism is not immune to corruption. Communism lacks the economic foundations for corruption directly selected for within Capitalist frameworks, yet you seem to be posturing as though the opposite is the case without providing a materialist explanation of how or why.

      • dwindling7373@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        You are surely well aware of the nefarious propaganda the west did against Stalin.

        Imagine it was true and you have the perfect depiction on how such corruption would potentially look like.

        Another simple example? Stalin could have promised an administraive role to a person in exchange for sexual favors.

        I’m not saying he did, but, under Communism, or rather under the trasition toward communism, that would have been a possible abuse of [not power].

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 days ago

          Propaganda isn’t bounded by material reality, though, surely you can see how simply saying something is true doesn’t mean it is. All of these ideas of what could have happened ignore the mechanical foundations of democracy and economic planning. Sure, Stalin could have sexually assaulted someone, but to our knowledge he didn’t, and moreover such a reason does not imply there is a desire for power in Socialist systems to get away with sexual assault. You’re making a confused argument here.

          • dwindling7373@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 days ago

            I used propaganda as an easy, inaccurate answer to your request for a potential scenario.

            Of couse the obvious limits of propaganta (primarily, being lies) is not what I was focusing on.

            If we agree Stalin could have sexually assaulted someone and get away with it, we cycle back to the messianic property of Stalin to be better than most other people in a similar position through history. Or to not be affected by dementia, to not grow complacent, to not hold grudges, to be permanently unbiased and pure.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              11 days ago

              We don’t, actually. Your conclusion doesn’t follow. Stalin was not a perfect and untainted figure. The point is that Socialism does not mechanically support corruption in the same way Capitalism does out of necessity, and you seem to be ignoring that at every turn.

              • dwindling7373@feddit.it
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 days ago

                But he never stepped down or reformed the system to account for these issues. Hence my opinion of him.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  11 days ago

                  He tried to resign no fewer than 4 times, and what “issues” are you talking about? How could he have “reformed the system” in your eyes to be better?

                  • dwindling7373@feddit.it
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 days ago

                    I already mentioned that trying to resign and being met with unanimous rejection doesn’t say much, other than possibly the obvious fact that he was in fact a human and not a robot.

                    To reform the system he could have rejected the idea of a single head of state in favor of a shared position, he could have set up the lenght of time by which a person can be head of state…

                    The possibilities are endless and history has made this kind of necessities abundandly clear to guarantee decision makers hold their position selflessly.

        • ferristriangle [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 days ago

          Imagine it was true

          Nice thought experiment, but in most cases we have the declassified documents from the CIA and other such organizations who originated the accusations showing that in their internal communications and records that were not public facing that they knowingly and intentionally lied to the public as part of their campaign of information warfare.

          The inherent problem is that skepticism is an inexhaustible well. If the only principle guiding your analysis is skepticism, you will inevitably end up stuck in a perpetual and ultimately unproductive cycle doing little more than tilting at windmills.

          This is why theory is important to study. You need to have a framework for understanding the world to build off of if you want to have any analysis that’s more insightful than “what if we imagine that he had bad thoughts? Pretty scary, huh?”

          What if we imagine a purple elephant? What if we imagine flying sharks? Makes you think, doesn’t it??

          • dwindling7373@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 days ago

            I’m not using speculation reaching for impossible scenarios.

            I’m questioning the degree of freedom that anybody could have taken advantage of if they wanted to. The fact that this happened or not is irrelevant.

            Given that, I also make another separate point about how greed can have many faces, even outside Capitalism.

            Combining those two I question the amount of self reflection Stalin subjected himself and his role to through his life.