62
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
62 points (100.0% liked)
Anarchism
2866 readers
143 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
Other anarchist comms
- !anarchism@slrpnk.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- !anarchism@hexbear.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.ml
- !anarchism101@lemmy.ca
- !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Could it have anything to do with saving the entire world from the Third Reich by being the leader of the only military that actually stood up and ended the Nazi reign of terror, defeated 80% of the Nazi military, marched all the way to Berlin, and through Berlin, before any allies showed up, and liberated the concentration camps?
No. It's probably vibes.
Standing up only after you are betrayed isn't quite as impressive as standing up because it's the right thing to do. Soviets would have been happy to sit and do nothing until the Nazis started threatening the Soviets. But, still, yes the Soviets kicked ass
Hitler threatened the USSR over a decade before he invaded. He wrote it in Mein Kampf. It was out in the open. Stalin attempted to get Western Europe to take the threat seriously, but Western European leaders understood that the primary target of the Third Reich was the USSR and they all wanted the Third Reich to win that war. Stalin never believed that the Third Reich would be an ally, and the attempt of people to spin it that way is so intellectually dishonest it boggles the mind.
You can say whatever you want. The fact is the Soviets had a treaty with Nazi Germany and only fought back when forced. And honestly knowing that the Nazis would be a threat to them and still making the treaty just looks worse for them
So did Poland, France, and the UK. Your point is?
My point is just that the ussr was not some righteous world hero, as was seemingly being alluded to
So did the USSR not defeat 80% of the Nazi military, liberate every territory East of Berlin that the Nazis had captures, capture Berlin, and liberate the concentration camps? Or did they do that but you need to make sure everyone is aware that they only did that to protect themselves and shouldn't be considered heroes?
I mean, cuz what it sounds like you're saying is that defeating the Nazis isn't enough, you actually also have to be morally good according to a standard that you will never admit the USSR into but also could never apply to any country in the history of the world.
Enough for what? Extreme gratitude, yes. But the post is asking why so many people on the left seemingly ignore the faults of the Soviet Union. And no, winning ww2 does not justify turning a blind eye to any fault of the Soviet Union, that's ridiculous, as it would be for any nation. And especially so when they entered the war out of necessity.
Seriously. How are you able to say these things without a hint of self awareness. You know what it looks like to enter a war voluntarily? It looks like the US and Israel bombing Iran. It looks like the Third Reich invading every country on the path to Russia. Like what the fuck do you imagine you are saying? The USSR knew that engaging in war with the Third Reich was a necessity as soon as they got a copy of Mein Kampf. It's such a ridiculous statement to say that because the USSR joined the war out of necessity that therefore it is not appropriate to consider that their defeat of the Nazis was a good thing that the USSR did. Ludicrous.
Most leftists do NOT ignore the flaws of the USSR. In fact, those flaws are studied as part of the process of historical materialism. For example, every leftist knows that Stalin was a violent paranoid control freak. Every leftist knows that the repression of religion was a major mistake. Hell, even the USSR figured that one out and reversed the policy.
If you think leftists ignore the USSR's faults, that's on you. But if your problem is actually that you believe the faults of the USSR erase anything good that could possibly be attributed to them, then that's a different problem and it's intellectually dishonest to say that the only proper way of acknowledging the flaws of the USSR is to condemn the entire project, denounce it, and never use it as an example of something good. Those positions are not equivalent
Ha Ha Ha HA! Oh wait, you are serious. HA HA HA HA!
oh wait you don't know any history...
I always enjoy the tankie pivot from being the saviors of mankind to being the victims who couldn't stand up to western bullying whenever the whim takes them, but I do wonder how you lot don't get whiplash from the constantly changing narrative.
Talk about a purely emotional analysis. You have no idea how it's possible to go from winning to losing? Really? That's just something that's beyond you? I guess that's what the commitment to prefigurative idealism does to a mind.
that's not what I said. but don't worry, I know you're not misconstruing what I said, tankies just don't have reading comprehension. it isn't your fault you're an idiot.
That's sounds exactly like what you said. You don't understand how the narrative could be that the USSR won the war to the USSR lost against the West. Maybe you use words differently. I'm open to it. Definitions are unjustified hierarchy. Explain what you mean.
Or, you know, dig in deeper by not having anything of substance to say and just keep trying to win by virtue signalling. That works for your audience, too.
no, I much rather prefer letting you remain in the dark. my words were plain english, if you're not capable of understanding them then that's a problem for you, not for me. besides, if I pointed out what you misunderstood, you might stop doing it, and as I said I always enjoy it.
I will give your struggling intellect a hint though. read the whole fucking comment before you start furiously typing out a reply. dumbass.
So nothing. Got it.
yeah, I didn't think so.
the best part of your comment chain here is you immediately did exactly what I mentioned. you're just too fucking stupid to pick up on that, let alone see the irony. for a group that goes on and on about how people should read more theory, I think just reading at all would do you some good.
might I recommend The Very Hungry Caterpillar? its about at your level.
I wish you all the best in your rage-induced commenting spree where you pretend to be smarter than people because they don't accept your framing. Ta! See you around the other comments your chasing me down on.
if that's what you need to say to convince yourself you're not malding because somebody said mean things about your favorite homophobic dictator, then go on.
Stalin didnt do it. The soldiers in the soviet union made that happen. Then after the war The Great Comrade purged a lot of commanders who defeated the nazis. heres a great podcast about him. its one of my favorite episodes.
I love this talking point from anarchists and leftcoms because it lays bare their complete commitment to debate perversion and unwillingness to actually think.
If Stalin didn't defeat the Nazis, then Hitler didn't kill Jews, Blacks, Queer folx, Roma, etc, didn't commit genocide, and didn't invade anyone. Bush didn't invade Iraq. bin Laden didn't attack the US. Truman didn't save 10k Nazis. Trump didn't bomb Iran.
But even more so, it also means Stalin didn't starve anyone, Stalin didn't imprison anyone, and Stalin didn't relocate anyone.
This is one of those things that just reveals you for who you are.
Oh I dunno.
Vibes with a side order of pogroms, great purges, purges of intellectuals, and an apertîf of Holdomor. In short; nothing that your average mindless simp from .ml wouldn't casually look past, thereby demonstrating for all to see their abject un-seriousness with respect to any meaningful dialogue on the subject.
Again, the question is how could anyone defend it. I think there are some very clear answers. One of those answers is that the paranoid violent and power abusing Stalin was paranoid violent and power abusing but still a) saved the world from the Nazis and b) died penniless with almost zero personal wealth.
That already puts Stalin above Hitler, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Trump, Chamberlain, Churchill, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, Chiang Kai-Shek, Truman, Franco, Batista, Pinochet, and many many other world historical leaders who still have people who celebrate them.
Certain actions represent a moral event horizon. Once you've past it, there's no redemption; any arbitrary list of deeds is meaningless, any justification for any action becomes moot.
Stalin is indefensible. As are any of the other examples given. Contemplation of their relative ranks of depravity serves no purpose other than intellectual masturbation. The only important lesson is how to identify such monsters and neuter their power before it metastasizes. Which.....well....nice job there world.
I mean, this is clearly patently false. People defend all of these leaders literally all the time. The OP is asking how it's possible that people could like Stalin. I'm providing what is likely the single largest contributor to his political cache among the people who support him.
You can say Churchill is indefensible until you're blue in the face, but people will still defend him. Same for Reagan, same for Truman. Just because you believe something doesn't mean other people believe it. Anarchists have no problem with understanding this concept when it comes to affinity groups, but y'all draw the line at people assigning moral valence to specific leadership actions? Y'all are weird.