54
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
54 points (100.0% liked)
Anarchism
2866 readers
137 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
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.