91
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
91 points (100.0% liked)
Anarchism
3040 readers
46 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
When people talk about "Stalinism," they usually mean one of 2 things:
Marxism-Leninism, the synthesis of Marxism with the advancements made by Lenin. Stalin synthesized Marxism-Leninism, so this gets called "Stalinism" despite Stalin's minor contributions compared to Marx and Lenin.
The policies of the USSR while Stalin was General Secretary of the CPSU.
The former, Marxism-Leninism, is the largest tendency of Marxism by far. This is because it has proven its utility in practice, establishing socialism in many countries with varying local conditions and contexts. Lenin's contributions to Marxism are near universally accepted by Marxists, and Stalin did not change from them in synthesizing Marxism-Leninism.
The latter, Stalin's policy positions, are largely either contextualized and explained, rather than actively defended, or are genuinely good feats. For example, under Stalin, literacy rates skyrocketed from ~30% to 99.9%, life expectancy doubled, education and healthcare were made free at all levels, jobs were guaranteed, and much more. Genuine faults, like criminalizing homosexuality, are recognized as such by Marxist-Leninists.
As Weng Weiguang says, The Evaluation of Stalin is Essentially an Ideological Struggle. Marxist-Leninists don't idolize Stalin. At the same time, Stalin synthesized Marxism-Leninism, and oversaw the world's first socialist state during its most turbulent period. The CPC rates him as 70% good, 30% bad, and this rating is roughly orbited by most communist orgs. Those who denounce Stalin entirely, also denounce the USSR, and existing socialism.
Stalin was a committed Marxist-Leninist, and oversaw the world's first socialist state for the overwhelming majority of its most tumultuous period. He was no saint, but at the same time was no monster either. He is remembered by liberal historians as far worse than comtemporaries like Churchill who in actuality were far worse than Stalin.
As Nia Frome says, we can either distance ourselves from Stalin, and by extension the USSR and actually existing socialism, or we can fight back against bourgeois narratives about Stalin and the USSR, acknowledging their faults while being able to uphold their tremendous successes as examples of the possibilities of socialism in power. Historical nihilism, and throwing Stalin and by extension much of the early soviet union under the bus, was ultimately what allowed for liberalization within the USSR and partially contributed to the death of socialism in eastern Europe.
If you want an intro to Marxism-Leninism, check out my new basic ML study guide!
Where are you from? Country of origin? I'm genuinely curious.
Statesian.
Mhm. I get that your country is hostile to the world and its own citizens. I do. But that doesn't make Stalin - or any era USSR - good. This dichotomy of white vs black, good vs evil is the most USian brainwashing that is afflicted on your people. From your post I can see you preemptively dismiss any critisizm or argument and while you said MLs don't idealise Stalin, it seems that you do.
I'm from Poland. To us, to a country betrayed by the Allies and sold to Stalin, their occupation did not bring prosperity, or equality, nor socialism. We were systematically robbed by the USSR from the wealth, intellect and industry (as noted by then governments and listed as a plea for USSR to stop), and even lives. We were made to take loans to invest in the Empire, while staying a satelite country and tying our planned economy to better native Russian territories. We did call then the Red Army - Red Locust. You need to realise that when you glorify it, you automatically dismiss our traumatic past. It is like getting told by a stupid child that if we're hungry we should eat cake.
Since USA wages war outside its territory and was never invaded nor conquered, you might not know that trauma - especially from war and being a conquered nation, worse nation - is transgenerational https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_trauma
Were there people who thrived under USSR occupation? Yes, but they are thriving currently too, both politicians and capitalist leeches. Did Poland progress under the occupation? Yes, like every damn other country in Europe. We would progress more as free people, no historian thinks differently.
When I read your comments I can't not see you as anything else than a guilt feeling nepo baby. Or at least someone so privileged, that they never ever thought about other people lives outside of statistics. An empty headed academic.
Tl; dr; the revolution was made into abomination of itself and claiming otherwise is blindness
The USSR was good based on its own progressive merits.
I don't.
I've spoken to people from Poland that have the opposite to say. The fall of socialism in Poland brought a dramatic collapse in any kind of left, which is why Poland is so far-right today.
Again, I've heard much the opposite. That's why anecdotes are terrible measures of truth. The collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe brought skyrocketing poverty rates, prostitutuon, drug abuse, homelessness, and 7 million excess deaths.
I'm aware.
And yet Poland is now in a far-right spiral with far greater disparity.
Cool story, you know nothing about me. Believe it or not, statistics and historical fact do outweigh simple anecdote, and the idea that I have never thought about people's lives outside of statistics is deeply wrong.
Splitting this to a separate comment because it was too long:
I mean dude, not even close. Polish leftist parties were antiworker from the 90s. Anything further left was dismissed as "USSR was saying the same lies". Fool me once kind of thing.
Add to that the short time where there was upwards mobility in the country when it first became "capitalists", as well as fhe fact that in the past 20 years median personal real wealth grew.
Yup. The current generation is seeing that the wealth is unequally distributed (1% owns 45% of wealth), as well as all those rentier leeches, banks making record profits year after year, and the Facebook/Tiktok ( or generally USA right wing) propaganda is turning like 10% into MAGA-style idiots, and the rest is also slowly radicalizing. We do see that in the below 35 age group the left-leaning is still strongest, but the PIS and Konfederacja are following Repulican party strategies and gaining tracktion.
So in other words, the far-right used the standard red-scare playbook to purge communists and socialists, and now Poland has immense disparity and is entirely controlled by the far-right.
No, don't hyperbolize. This isn't your narrative.
No. It was everyone in the free Poland. We were rebelling constantly under USSR occupation.
No. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=PL&start=1985 But we do see foreign corporations leeching from us and actively enshittifying. The home ownership rate is decreasing.
That depends what you mean by far right. I'd call the current political landscape of Poland as right-centrist PO in coalition with centrists (the rest of the coalition) vs (oppositon) right-centrist PiS with (growing) republican-clone Konfederacja
No, it was not "everyone in the free Poland." Many Polish people opposed the dissolution of socialism. Further, disparity in Poland is high, and the foreign companies plundering Poland is a direct consequence of the dissolution of socialism, purging of the left, and the dominance of the far-right.
??? We're famously the only country in the EU that wasn't affected by it. Please be critical of what you read.
What a garbage article you sent here.
I literally send you a credible source that shows its similar to 1985 year. Are you saying that it was high during USSR occupation or ignoring the source?
From the source linked:
Why was Polish GDP flatlining? Why did millions leave Poland?
Not only is the gini coefficient misleading, but it only goes back to 1985 in your source. Upon the adoption of capitalism, Poland has had unstable growth to even flatlining, is now being sold out to foreign companies, and again, has purged its left in favor of the far-right.
You're confusing my critique that USSR sucked for Poland with your imagination that means I must love capitalism?
Are you both stupid? I figured how you calculated that. You both took a look at the "Polish GDP in USD" and compared.
In 2007 USD to PLN was ~2.77 exchange rate.
In 2008 it was ~2.41 because USA had recession.
In 2015 it was ~3.4 because USA is again corporating and stealing.
This is GDP, but adjusted for PPP (PPP = how much shit we can buy locally) for Poland:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locations=PL&start=1990
Did not go down in 2008.
The idiot you're quoting would have to compare, p25, p50 and p90 income adjusted for inflation between those years, which they didn't. And if they did, they'd notice it was up. The only dip we had in 2022.
Prove it. You make wild claims, prove them.
(Also I'm curious what you think about China then since they gave up on communism if favour of their current flavour of capitalism leeching off of worker class)
You're batting pretty hard for capitalism and against socialism.
Amazing, Poland is getting dominated by foreign capital just like it was before it was socialist and somehow that's not connected to it being capitalist again for you.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=PL
The PRC is a socialist country, they never gave up on communism. Public ownership remains the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes remain in charge of the state. The PRC is rapidly rising thanks to socialism, while capitalist states in the global north are dying away. Pretty positive about the PRC, though like every state it's imperfect.
https://jacobin.com/2019/06/tiananmen-square-worker-organization-socialist-democracy
So I assume the Tiananmen Square protests (also) against leaving communism and implementing capitalistic worker class leeching did not happen in your world?
I mean they can call themselves whatever they want, but their duck quacks eerily similarly to the capitalistic duck. At least according to the people who went through their reforms into current state?
The protests and riots in Beijing in 1989 were multi-faceted. Among the protestors were hard-line Maoists that supported the older Gang of Four, while being accompanied by students that sought liberalization of the economy and an end to the rural subsidies equalizing rural and urban development. This was further agitated by western elements pushing for regime change.
It's Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, and it's still dominated by the proletariat. Public ownership is the principle aspect of China's economy, and capitalists are held on a tight leash to focus on developing the productive forces. The large firms and key industries in China are publicly owned, it's only the small and medium firms that are private.
The form of democracy and the mode of production in China ensures that there is a connection between the people and the state. Policies like the mass line are in place to ensure this direct connection remains. This is why over 90% of the Chinese population supports the government, and why they have such strong perceptions around democracy:
China does have billionaires, as you might then protest. China is in the developing stages of socialism. Between capitalism, which is characterized by private ownership being the principle aspect of the economy and the capitalists in control of the state, and communism, characterized by full collectivization of production and distribution devoid of classes, is socialism, where public ownership is principle and the working classes in control. China in particular is working its way out of the initial stages of socialism:
The reason China has billionaires is because China has private property, and the reason it has private property is because of 2 major factors: the world economy is still dominated by the US empire, and because you cannot simply abolish private property at the stroke of a pen. China tried that already. The Gang of Four tried to dogmatically force a publicly owned and planned economy when the infrastructure best suited to that hadn't been laid out by markets, and as a consequence growth was positive but highly unstable.
Why does it matter that the US Empire controls the world economy? Because as capitalism monopolizes, it is compelled to expand outward in order to fight falling rates of profit by raising absolute profits. The merging of bank and industrial capital into finance capital leads to export of capital, ie outsourcing. This process allows super-exploitation for super-profits, and is known as imperialism.
In the People's Republic of China, under Mao and later the Gang of Four, growth was overall positive but was unstable. The centrally planned economy had brought great benefits in many areas, but because the productive forces themselves were underdeveloped, economic growth wasn't steady. There began to be discussion and division in the party, until Deng Xiapoing's faction pushing for Reform and Opening Up won out, and growth was stabilized:
Deng's plan was to introduce market reforms, localized around Special Economic Zones, while maintaining full control over the principle aspects of the economy. Limited private capital would be introduced, especially by luring in foreign investors, such as the US, pivoting from more isolationist positions into one fully immersed in the global marketplace. As the small and medium firms grow into large firms, the state exerts more control and subsumes them more into the public sector. This was a gamble, but unlike what happened to the USSR, this was done in a controlled manner that ended up not undermining the socialist system overall.
China's rapidly improving productive forces and cheap labor ended up being an irresistable match for US financial capital, even though the CPC maintained full sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to how the global north traditionally acts imperialistically, because it relies on financial and millitant dominance of the global south. This is why there is a "love/hate" relationship between the US Empire and PRC, the US wants more freedom for capital movement while the CPC is maintaining dominance.
Fast-forward to today, and the benefits of the CPC's gamble are paying off. The US Empire is de-industrializing, while China is a productive super-power. The CPC has managed to maintain full control, and while there are neoliberals in China pushing for more liberalization now, the path to exerting more socialization is also open, and the economy is still socialist. It is the job of the CPC to continue building up the productive forces, while gradually winning back more of the benefits the working class enjoyed under the previous era, developing to higher and higher stages of socialism.
In doing this, China has presented itself to the global south as an alternative to the unequal exchange the global north does with the global south, which is accelerating the development of the global south. China is taking a more indirect method of undermining global imperialism than, say, the USSR, but its been remarkably effective at uplifting the global working classes, especially in China but also in the global south.
It's not about "ducks quacking" or any of that vibes-based analysis, but consistent materialist analysis.
I can counterpoint all that you wrote simply by asking you... What is China gig economy size? What are the labour protections for the gig workers? If there are none, then it's pure exploitation of worker class for the wealthy and I'd argue that invalidates all your lofty claims about being socialist at heart (or in the future. "Someday", also trademarked). Why is the population nationalistic? What happened to anti-imperialism - was it just redefined to mean anti-west lol? What is the current percentage representation of farmers and workers in the Congress and why is it nosediving?
Stupid but effective test I have leftover from my gaming days. Write Tiananmen Square (Massacre) before I interact with you any further.
Aside from this being pure chauvinist racism. Let's take it you bought into the propoganda that Tiananmen Square is completely censored and Chinese people get punished for seeing or saying it by being sent to a camp or disappeared or whatever (even though that's patently and obviously not true).
You were in your mind just condemning random innocent Chinese people to punishment for fun while you gamed? You are fucking disgusting. I hope you realise that you are a terrible person on the level of a German snitching on Jews in ww2. Even if thankfully the propaganda isn't true doesn't take away from how vile and evil it is that you would try.
No, you can't counterpoint anything that I wrote. China is already socialist, it isn't going to become socialist because it already is. China has worker protections, and the lives of the working classes have been improving year over year. This is extreme cope on your part, and your refusal to engage with my points because they cleanly and clearly refute yours is just dishonesty.
Why? The 1989 Beijing riots didn't take place on the square itself, which was evacuated bloodlessly.
Per wikipedia. There were hundreds of killings around Beijing, none of which happened on the square itself.
Can you actually engage with my points, rather than dodge them?
Sure. Per our earlier discussion and exchange of sources, the same criteria are met by Poland. Is Poland socialist to you?
Modern poland has private ownership as its principle aspect, and capitalists in control of the state. Did you read my prior comment at all? Socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is principle and the working classes in charge of the state, as I already said. You then pivoted to questions of quality of life, which is improving in China. Poland dropped in quality of life for most people after the dissolution of socialism in the immediate, and in the long run the poor in Poland are worse off than they were in socialism.
Why do you bother replying if you aren't going to engage with the points I make?
You're confusing USSR with being a socialist country. I'm batting against USSR.
The USSR was a socialist federation of countries, with public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in charge of the state.
This is GDP growth in percentage compared to last year... Are you suggesting it should grow up by more percent every year?
What anecdote? I've made no anecdotes? The only person mentioning any anecdotes is you, e.g.
Regarding USSR stealing industry:
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grabie%C5%BC_i_przejmowanie_mienia_poniemieckiego_na_Ziemiach_Odzyskanych#%3A%7E%3Atext=Grabie%C5%BC+i+przejmowanie+mienia+poniemieckiego+na+Ziemiach+Odzyskanych+%E2%80%93+Wikipedia%2C+wolna+encyklopedia
(I'm sorry wo don't really translate that to English). But you can try to Google for sources in English.
You might've spoken to people who remember the late 80's fondly. Not 50-70s. Or ZOMO (secret terror police) or similar, they always had privileged lives.
Unless you were in the Party, Army or Zomo, life was not roses at all, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_October
Poland is not Eastern Europe
prostitutuon, drug abuse, homelessness <- you might be confusing that with what is common in the USA.
Excess deaths https://wol.iza.org/articles/mortality-crisis-in-transition-economies/long#%3A%7E%3Atext=Features+of+the+transition+mortality%2Climited+changes+in+family+stability.
skyrocketing poverty rates
Not really, no? After we detached from the ZSSR everything had to be restarted and the first decade was hard. We had to start from little, figure out export routes, rebuild a damn lot of industries etc? We were economy attached and made dependant on USSR, how could the split not be hard?
Poland, prior to socialism, was 2/3rds controlled by foreign capital, and was severely lagging behind the rest of Europe industrially. By 1948, Poland's industrial output was 153% of what it had been in 1938. Post-war, the economy grew over 300% from 1945 to 1948.
In the 1930s, Polish life expectancy was ~46 years old. After the introduction of socialism, and improved healthcare, it reached 70. Before socialism, literacy rates were ~80% in urban areas and ~30% in rural areas. With socialism, total literacy rates were 98%. With socialism came legalized abortion and greatly expanded women's rights.
The dissolution of socialism, as I said, brought ~7 million deaths around the world. You didn't dispute that, the argument seems to be on your end that these were necessary for economic growth. What Poland could have done is remain socialist.
Everything else tomorrow, its 1am
I literally added a link it was 8400. You gave no sources. Trust me bro is not a source.
7.7 million excess deaths in the first year. Stop minimizing millions of deaths.
Why did you send me a link to https://www.academia.edu/1072631/Review_Red_Plenty_by_Francis_Spufford review of Red Plenty by Francis Spufford, where reviewer names the genre science-fiction? The fuck?
Because Paul Cockshott is an economist, and references real facts in his review. Just what I had on hand. Here's a grab from the PDF:
Dude. It is a review of a fictional book with no sources attached. How do I know it's fiction? Author says so on Goodreads.
We were talking about Poland being conquered by the USSR and that it was better without it. The excess Russian deaths you're quoting - if they were true and not from a fiction book - still wouldn't matter for Poland being better off without USSR? Do you see the distinction between those 2? One is USSR, the other is Poland, and the excess deaths (I linked before) in Poland were 8400?
The review is of a fictionalized socialist scenario. The author of the review is an economist that opposes the fictional allegories. This isn't complicated.
The source is not Red Plenty, which is fiction. The source is the economist Paul Cockshott's review of Red Plenty, which makes mistakes in its presentation of alt-history. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. Further, the point about the dissolution of the USSR causing deaths everywhere holds true, you see the 8400 people that died due to abandoning socialism as "necessary costs."
My bad. Still no sources for his claims in the review? Just a graph.
If you think that excessive deaths at the level of 8400 can be attributed to anything, you're wrong. I mean how would you even attribute them? The winter was cold, it could've been flu.
Btw. USSR flavour of socialism was nationalism/imperialism with extra steps. Forcing subjected satellite states to produce in favour of the Russia.
Flu when social safety nets took such a dramatic hit is still contributable to the dissolution of socialism, as it's extremely likely they would have otherwise lived.
Let me rephrase that. 8400 excess deaths in a country or 40 mil is unattributable. But I agree that USSR dissolution was likely related to it.
Damn, it could've been people dying from partying too much.