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
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    You seem to conflate power with money.

    I don’t think there’s many way to be more powerful than holding power in a society where the different access to goods are irrelevant.

    You think ambition fueled by money are more powerful than the ones fueled by idealism, purity, rightfullness and, of course, narcissism and domination?

    Do you really think it’s all the same to those people, to Stalin himself, if he was farming potatoes or signing the 5 year plan under oh-so-genuine thundering applause of the assemply?

    Come the fuck on.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 days ago

      I tie “pursuit of power” to actual, mechanical drives. What is the purpose of power? Why do you believe humans pursue it? I quite specifically mentioned that Capitalism itself selects for those in power within it by selecting the most ruthless and willing to do whatever it takes to accumulate the most, because the system requires it. Socialism does not, ergo you need to justify a “pursuit of power.”

      Secondly, I want to know where you are getting the notion that Stalin was not popular among his peers. Rather, he became more popular until the “Secret Speech,” where Kruschev attempted to delegitimize Stalin in pursuit of his own interests. I think you would do best to read some of the books listed here by other comrades.

      • dwindling7373@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        I quite specifically mentioned that Capitalism itself selects for those in power within it by selecting the most ruthless and willing to do whatever it takes to accumulate the most, because the system requires it. Socialism does not, ergo you need to justify a “pursuit of power.”

        Luckily for us, we do live under capitalism, so there’s no need to speculate there. As i’m sure you have plenty of chances to verify daily, it’s not as efficient as you make it sounds. It tends to embolden those that are narrowly focused on the accumulation of capital, but even in doing that, it’s an inefficient and rather messy machination.

        In a similar way it could be said of power under socialism. It’s possible despite its “best” effort that capitalist adiacent pulsions survived the new structure of… guidance? action? decisiont making? coordination? (it’s still power)

        Another point of touch can be personal greed. Capitalism leaves it unchecked by design, but it has always accompanied scarcity. It’s hunger, if you will, and if you could argue such pulsion have been imposed onto the natural man, of conquered by ascetism, none of those equate the background of a pre-1917 Russia.

        Some of those people, no matter the books they read, could potentially still thirst and hunger for “more”.

        I once again ask you if the simple asimmetry between giving orders and taking orders does not justify, theoretically, a selfish “pursuit of power”.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          The concept of hierarchy itself within democratic institutions does not justify a corrupting pursuit of power. Capitalism forces the pursuit of power via its zealots, the ones most efficient at accumulation remain, selecting for the greediest among us, while Socialism has no such drive that makes pursuit of power sustain itself. Additionally, I don’t depict Capitalism as “efficient,” the priests of Capital merely guess at what Capital wills, and the ones closest survive.

          • dwindling7373@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 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
              4
              ·
              4 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
                1
                ·
                4 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
                  3
                  ·
                  4 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
                    1
                    ·
                    3 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.