Talk:Stalin apologetics

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Proof of communist parties collaborating desired[edit]

"Similarly, other Communist parties in Nazi-occupied Europe had been ordered to work with the Nazis, but then had to go underground at the beginning of Barbarossa when all Communist parties were outlawed and their members risked being sent to the camps if caught by the Nazis."

I would really like some hard evidence of this statement. In the Netherlands, the Dutch Communist Party (CPN) (which were staunch supporters of the CPSU at the time) was immediately outlawed by the Nazi occupiers, but they were prepared for this and on the day of the capitulation became an underground resistance movement. This was in May 1940, long before operation Barbarossa launched. As such, the CPN were the first resistance movement in the Netherlands and more importantly: were organizers of the February Strike,which was the biggest strike organized against the mistreatment of the Jewish population. This took place in February 1941. The organizers who got arrested were shot. Now it is true that until operation Barbarossa the CPN considered the French and English nations as imperialist enemies, but it's dishonest, false and plainly an insult to their memory to suggest that they collaborated with the German Nazi occupation before Operation Barbarossa took place. The CPN leadership might be loyal followers of Stalin's line, but there's zero proof that they worked together or had received orders from the CPSU to do so. Read about it here: (Dutch) & (English).

It is due to their resistance from the very start against the nazi occupation that they gained a lot of popular support when the war was over and the first national election after the war received 10 seats (10% of the votes, 32% in the first post-war municipal elections in Amsterdam, were the party had it's hq). They lost support and members in the 50's again because of rising tensions in the cold war (the CPN were one of the most loyal supporters of the CPSU in the west) and even more when the leadership of the party supported the Soviet Union during the Hungarian uprising in 1956, but that doesn't diminish the fact that they played a key role in the Dutch resistance movement.— Unsigned, by: Hugo de Geus / talk / contribs

Working together was part of the wp:Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and was recorded mostly in Czechoslovakia, Britain, and France. The sentence seems to make it more organized than it was. It was mostly antiwar rallies and being pains to anti-German groups at the time. Communists burning the Reichstag was pretty much a tipping point for Hitler to come to power, and abused anyone he thought might be part of it terribly, then they became enemies of the state when they went to war. Stalin wasn't much nicer to his own people during the same time. It's all in the WP link above. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Grover Furr[edit]

I'm a bit dubious about suggesting that anyone serious takes this man seriously. Some years ago I was active on the H-Net History of American Communism list (most were scholars and/or academics) where Furr participated, and every single other person -- left, right or inbetween -- barely paid a bit of attention to this flake. Who actually cites him for anything?---Mona- (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Tankies. wp:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grover Furr, holy crap - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
But no one serious takes Furr seriously, John Earl Haynes has cited him a time or two as the ONLY person still defending Stalin, but one who's regarded as a crank.---Mona- (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
No-one serious takes tankies seriously either. I think that deletion discussion is pretty good initial evidence Furr is a crank magnet. (Also, I giggle slightly at his reaction to libertarians calling him a "liberal".) - David Gerard (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The Great Irish Famine[edit]

I've been adding a reference note to a review of a scholarly work representative of many historians who feel the horror that was the Great Irish Famine was or was not a genocide. I tend to agree it was not, but it was nevertheless a human rights abomination. It is, at best, unseemly for an article to deploy that issue only as a repudiation of Stalinists -- how they abuse the topic for whataboutery purposes does not alter the need to know the truth about the slow and awful deaths of 1 million Irish, and the displacement of 1 million more. A reference note, with link, briefly explaining the atrocity -- reflecting the views of the majority of Irish historians -- would seem in order. Contained in a reference note, this important historical point does not dilute the point of the article.---Mona- (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you an Anglo-phile who dislikes telling the truth about what the Brits did to 1 million Irish? I can't understand your objection, and you haven't given one.---Mona- (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Because it's a tangent of a tangent at that point, and not one anyone was seriously questioning. The explanation is tangential even if true - it does not enlighten about Stalin in any manner. You also splattered it over several other places - David Gerard (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I put it in TWO articles where the Irish Famine was mentioned vis-a-vis Stalin. Excuse me, but that famine is not "tangential" when it is being contrasted with Stalin's atrocities. The British killed 1 million fucking people, and caused 1 million more to flee. It is not an issue properly relegated to a ping pong ball in politics about Stalinism. And moreover, I put the explanation in a reference note. There is no reasonable reason for it not to remain. Finally, someone had inserted a link to the lunatic, fascist David Horowitz Discoverthenetwork. I assumed you'd have a fit if the claim had no reference, so I found the Ronald Radosh one instead. PJMedia is better than the cesspool that is Discoverthe network, but I agree no reference at all is better than either. I was trying to effect a compromise, and would hope for the same from you on issues I feel strongly about.---Mona- (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
It's literally called a "genocide" right there in the article as something comparable to the Holodomor (and a link to the Wikipedia article should anyone doubt it). This is hardly downplaying it. Your additional ref and comment add nothing. Adding this ref appears to be a furious riposte in an argument with someone who isn't me. If you don't want to just be gilding the lily, add something relevant to it that's actually about Stalin - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm with you on this one, David. Wandering off into Irish potato land in a Stalin article that is really way too short as it stands now almost looked like whataboutism in an attempted defense of the man. Mustering a vaguely defined concept of economics - however shitty - to balance out the signed-order actions of a crazy dictator? I'm not even saying that that is even close to what Mona was adding, but my hunch from admittedly, just glossing it over was that this appeared to be contextually wandering way off from Stalin, who - just for the record - was a baboon's ass. So certainly we need sources that are way, way closer to Stalin to start mixing in Ireland in any coherent sense of the word. *shrugs* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I note also that the exciting new reference was ... some random Salon popularisation. Really, is this the best you can do? You want to go off on a tangent and do so crappily? AT LEAST FIND SOMETHING THAT ADDS SOME STALIN. Y'KNOW, THE TOPIC OF THE ARTICLE - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I am sleepy and there are kids running around the house screaming (late Thanksgiving), so I lazily slapped some stuff onto Mona's talk page. Here it is: Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 23:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The point is that it's senseless to claim Holodomor wasn't a genocide while also claiming the potato famine was a genocide (I think that's what it's going for, anyways). Maybe you'd be better off with a "this event was similar" footnote that flows with the article instead of awkwardly jamming itself in. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 22:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Or, rather, the... didn't happen... not Stalin's fault... blarg, I can't think correctly at the moment. Too many noisy kids. Piece the words together yourself. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 23:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

There. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 23:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's a simple bulleted list of putative genocides: Potato famine? Yup. Bengal famine? Yup. Holodomor? HELL no, lies lies lies... gets the message across just fine, in a style to which RW has been accustomed since it all began. I don't see the footnote doing any particular harm. MaillardFillmore (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, it's a mere footnote, and David got it entirely WRONG. The author of the book clearly decides against calling it a genocide, which supports the article. But since David has objection to a Salon book review, I changed the reference to the NYT review.---Mona- (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

− David, can you read? The Salon piece is a book review, about this book. The book, as well as the review, literally says the opposite of this that you wrote: "It's literally called a 'genocide' right there in the article." No, the article says the author of the book DOES NOT consider it a genocide, and I also said I did not either. And Rev, the day I defend Josef fucking Stalin is the day you should lock me in an asylum, for my personality will have utterly disintegrated. No, this is solely about the Irish Famine, and I see no reason what why a mere footnote cannot point out that Stalinist whataboutery notwithstanding, the Great Irish Famine was a monstrous event. The author, John Kelly, agrees it WAS NOT GENOCIDE.

Now, if the issue is a book review from Salon, then fine. The NYT reviewed the same book. I've changed the reference to THAT review.---Mona- (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona the tankie. This is getting better and better.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your very relevant and useful addition to this discussion Arisboch. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@Paravant. Arisboch knows I'm not a tankie. And I know Arisboch knows I know he knows I am not a tankie. And we all know why he's annoyed with me and that it has nothing to do with Stalin or the Great Irish Famine.---Mona- (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
With pleasure :P --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@Mona "And Rev, the day I defend Josef fucking Stalin is the day you should lock me in an asylum, for my personality will have utterly disintegrated." Passion appreciated! The same goes for me. Though, in fact; the same goes for anyone who an apologetic of motherfucking STALIN :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Roland Boer[edit]

I ran across this wonderful Marxist intellectual when I read his curious defense of the failed Soviet Union and its satellites. I found this particularly delightful excerpt towards the end:

I rely upon the insight of Cockshott and Cottrell. Refusing the facile dismissals by many on the Left in order to distance themselves from Stalin, they argue that the full implementation of a communist economic system happened under Stalin...They do not shy away from the conclusion that [Soviet policies were] largely what Marx anticipated, with one caveat: it took place under a form of authoritarian communism. I would add that such a phase is necessary for any effort to construct communism. Genuine revolutionary fervour characterized much of the effort, but for those less inclined to engage, forced labour, exile, and ‘terror’ were deployed. Stalin embodied the sheer grit of the revolutionary ‘miracle’ required to adopt such a radically new economic system.

Looking through his blog, aptly named Stalin's Moustache, you can find similar ideas, such as these ones:

A socialist state must deal with counter-revolutionary forces within and especially international efforts to undermine it (the two are often connected). Whenever a socialist revolution happens, we do not find international capitalist countries saying, ‘Wonderful! Go ahead, construct your socialist country. We will leave you in peace; indeed, we are enthusiastic bystanders’. Instead, historical reality reveals consistent efforts to undermine and overthrow socialist states, including the fostering of counter-revolutionary forces within. We need only recall the ‘civil’ wars in Russia and China, the international blockades, sabotage, efforts at destabilisation in Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong, and the international pastime – found even among international Marxists – of ‘China bashing’.

The communist party is integral to a socialist state. This is a relationship of transcendence and immanence: the party arises from and expresses the will of the masses of workers, farmers and intellectuals, while it also directs the masses. From the masses, to the masses – as Mao Zedong stated. If the relationship is broken, the party loses its legitimacy and the project is over. Thus, the party undergoes constant renewal and reform in order to maintain legitimacy. If a communist party accedes to a bourgeois or liberal democratic system, it is soon out of power, for bourgeois democracy is one of the most effective weapons against socialism.

...Indeed, socialist civil society is based on a redefinition of freedom, which provides a new universal based on the particularity of the majority, in an explicitly open way. This freedom is a freedom from bourgeois civil society and freedom for the socialist project. Eventually, the category of freedom itself will become an everyday habit.

The guy works and teaches Marxism is China, and obviously favors Chinese authoritarianism, but he also feels that the People's Republic of China can literally do no wrong:

[Regarding Internet Freedom] If one understands Chinese and lives in China, he or she will find diversified topics on Chinese websites and heated online discussion. As a political stage that welcomes overseas media, the ongoing annual sessions of the country’s national legislature and political advisory body have also drawn a huge amount opinions and suggestions from Internet users.

As a sovereignty, China doesn’t allow the Internet to be outside the law. Overseas Internet companies are only permitted to enter the Chinese market if they obey Chinese laws. The Chinese government has tightened management on illegal remarks posted on the Internet and it won’t tolerate the West using the Internet to set agendas to interfere in China’s economic and social development.

Many countries have laws to manage the Internet and China will improve its network management.

...[Regarding the South China Sea disputes] Islands in the South China Sea were first discovered, named and used by the Chinese, and China was the first and continues to exercise sovereignty over these islands.

As a matter of fact, peace, security and stability are the common wishes for all countries in the region. China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are actively and steadily pushing forward consultations on a code of conduct in the South China Sea under the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.

Since the United States presented its Asia-Pacific rebalance strategy, the region that had been generally peaceful for many years has fallen into tumult. U.S. aircraft and ships have perennially conducted surveillance on countries in the region with increasing frequency, escalating regional tension. This is the greatest danger for “militarization” in the South China Sea.

China has never held back freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. Ironically, the United States urged China to obey the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the United States itself is unwilling to accede into.

The blog also contains plenty of Mao Zedong apologetics, often mixed with Stalin apologetics. A good example:

Never one to shy away from turning a statement on its head, or rather, feet, Mao points out that the brain-washing is actually a very good thing. [Boer goes on to quote Mao saying exactly that]

So, we've learned that:

  • Stalin and Mao were actually really good guys
  • Forced labor, censorship, etc, is necessary for the revolution to succeed
  • China can do no wrong, it's all the West's fault
  • Brainwashing is ok, because people have accepted the evil capitalist lies and this must be fixed.
  • "Freedom" doesn't mean individual freedom, it means the freedom to be a socialist

Wonderful. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Well, Stalin and Mao were no angels, but they weren't devils either. Though this might just be my moral relativism talking, I'm hesitant to peg them as outright evil.
  • Depends on the revolution, forced labor and censorship may be necessary as short-term strategies to defeat counterrevolution, although that doesn't mean they are somehow desirable.
A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough? —Friedrich Engels, On Authority
  • Well, China did embrace capitalism. How much blame can be laid on external capitalist pressure is a different question.
  • References to communist "brainwashing" or "indoctrination" are usually done half-satirically, but they also serve to call attention to the subtle liberal conditioning that happens in society.
  • Unless they are explicitly making a distinction between the liberal conception of freedom vs the socialist conception of freedom, freedom of the individual is usually tied with the freedom of socialism (as individualist anarchists will tell you).
Based on the excerpts you've quoted here, I would say this Roland Boer character does not seem to be an altogether reliable source. Withoutaname (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Stalin certainly achieved a lot in terms of both industrialisation and war. But some of his actions clearly betrayed a disinterest in human life where there were higher goals to be fought for, such as during World War 2. And some of his actions went way beyond any kind of rationality to the behaviour of someone with serious mental problems who is killing imaginary enemies, ranging from the 1936/7 show trials to the Doctors' plotWikipedia's W.svg. Whether you call him evil or mad is probably unhelpful, and maybe all leaders go in that direction after a few years. But it's impossible to argue he behaved either morally (by any concept of morality except maybe Max Stirner's) or rationally.
I don't know as much about Mao; Mao's China seemed to become locked in a self-destructive logic of self-criticism and the pursuit of imaginary enemies, but it was less obviously based in well-known forms of irrationality such as antisemitism. That said, Mao did face serious threats through the 1950s and 60s, as much from the USSR as the west, while the Soviet Union was probably in a more secure position (especially after World War 2). Annquin (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Also he was a jawdropping incompetent at actually running a country once he'd won it, in a way Stalin really wasn't - David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Another reference[edit] Keter (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)