From the book “Stalin” the seminal work of Historian Domenico Losurdo

  • BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    116
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It is incontestable that Stalin raised the standard of living. The Russian people don’t go hungry.

    If you showed a lib this quote without context they’d cry “tankie”

    Your average lib’s view of Stalin is to the right of Hitler’s

      • BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        78
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Unlike modern libs, Hitler had to engage in the material reality of Russia on some level because he was fighting a war against it, rather than just going off of vibes and half-remembered Red Scare propaganda

      • Sephitard9001 [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly like the classic fallacy they love to use:

        Lib cites public CIA talking point as proof we need to bomb X country. You say, “The CIA lies about this stuff all the time, here’s an internal CIA memo where they discuss lying and controlling the media to generate fervor and consent for killing these other people” The lib says, “Aha, so the CIA isn’t a trustworthy source but you’re citing them here”

        This way they can A. Dismiss criticism against CIA B. Maintain that the CIA is a trustworthy source. C. Prevent you from citing the CIA despite them supposedly believing it is trustworthy (when it says stuff they like).

        • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          A lot of people just sort sources into either either implicitly trustworthy or implicitly untrustworthy, which is extremely not how you’re supposed to treat sources.

    • Gosplan14_the_Third [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s also a difference between state actors being aware of the material conditions and talking among each other vs people being fed propaganda from the same people that has an ideological goal who often do not investigate.

  • SimulatedLiberalism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I will remind you that the USSR restored its economy to pre-war standards in just 5 years, after losing 27 million people and incalculable cost of destruction, while keeping pensions and social safety nets intact, without relying on foreign aid and investments like the Marshall Plan, and without degrading workers’ rights and wages.

    There is not a single country in the history of humanity that can even remotely approach this level of economic and social achievements. None.

    • CTHlurker [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Didn’t the Soviets sort of cannibalize most of the german industry within the Soviet Occupation Area, prior to that area being turned into the DDR? Or was the relocation of eastern german industry a later thing?

      • Gosplan14_the_Third [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        1 year ago

        Eastern German industry was:

        1. Concentrated in Saxony, Thüringen and Berlin, and mostly composed of ore mining.

        2. Not untouched by WW2.

        3. Subject to Capital flight in the earliest years of existence from frightened capitalists relocating to the west

      • SimulatedLiberalism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Not sure I get what you mean. The Soviet industrial capacity already far surpassed the German industry even before the end of the war. This was why the Soviets won, not the Germans. The Germans already ran into severe supplying issues for their military equipment after 1942, the Soviets never really faced this problem as they had a solid industrial base that was already in full swing before the Nazi invasion, and rapidly expanded during the war.

        They did however gain access to some high tech instruments (for example, German-built gyroscopes for V2 rockets which was far ahead of anything the Soviets had at the time), but much of the critical high tech military industries had been destroyed during the retreat to prevent them from falling into the Soviet hands. The entire leadership and high ranking scientists of the V2 rocket project, for example, surrendered to the Americans.

        • CTHlurker [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          See @[email protected] comment above for a more precise description. The Soviets relocated / took some industrial plants partly as reparations and partly in case of allied invasion prior to the development of their own nuclear bomb.

      • Mardoniush [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, there was both immediate extraction of the industrial capacity of what was largely already a poorer area (both as reparations and because they weren’t sure the allies would stop at the Elbe), and then afterwards the DDR sent a lot of resources to the USSR as well (because the USSR required massive military resources for collective defence that could compete with the west). One of the reasons it didn’t quite keep up with the GDR’s development (the other was that the USA absolutely poured resources into West Germany to make it an anti-communist showpiece.)

        But actually the Soviets ended up putting quite a few factories back after the war. The famine of 1946 affected Germany even harder than the USSR and the occupation government realised that they needed to rebuild the economy for the long haul and that the eastern bloc could take advantage of a relatively highly educated populace

    • ddkman@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes, this is an awful thing phased as a good one. “The standard of living in russia in 1950 was so incredibly low, that not even an entire world war made all that much of a difference in the standard of livng.”

      • SimulatedLiberalism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        ·
        1 year ago

        Incredibly low compared to whom? The US that had a couple hundred years of head start from exploiting black slaves (where do you think all the wealth in the American South came from) and looting resources from overseas colonies?

        The fact that the USSR was able to close the gap in such a short period of time was exactly the reason of widespread anti-communist propaganda, the meddling of political affairs in post-war Europe including arming fascists through Gladio to destroy the European left, and ironically, financial aid to rebuild Western Europe because they were really afraid of workers uprisings bringing post-war Europe towards the Soviet sphere.

        • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          The US that had a couple hundred years of head start

          tsarist russia wasn’t a barren patch of dirt, they’d also collected a bunch of capital from imperialism, it was certainly behind the US or germany in the 1890s but not so severely as to constitute ‘hundreds of years’ of development. the bolsheviks actually in large part came from and used a genuine industrial proletariat, in contrast to China which had to have a much higher reliance on the peasantry. let’s not muddle our narratives of communist development here

          • SimulatedLiberalism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            27
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The Russian Civil War from 1917-1922 created massive destruction with millions of casualties, together with great famines that were partially caused by petty bourgeoisie destroying their stock. The bourgeoisie would rather burn down the country rather than having the communists have them. That was why Lenin had to introduce NEP because supplies and goods were in such shortage that they could barely get their economy going.

            Stalin said in 1931:

            We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall be crushed.

            Socialist industrialization was what saved the world from Nazism.

            • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              that Stalin quote is a perfect support for what i said, thanks!

              i’m urging against exaggeration, i’m not ignorant of the civil war & challenges of industrialization

        • ddkman@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah have you ever lived in the USSR? Have you ever been to a post soviet country? Yeah…

          • Omegamint [comrade/them, doe/deer]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            65
            ·
            1 year ago

            The USSR took a backwater state that was still stuck in feudalism (meaning fucking serfdom) and within a single human generation sent the first person into space. They started from a way worse state than the west and made incredible achievements. They did this without the help of first world powers, and were even hindered by constant economic warfare to boot.

            Yeah, you can visit ex Soviet states and see the degradation. Most of their failing infrastructure was built under Soviet planning and has since gone to rot. Economic liberalization has brought nothing to the table, and has obviously failed utterly at whatever promises we’re made initially.

            None of what I’m saying is even debatable. The economic truths of the USSR are easily learned. YOU are a western chauvinist dipshit who looks at the achievements of actual socialism and without a single bit of historical material understanding spouts some ignorant bullshit. I’ll be clear: save your breath to instead talk about whatever authoritarian atrocities were supposedly dealt out. When you talk about the economic failures of the USSR you are treading on ahistorical bullshit that has no real ground.

          • SuperNovaCouchGuy2 [any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            48
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes I do wish I lived in the USSR at it’s prime. gigachad

            Also it’s a bit rich to use the “muh post soviet poverty shit hole” line when it was the wests neoliberal economic shock doctrine that caused such a tragedy in the first place.

          • SimulatedLiberalism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            46
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You said the standards of living in the USSR in 1950 was “incredibly low”, have you ever lived in former British and French colonies in Asia?

            Many countries in Asia still haven’t yet achieved independence by 1950, and I can assure you that the standards of living in the USSR was already leaps and bounds beyond most of the world at the time, and comparable to post-war Western Europe and would have easily surpassed them if Western Europe never had the luxury of receiving the vast amount of financial aid from their American masters through the Marshall Plan.

            • ddkman@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes because this is how geopolitics work. The USSR basically entirely in Europe. The living standards should be comparable to what europe was like. And not what africa was like. Or Mars.

                • ddkman@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Like honestly, I won’t comment on any of this anymore. But where are you guys from? Because you are either Russian, and sucking the dicks of a failed dictator, or you are from several continents away, with no context to any of this, and then you just are a bunch of useful idiots to a failed dictator. Answer this one honestly. Either to me or to yourselves…

              • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                36
                ·
                1 year ago

                The living standards should be comparable to what europe was like. And not what africa was like. Or Mars.

                I don’t think geographic location is as significant as a country’s, you know, history. Just because they were in Europe doesn’t mean that they were starting out on equal footing. If you compare the state of Russia under the tsar to somewhere like Britain or France, then it’s clear that the Soviets were starting from a disadvantage. Moreover, they were under constant economic and military threats from most of the developed world. In spite of all of that, they were able to develop quickly enough to defeat the Nazis and become a global superpower.

          • AbbysMuscles [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you look for it, you can find a video of children offering themselves up as prostitutes in post-Soviet collapse Russia. Please really stop and think about what would force someone to have to do that. When we think of some generic image of an Eastern Bloc, post-Soviet shithole, whatever your mental picture is wasn’t created by that nation. You’re thinking of a post-collapse nation. We have our own in America called the Rust Belt. We don’t blame the existence of ford and general motors as causing the dilapidation of Detroit. Their departure and subsequent economic collapse destroyed that region. It’s a similar story writ large all over the former Second World.

            And sure, Soviet cars sucked. Fortunately most people didn’t need them.

      • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        Making shit up and hoping no one will notice huh? You really aren’t giving it your best

        The Soviet Union was the fastest industrializing state in the interwar period, come up with better propaganda

  • Tachanka [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    1 year ago

    just for the memes I’m also going to post Hitler despairing at Himmler doing archeology: Obviously I don’t agree with the idea that indigenous Germans during Roman times were somehow “primitive” for not putting a bunch of marble statues up or whatever because I’m not of the same reactionary persuasion as Adolf Fucking Hitler, but it is funny to see him crying about it:

  • cricbuzz [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m currently reading Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend and these quotes are both referenced there as well. So satisfying to see the malding of Hitler and Goebbels once they realize they are absolutely fucked.

    Interestingly, the British intelligence was way off too when it came to intelligence about the capabilities of the Soviets. Clearly nothing has changed as it sounds like today

    • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      1 year ago

      The aristocratic arrogance of British intelligence has always been its downfall, when paired against the bourgeois lawyers of the Napoleonic empire they at least could give as good as they got, but since then it’s been blunder after blunder with only the explosive strength of anglo capital saving them from total collapse

      • utopologist [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        48
        ·
        1 year ago

        Incredible book and should be essential reading. It’s not a biography, as I heard it described a few years ago, but an unrelentingly thorough historical analysis of Joseph Stalin, his role in the USSR, and the various criticisms of him that have entered common discourse to the point where people who don’t know anything about history know that “Hitler and Stalin” are history’s greatest monsters. Losurdo looks at how this came to be and deconstructs anti-communist narratives using sources that even the most ardent anti-communist can’t deny are valid (capitalist historians, Stalin’s enemies, etc). It’s an incredible piece of scholarship that, by the end, demonstrates just how deeply our understanding of historical events and figures have been shaped by the specific ideology of capitalist power

      • cricbuzz [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ll try to remember that, comrade! But @[email protected] really sums it up nicely so far!

        The general format so far has been to present an anti-Stalin trope as true, then do a surgical, thorough take-down of that trope. The initial example, which I hope I don’t spoil, is Khrushchev presenting to (I believe) the Communist party members behind closed doors. He presents a massive diatribe against Stalin and the “cult of personality” he claims surrounded Stalin and how it was completely unwarranted and Stalin was an ineffective military leader, political leader, etc. Then the author has been going essentially passage by passage refuting this “take-down” and highlighting Stalin’s profound leadership.

        Really opening up my eyes to Stalin as a leader and his views of the Communist project

          • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            The mass deportations were distinctly un-Marxist. I would say it’s the only valid criticism I’ve ever seen. Ironically, it’s not what libs obsess about. They’re always mad that he aggressively suppressed antisemitic right-wingers.

            • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The deportations weren’t all the same and I think there was a better case for the deportation of Germans from Poland, etc. even if it was still in error.

              By contrast, I think Stalin’s virulent homophobia and staunch opposition to any appeals for tolerance along Marxist lines is one of the most clear-cut cases of him being personally flat-out wrong.

              • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s fair, coming from a Marxist. I’m not interested in hearing it from a liberal that doesn’t have any understanding of why all kinds of prejudices thrive under capitalism.

      • Vncredleader@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also the Soviets had just trounced Japan at Khalkhin Gol. Even Churchill was frequently calling the British mindset stupid and outright lies.

  • WittyProfileName2 [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    pit “nooo you’re genetically inferior untermensch you can’t carry out greater engineering feats than our big brained aryans.”

    stalin-approval “haha rail go brrrr.”

  • Pseudoplatanus22 [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Reposting on old comment of mine with some more quotes, cos why not

    Edit: This is the article I go the quotes from. There are more good ones in there too, where Hitler is essentially forced to admit that Soviet central planning was more efficient than market economies lol


    I was reading through this article about German hubris whilst fighting the Soviets and modern day hubris when fighting the Russians the other day, and came across something interesting:

    October 17, 1941. Hitler speaking to Reich Minister Dr. Todt and Gauleiter Sauckel:

    “We shall have to settle down to the task of rebuilding the Russian track, to restore it to the normal gauge. There’s only one road that, throughout all these last months of campaigning, was of any use to the armies on the central front—and for that I’ll set up a monument to Stalin. Apart from that, he preferred to manufacture chains of mud rather than to build roads!..”

    Initially I thought he was talking metaphorically, but is he actually talking about train track gauges? Did the Wermacht move supplies by train?


    There’s a load of other funny bits in there too:

    Hitler, July 19, 1942:

    “Just when the difficulties of the eastern winter campaign in the East had reached their height, some imbecile pointed out that Napoleon, like ourselves, had started his Russian campaign on 22nd June. Thank God, I was able to counter that drive with the authoritative statement of historians of repute that Napoleon’s campaign did not, in fact, begin until 23rd June!”

    so-true Nice one Hitler, you really showed that guy

    Hitler, August 26, 1942:

    “If Stalin had been given another ten or fifteen years, Russia would have become the mightiest State in the world, and two or three centuries would have been required to bring about a change. It is a unique phenomenon! He has raised the standard of living—of that there is no doubt; no one in Russia goes hungry any more. They have built factories where a couple of years ago only unknown villages existed—and factories, mark you, as big as the Hermann Goring Works. They have built railways that are not yet even on our maps. In Germany we start quarrelling about fares before we start building the line !

    It’s as if markets are inefficient or something

    Hitler, August 28, 1942:

    “As regards the Russians, their powers of resistance are inimitable, as they proved in the Russo-Japanese War. This is no new characteristic which they have suddenly developed.”

    So much for that rotten structure then, lmfao

    • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Just when the difficulties of the eastern winter campaign in the East had reached their height, some imbecile pointed out that Napoleon, like ourselves, had started his Russian campaign on 22nd June. Thank God, I was able to counter that drive with the authoritative statement of historians of repute that Napoleon’s campaign did not, in fact, begin until 23rd June!”

      "This statement has been fact checked by Adolf Hitler and rated: pinocchio-evil pinocchio-evil pinocchio-evil pinocchio-evil pinocchio-evil "

    • Mardoniush [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The Soviets were very rail dependent and as other have mentioned had wide gauge. The extensive rail transport meant that roads were lower priority. By contrast, the Germans largely Horse-drawn logistics were reliant on roads, especially once they hit Soviet rail networks where their trains were inoperable (the Soviets were pretty good at preventing rail stock capture.) The soviets also used animals but more mules with saddlebags/sleds and not heavy carts.

    • GrouchyGrouse [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah the USSR had train tracks of a slightly different gauge as the tracks in Germany, wider if I am not mistaken. Lots of their Nazi equipment was shipped by the rails after the Wehrmacht engineers had refitted the tracks. For example: Tanks usually have a pretty short length of time you can reliably drive them before needing maintenance, which in the case of the overengineered German tanks, could sometimes mean an entire engine rebuild. It was simply practical to ship the tanks by rail until they were close to the front at which point they could be unloaded and driven the remaining distance.

      If you look up a lot of the early objectives of Operation Barbarossa they were often rail hubs. Not only were these important to capture for Nazi war ambitions - they also wanted to deprive the Soviets of key infrastructure that could be used to efficiently resupply the Red Army. The Red Army had a lot of trucks provided through Lend-Lease but aside from the rails they also used a lot of animal-driven wagons given the necessities of warfare. Better to ship supplies on the back of a mule than nothing at all when the roads turned to mud in the spring rain. The history of the logistics on the Eastern Front is mind boggling.

  • Llituro [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 year ago

    one of the most important aspects of the post-enlightenment technological development of capitalism in the imperial core is the manner in which they specifically destroy surplus. like other hierarchical and authoritarian societies, it is important that the surplus is still gathered, but it is even more important that the surplus is ritually destroyed. the surplus now is the labor of imperial core citizens, among other commodities. this labor is ritually destroyed for the vanity of the greatest of the capitalists. if it were instead turned towards the alleviation of socially induced suffering, such suffering could be done away with within the year.