So, over the past year I have learnt so much about the amazing achievements these men (and the party they were the leaders of) did that I was never taught. I’ve ‘semi-intentionally’ deprogrammed myself of so much anti-communism bullshit while having to live with that most still in the West, based upon misinformation, view them as ‘evil, 100 quintillion deaths, dictator, psychopath where muh freedoms’.
The reason I am focusing on Stalin and Mao in particular in this post is, to be very open, due to a truth-seeking hyperfixation that I must satisfy so I can move on to the next topic of intense, dopamine chasing, obsession. Yeah I love being me. Anyway, propaganda, mythologising, exaggerating and misattributed blame brushed aside, what is left?
I am quite knowledgeable of, thanks to some high quality M-L documentaries, educational videos and podcast episodes, the more obvious wrongdoings such as the Great Leap Forward killing of pests worsening the famine, purges of comrades who were legitimately innocent, re-criminalising homosexuality, support of Khmer Rouge and ethnic deportations to name a few.
I wouldn’t mind hearing more obscure examples, or a deeper analysis of the mistakes and unjustifiable actions I am already aware of. And as much as a few good book recommendations probably would give me the answers I crave, I am lowkey illiterate with long-form reading thanks to my ADHD (still waiting on meds after being diagnosed 8 months ago).
Stalin recriminalizing homosexuality isn’t a justifiable act regardless of the rationale or context behind it.
The forced migrations are also indisputably bad and were clearly motivated by paranoia about the loyalty of ethnic minorities with little supporting evidence. It definitely wasn’t fair that the relocations persisted long after the war was over.
And of course supporting Israel. No excuse for that one; Stalin should’ve known better. Him walking it back later doesn’t make up for this blunder.
For Mao the biggest thing was the Sino-Soviet Split and especially the reproach with the USA. Khrushchev played a part, yes, but Mao didn’t help with this.
Mao also backed the Khmer Rouge alongside the U.S. and while he was dead by the time of the Sino-Vietnamese War and the Soviet-Afghan War he was indirectly complicit for China’s role in both via the Sino-Soviet Split and warming relations with the West.
That’s all I can say with confidence as those are the ones I’m most literate on.
I don’t think it works that way actually.
Cambridge dictionary says this: “If something is justifiable, there is a good reason for it: Her actions were quite justifiable in the circumstances.”
Specifically the rationale and context is exactly the thing that justifies it. Justifiable does not mean “follows truth”
Made up example: Someone accidentally goes into my house because we just so happened to have keys that fit into each other’s door (this part actually happened to me IRL). He just came from a fun night of shooting water pistols with his friends. I, due to the noise and recent violent robberies in the area, wake up and keep my gun on me. He sees me in the dark, i see him in the dark too, he yells and in panic uses his water pistol on me, i yell in panic and use my actual gun on him.
I am justified, despite me being wrong.
I need a source on that. Years of the same exact comment and i have yet to see any source of any paranoia or racism being involved in those decisions.
I cannot argue against it, but nobody was ever able to convince me that the USSR simply did one random abject racism because i never see a source😭
imagine being a communist and still taking the debate bro approach of defining words and reapplying them to this context when nobody used it in that way + the random very unlikely example that adds nothing to the argument
Damn alright didn’t expect a random callout like that…
But, like, tell me how defining a word and using it with that definition in mind is a debate bro approach? Isn’t that just…language? Good communication?
I am trying to stay in good faith here tbh.
It is simply a completely different thought process. The way “justifiable” is used in this thread is “no wrongs at all and everything is fine and dandy maybe some minor criticisms” so of course the deportations are not justifiable, end of story, fuck stalin.
They specifically mentioned that context and rationale play no part, which is asinine since those are specifically part of the definition of “justifiable” -hence me commenting on it- and even more asinine is you coming in here and questioning my ideological purity because i dared to define a word and gave a funny and made up example off the top of my head.
If you don’t think that context and rationale matter then you have no place here or in any other leftist space except Hasan’s chat.
Edit: i also do not call myself a communist. I agree with the ideology, especially ML, but my mental health blunts empathy and other feelings, so i do not have any revolutionary fire in me and do not organize at all because that would just drive me into suicide even faster. As long as that is the case, i can not be counted on and i am no comrade
you say you agree with marxist leninism but youre not a communist because you dont have enough empathy then for some reason bring up hasan piker as if even he wouldnt call you a dildo?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Calm down please, I did not make this post for heated exchanges like these to happen. “Disgusting ableist fuck” is an egregious insult to make here all things considered.
Wishing you all the best in dealing with your issues, happy to hear you donate and assist people in need, keep that up. However this is a political post regarding Marxist-Leninist leaders and if you’re going to make such politically inaccurate comments, and not use Marxism at all to make that political analysis, this is somewhat of a predictable outcome.
blud you just said you’re not a communist but agree with marxist leninism so idk what to tell u. and who r u to dictate if the discussion is over or not lol its a comment section
deleted by creator
The only one who mentioned morality is you.
deleted by creator
No, you aren’t, because that’s not what I was doing. That was the point of my reply: you are the only one bringing up morality. I did no such thing. I didn’t say any of my objections were based in morality; that was an assumption you made.
deleted by creator
None of that is inherently moralizing language.
A justification is a rationalization; a reasoning for doing something.
“Bad” can be a description of quality. A bad policy can be an ineffectual or counter-productive one, not simply one which is morally wrong.
An excuse is just a flimsy justification for something that failed. No moral quantifying is necessary when using this word.
“Know better”, like bad, does not automatically infer morality.
To repeat myself: I did not make any moral assessments. You assumed I did and are doubling down because you don’t seem to understand how these words are used.
Is English your first language?
deleted by creator