chat

You'll still see this comment, you just won't see these comms show up.

The thing is, we can't separate Stalin from the USSR's successes. We can either look at the USSR (and Stalin by extension) honestly, for the good and the bad, or we can just say Stalin and the USSR were bad. Looking at Stalin's achievements, he was actually right a broad majority of the time despite existing in the most chaotic and dangerous period of soviet history. He was often socially reactionary, but at the same time he played a large (but not all-encompassing) role in the dramatic improvements the working class saw in the soviet union.

To quote Nia Frome:

The thing is, delinking socialism from Stalin also means delinking it from the Soviet Union, disavowing everything that’s been done under the name of socialism as “Stalinist.” The “socialism” that results from this procedure is defined as grassroots, bottom-up, democratic, non-bureaucratic, nonviolent, non-hierarchical… in other words, perfect. So whenever real revolutionaries (say, for example, the Naxals in India) do things imperfectly they are cast out of “socialism” and labeled “Stalinists.” This is clearly an example of respectability politics run amok. Tankies believe that this failure of solidarity, along with the utopian ideas that the revolution can win without any kind of serious conflict or without party discipline, are more significant problems for the left than is “authoritarianism” (see Engels for more on this last point). We believe that understanding the problems faced by Stalin and Mao helps us understand problems generic to socialism, that any successful socialism will have to face sooner or later. This is much more instructive and useful than just painting nicer and nicer pictures of socialism while the world gets worse and worse.