Gulag death rate was much much lower under socialism than under feudalism

I recommend, the Stalinist cliché that I am, Grover Furr’s work. Notably Khruschev Lied, where many of the popular myths proliferated about Stalin are systematically debunked.

I would recommend, above Furr even, Ludo Martens’ Another View of Stalin alongside Domenico Losurdo’s Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend. Both well-sourced critiques of Stalin and the USSR he helped lead that deliver a balanced, humanizing view.

From my own perspective, I would firstly feel inclined to address what I see as your hypocricy in calling for a balanced, non-Great Manish view, while still placing the blame for systemic failures that resulted from the actions of many squarely onto Stalin.

He was, of course, a man. A great man, in my view - I believe it is possible at once to admire an individual without lionizing them beyond historical recognition - but still just a man. I recommend the works for more balanced histories.

But turning him into a flawless genius of socialism …

Nobody is doing that. You’re setting up a straw person. How many times do people have to say ‘“critical” support’?But take away the loaded adjective and I admit the majority of us here agree that Stalin was a genius of socialism. Including me. Because it’s true. But only because he worked within a socialist structure, supported by other geniuses and the working class in general. How many times do Marxists have to say they reject the great man of history thesis?

… and barking at any attempt to mention any flaws in his policies doesn’t promote a healthy discussion and turns otherwise reasonable left movement into a self-contained cult.

Again, we have criticisms. But it’s impossible to talk about them in healthy discussion with liberals, fascists, anarchists, Trotskyists, and ultras, to name a few. Because they refuse to talk on good faith.

All they do is repeat ad nauseum tired old tropes about gulags and authoritarianism. Never do they explain these terms or concepts. Never do they bother to understand the facts. They fall for CIA and fascist propaganda like a drunkard falls to the pavement. Believing literal fairy tales (Orwell) literary experiments (Solzhenitsyn), contemporary shit stirring from arch enemies (Trotsky), revisionist and opportunist lies (Kruschev), and propaganda (almost every other source of ‘research’).

Your comment proves the point. You’re pretending to be reasonable while twisting what we’re saying and refusing to engage in the facts. Then you’re using our response to that to claim that we’re being unreasonable! Can you see why we challenge people who do that?

If there’s a cult, it’s the anti-Stalinist one. And I’ll finish by observing that millions and millions of people outside the west praise Stalin. It’s mainly brainwashed westerners who can’t summon the intellectual willpower to care or work out why.

As your comment is more recent than mine, above, you probably read mine first and chose to ignore it. So here it is again, with added emphasis:

We appreciate good faith questions and engagement at Lemmygrad. If that is why you are here, welcome; we do not want to put you off. However, your question/post/comment includes problematic claims/statements that are not conducive to good faith discussion.

(And yet, here we are, the personality cult of Stalin patiently providing sources and explaining the misunderstanding, trying to engage in good faith…)

The problem might be: anti-communism, historical inaccuracy, revisionism, reactionary talking points, bigotry, liberal propaganda, a loaded question, assuming that we will all agree about what you might think are uncontroversial facts, or something else. If you re-word your question we can have a more productive conversation.