Me and my girlfriend pretty often have heated but respectful political discussions and recently we were discussing Stalin. She thinks that he was awful, mainly because of repressions, cult of personality etc.
When I say that repressions were actually good and Stalin didn’t kill enough fuckers, she gets a little angry, but I can’t seem to explain my position in great detail because of lack of knowledge.
In the case of the cult of personality, I say that Stalin WAS loved by the majority of soviet citizens because he did a shit ton of good for them, but she still doesn’t quite get it.
What arguments would you suggest to use, or maybe something to read in order to deepen my knowledge on the topic?
Domenico Losurdo “Stalin: History and critique of a black legend” is the best book on the topic.
Early USSR was in a permanent state of emergency due to several factors like the backwardness it was found, devastated by war, foreign powers invaded, counterrevolution threats, and the rise of fascism in the west.
Losurdo builds on this foundation for his defense of Stalin, compares his policies to those of the “free” west (these would be called whataboutism by liberals) and, what makes his book special, it exclusively uses anti-communist sources to contradict these narratives.
In the book you will find even quotes of Hitler struggling to comprehend how these primitive people managed to develop, Goebbels accepting that they underestimated their material development, Goebbels enjoying using trotsky to cause unrest, different western leaders praising Stalin prowess, etc…
It’s always an uphill battle because people are way too conquered ideologically, but what i always point out is that the USSR under his leadership defeated Nazi Germany and that is something they cannot take away from him.
Would these western leftists have praised Stalin if he didn’t push for rapid industrialization and forced collectivization, and ultimately lead to the USSR being enslaved by Nazi Germany?
and that is something they cannot take away from him.
I tried pointing that out to a family member and guess what - they did just take it away from Stalin by repeating the same tired bullshit that the USSR wouldn’t have lasted without western help and so it was the western allies that really beat the nazis. Which is factually wrong and implies Soviet lives were worthless (could US guns shoot on their own?), but that’s what you get when arguing with racists
But even for less reactionary people, defending Stalin is the final boss of deprogramming them
My suggestion is to not get into extremely pointless historical relitigations with your partner over Stalin. Even if you knew what you were talking about, it would be a shame to tank your relationship over something that doesn’t materially matter to either of you. As it is, you’re repeating profoundly edgy memes to a comparatively normal person and then acting like it’s their problem they are put off by it.
“Stalin didn’t kill enough fuckers” is true, but mainly when you understand “fuckers” to mean “reactionaries imperiling the ML project” rather than just “people.” There were many people, most notably during the “Great Purge,” who were killed by the government and emphatically did not deserve it (“But it was Yezhov’s fault!” true or not, you’d need to establish Ezovchina lore first.)
Someone else will probably handle the other aspects, but if no one does you can ping me
Use statistics about life expectancy, literacy, and economic development.
Here is some reading material:
When I say that repressions were actually good and Stalin didn’t kill enough fuckers, she gets a little angry
Most of the time you’re not going to reach someone with shock value statements, even if they’re true. We all have to learn to be a bit more diplomatic about this if we want to convince people rather than just drawing a line in the sand and saying “this is where i stand, and if you’re not with me, you’re against me”. That only reinforces divisions and isolates you rather than win people over to your side.
In general there is no one-size-fits-all approach and you have to adapt the way you go about convincing people depending on the personality but also the level of (mis-)education of your interlocutor. Some people respond better to certain approaches than others. Some may need a lighter touch, others more hand-holding.
In some cases they may need to first form a basic foundation of historical knowledge and at least a rudimentary materialist understanding of how the world works, while another person may be already more advanced and only need an extra push. Others may simply need you to make a connection with them and see that you understand their conditions before they are prepared to take in what you have to say.
Perhaps in this case you may want to try a more dry and dispassionate approach of just presenting facts without overly ideological language or value statements. You want to guide the conversation but allow people space to draw their own conclusions, to feel like you didn’t push your viewpoint onto them but that they independently arrived there.
And maybe, in some cases, certain arguments are not really that important to have at this time. Is it really that essential that everyone have the same view of Stalin that we do? What exactly are we really trying to achieve? Shouldn’t we focus on things that really matter for the most immediate struggles first? And then later when they are more advanced and interested in diving deeper into theory and history we can have those discussions.
No no, don’t get me wrong, I totally get it. While I think that the statement is true, it’s not the only way I tried to explain my position. Like I said, we are having respectful discussions with one another and I try to not be overly emotional. It’s very important to find a nicer footing in the dialogue in order to convey your thoughts more clearly.
I would suggest that if they are really interested in the subject they should start by reading some of the literature that the other comments have recommended. That’s quite a significant time investment though and not everyone will be interested in doing that. But there’s no magic phrase that you can say that will cause someone to immediately unlearn all the miseducation on this subject that they have been exposed to throughout their life.
The next best thing maybe is to just get people to start asking questions. Where does this narrative about Stalin come from and how can you trust a narrative that comes from the very interests that stand to benefit the most from discrediting communism and its leaders? And what are the people on the other side of this issue saying, how did people at the time who had a different view of Stalin than that which is now taught in the West feel? Isn’t it important to hear both sides out?
But there’s also a question that you should ask yourself, and that is: is this really that important of a battle to be fighting right now and why? What exactly is it about this debate that makes it relevant to our struggles today and is this the best use of your time? For me this was always a fascinating subject because i was always interested in history. But for someone else maybe you need to find other things that appeal to them in order to have them learn about communism.
here’s a couple great interviews of Stalin to start with, one with Emil Ludwig and one with H.G. Wells
