/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.804723]

Howdy /lit/. Some of you may remember me(as you did in the last thread I made concerning the subject, suprisingly), as 'That guy with the Stalinist cousin'. Well, I didn't plan to bring that up here again, but this time, this is 100% /lit/ related, as I need some reccomendations. But before that:

For the past several weeks, I've been as tolerant of this as I possibly could, thinking that this whole ideology is just a phase he's going through. Well, today, he CROSSED. THE .FUCKING. LINE. BIG TIME(though that essay he wrote about how the Purges were a good thing despite their flaws certainly pushed it). Earlier today, he officially stated that the Soviets were not responsible for the Katyn Forest Massacre, and that the notion that they were was simply the result of Nazi(whom he claims are the 'real' perpetrators of the tragedy),propaganda. Now, I happen to be Polish(he's part Polish as well, but also Italian). This is perhaps one the the most personally offensive things I have ever heard in my life, and rest assured, my blood is boiling.

Here's where you come in, /lit/. I want to educate my cousin so that he realizes how ludicrous he's being. The problem is, most of my knowledge of WWII and the Soviet Union comes from what he'd deem 'bourgeois lies and propaganda'. So I was wondering, could you guys recommend some history books that are sufficently objective on the subject of the Soviet Union, Stalin, and the like? It'd be an invaluable asset for me.

[Anonymous No.804739]

If he will listen to any kind of reason, give him Hope Against Hope by Nadehzhda Mandelstam

or try to turn him on to the Trots, or the MTWists, I mean, come on, fucking Stalinism, shouldn't be that hard

[Anonymous No.804745]

>>804739
>or try to turn him on to the Trots

He hates the Trots. He considers them 'revisionists'.

[Anonymous No.804760]

>>804745
Oh my god a legit, straight-on Stalinist in this day and age. Oh my word.

I guess you just have to hope he grows out of it... I don't know what to do about such an outright rejection of reality.

[Anonymous No.804763]

>>804723
>he officially stated that the Soviets were not responsible for the Katyn Forest Massacre

There are defences of Stalinism possible. None are possible on lies about history. Katyn happened, as a result of Soviet Government choices. You can agree that the choices were correct historically for the government, or for the workers movement, but you cannot deny that the Soviet Government caused Katyn to happen.

Oh yeah, and you do really want to get him out of Stalinism and into left trotskyism or council communism or class war anarchism.

Suggest that he reads detailed studies on the condition of the Soviet working class in the 1930s. The Soviet Union failed its own working class, and it failed the international working class.

Also I suggest Yogi and the Commissar, and The Gladiators.

[None !Z2TJL3ARmg No.804777]

this guy sounds like an idiot.

but you're never going to change his mind.

[Anonymous No.804779]

>>804777
Actual class struggle would change the stalinist's mind. Get him to join his fucking union and a social campaign.

[None !Z2TJL3ARmg No.804782]

>>804779
some people are bastards, and stalinists need bastards.


if he has no spine, scaring him shitless with stalinism in practice will work. But otherwise you'll most likely end up with an abusive and power-mongering idiot, which is what he sounds like anyways

[Anonymous No.804793]

Stalinism is an actual ideology? And not just institutionalized fascism, murder and slavery? Also paranoia?

[Anonymous No.804797]

>>804779
>Get him to join his fucking union and a social campaign.

He doesn't have a job.

>>804782
>an abusive and power-mongering idiot, which is what he sounds like anyways

Well, a big part of the reason I didn't take up arms against his beliefs sooner is because, outside of his ludicrous political beliefs, he's actually one of my favorite people; it's easy for me to get lost in friendly conversation with him for over an hour at times. So I want to assure everyone in this thread, aside from his ideology, he is not abusive, aggressive, or mean.

[Anonymous No.804800]

>>804793
You know, this is why people accuse Americans of being ignorant of leftist ideologies (and I am an American so don't go shitting on me)

I mean, yes, Stalinism as a system of government was all those things, and Stalinism as an ideology is pretty fucking stupid, but it definitely exists

[Anonymous No.804803]

>>804793

Well, to be fair, he doesn't call himself a 'Stalinst', and denies that such an ideology exists; instead, he calls himself a 'Marxist-Leninist'. That being said, he fits the description of a Stalinist perfectly, and has admitted to being 'Pro-Stalin'.

[Anonymous No.804806]

>>804793
>Stalinism is an actual ideology? And not just institutionalized fascism, murder and slavery? Also paranoia?

Read Milovan Djilas.

[Anonymous No.804805]

>>804803
Explain to him at least that you can be Marxist-Leninist while rejecting Stalin. In fact it's pretty easy.

[Anonymous No.804816]

>>804805
Uh... No. M-L ideology is Stalinism and Maoism. Neither rejects Stalin. Maoist M-Ls tend to be bigger into people's democracy though.

[None !Z2TJL3ARmg No.804832]

>>804797
>he is not abusive, aggressive, or mean.
Oh, well then he's just being a conceited tard. I used to do that all the time

he'll probably grow out of it the moment he gets anywhere near the ideology. And seriously, its_just_his_opinion_man

[Anonymous No.804833]

>>804816
>Uh... No. M-L ideology is Stalinism and Maoism.

I'll take this opportunity to say this: He had least had the decency to say that Mao's Cultural Revolution was a failure. He also said that while Mao had some good ideas, he was ultimately revisionist.

[Anonymous No.804835]

>>804797
If he's a true Stalinist, or a real communist, he ought to be in fucking work and organising his fellow workers for revolution.

I know I'm in a dead end job for party reasons.

[Anonymous No.804842]

>>804833
calling _MAO_ a revisionist...
...he's an under-read Stalinist.

You really have no hope with this guy. The best solution is:
Job
Trade Union
Social campaign (like anti-war, doesn't matter which)
And a lot of reading in open leftist reading groups. He can keep his opinion, but he needs to learn how to defend it from history and text against other leftists, intelligent ones.

There are shit loads of free marxist texts online, most of the core ones are. Get him to read Lenin and Marx in context. Sheila Rowbotham does a good history of the Soviet Union's early days.

[Anonymous No.804887]

>>804842
>calling _MAO_ a revisionist...
>...he's an under-read Stalinist.
Oh, he's certainly poorly informed when it comes to his political beliefs, and that was confirmed when he wrote, and I quote:

"While North Korea has made strides abolishing antagonistic social classes, it has not entirely evolved past capitalism."

[Anonymous No.804897]

>>804887
So he has no reaction to the bureaucratic caste or class running the soviet-style societies...

He needs to start taking political action and learning from working class experience directly.

[`-` No.805014]

>>804833
So he thinks that Mao was a revisionist for predicting that capitalism would be restored from within the party? lolwut

[Anonymous No.805035]

>>805014
Anti-revisionism == revisionism? Great work there unemployed Polish stalinist.

[Anonymous No.805060]

Okay folks, I responded to his essay about the Katyn Forest Massacre, claiming it to be bullshit, and that he was acting like the communist equivilent of a Neo-Nazi. Here's his response:

"The neo-Nazis of the USSR are the National Bolsheviks. I am merely a Marxist-Leninist and acknowledge the mistakes of Stalin, but defends him from lies. Stalin himself was critical of his own fatal errors, and you won't find a Marxist-Leninist who defends Stalin without some form of criticism. Why do you still assume it is "bullshit?" I have a note that explains many of the "sources" for supposed "Stalinist tyranny," particularly in regards to the Ukrainian genocide-famine myth, in which it was the Nazis who spread the accusations inherently in order to distract from and justify their own occupation of Ukraine. Remember further that Stalin warned against many of the issues facing the Polish and yet the Red Army went against his decisions.

In regards to Gorbachev, he gave Jaruzelski documents that merely "indirectly but convincingly" proved Soviets killed Poles. I don't think one should trust the words of Gorbachev when his ambition was to "liquidate communism;" of course there was bias and a sense of historical inaccuracy. Furthermore, many documents used as "proof" by the post-Stalin government have numerous irregularities leading one to believe forgery was used. These documents were claimed in a time when the Soviet Union was ready to give up on international relations. When Polish delegations visited Gorbachev in 1990, they pressured him into letting him know they would not leave until they were provided with an explanation for Katyn they found satisfactory.

Continued in the next post.

[Anonymous No.805067]

>>805060
Furthermore, what about when Poland declared its independence from Russia in 1918 when Pilsudski, with French aid, invaded Russia hoping to destroy the Bolsheviks and later annexing parts of what is now Belarus and Ukraine. In this conflict, over 165,000 became prisoners of war. Between 1919 and 1921, nearly 60,000 Russians died in Polish captivity; Polish sources claim 20,000. Where is there justice? Where is Poland's claim of bullshit?

We also need to think about all the actions, whether intentioned or committed by Stalin or not in a historical context. Stalin had to organize and modernize a backwards country through socialist methods; there was no real model for Stalin to follow, and course there would be errors made. Finally, keep in mind that Poles that were actually killed by Soviets were generally puppets of the exploitative class, and not merely innocent.