>>19254>So..is it really possible to be rather more critical of Stalin but be more pro-Mao? Mao's contributions to Marxist theory, including Mass Line, still hold alot more relevance then ever in this day and age. I can't say the same for Stalin.I'll chuck in my two cents. Again, like i said, Stalin was a mid revolutionary and there's plenty to be critical of- but the question boils down to was Stalin an active participant in the governance of the USSR and used mass influence (if he had any) to steer it, or was it the fault of the USSR as a whole due to how it was governed more or less collectively.
Stalin is probably one of the most mischaracterised socialist figures in all of history- he's either seen as a man who did nothing wrong or a iron fisted tyrant. There's no inbetween or nuance- you're either forced to hate him or love him, and either praising him or critcising him lands you in hot water.
On one hand, some people call Stalin a theorylet, others called him a traitor to the international socialist cause (which was more of a decision to embrace realpolitik for better or worse), but without a doubt his policies (at least for the time) were a continuation of Lenins economic model and he did have plans to introduce more democratic reforms to soviet collectivisation, and was more or less a net-benefit for the Russian people. That's not getting into the fact that the man lead a country to see victory over one of the most deadliest embodiements of fascism we have yet to see surpassed.
The problem is, is that the USSR didn't necessarily enact said democratic reforms and they wound up being co-opted by beauraucrats. So as a result, much like Robespierre, Stalin is often mischaracterised as being an active law maker and decision maker to the soviet unions less than favourable policies- ranging from ethnic deportation to homophobic laws- as opposed to someone who was more than likely complicit, to him leaving other communists for dead and choosing to support liberal bourgoise republicans or leaving other communists for right wing forces to appease the allies.
I think one anon said it best- if Stalin was purged and someone else took his place- that other person would have also likely have shared the same fate as Stalin- being chracterised as "le ebil dictator who killed millions".
In regards to Stalin being held in high reverence in the same line as Nicholas the II however, I don't really see how this is a surprise.
Socialist figures have always been co-opted by the ruling class in order to co-opt them to exercise propagandistic control.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a socialist, and yet conservatives co-opt him by saying he was an advocate of non-violence.
Nestor Makhno despite being an anarcho-communist is co-opted by Ukranian nationalists and far right wing groups- despite the fact that he would have likely shot them himself.
Che Guevara, Albert Einstein, Tupac Shakur, Charlie Chaplin, Nelson Mandela and of course as you mentioned Joseph Stalin are all products of this- whether you choose to praise them or criticise them i'd argue is irrelevent.
Stalin's thought and governance died in 20th century alongside the Soviet Union. Most folks who post here are usually in western countries with a handful of lads from Asia- but even then we don't live in countries with an existing peasantry, we don't live in a land where are de-industrialised, and I think most of us are smart enough to not apply 20th century policies to 21st century material conditions.
tl;dr
Stalin is more or less irrelevant to current 21st century conditions- but that doesn't mean that we have to dismiss him outright. He had his time in the sun, and now that sun has set.
Don't focus on could have or should have been, focus on what is.