Were Stalin's crimes actually that out of line with what it took to industrialize anywhere else? Almost every state that did so, did so on the backs of vast amounts of suffering. He was not exactly wrong about the need to industrialize in a hurry or be crushed, and despite all the deaths, the standard of living in Soviet Russia rose dramatically over the course of his time in power.
Now, obviously his paranoia and the show trials and all that are hard to defend, but I'm not convinced that the more generalized problems of the time were anything unusual (which does not necessarily free them from condemnation). Capitalists like to act as though only states do these things, but it's not like events such as the Irish Potato Famine, or the Bengal Famine, or slavery, can be disconnected from capitalism and the profit motive.
>>44260
>Were Stalin's crimes actually that out of line with what it took to industrialize anywhere else?
No. But it is the hypocrisy of industrialising through capitalism and the unnecessary deaths such as the failure to have effective famine aid to halt the Holodomor and the brutality of the Ural Siberian method as a means of proletarianisation rather than using pull factors. Combine this with the failure to increase consumer products outputs and the channelling of most of the heavy industry output ("tractorisation") to black military projects rather than to capital goods production which is primarily attacked.
>He was not exactly wrong about the need to industrialize in a hurry or be crushed
A general European revolution in the 1930s is another option.
>the standard of living in Soviet Russia rose dramatically over the course of his time in power.
Both the 1930s growth spurt and the post 1946 growth spurt were improperly channeled towards capital goods production. Additionally, much of the former peasantry and urban proletariat would have liked a labour discipline system that wasn't reliant on the use of gulags against the mass of the population.
>Now, obviously his paranoia and the show trials and all that are hard to defend
Try some Sheila Fitzpatrick and Milovan Ðilas on why the show trials were "necessary" to discipline the party and nomenklatura.
>Capitalists like to act as though only states do these things, but it's not like events such as the Irish Potato Famine, or the Bengal Famine, or slavery, can be disconnected from capitalism and the profit motive.
It was the profit motive in the Soviet Union too. Failures to achieve profit targets resulted in black camps, gulags or death. Foremen and middle managers became stakhanovites by sweating surplus value from the working class.
>>44496
Filtered :^)
>>44496
>Sheila Fitzpatrick
>Purges were OK because some people got to move up when "bourgeoisie" were murdered or sent to labor camps.
>This is what gommie fucks actually believe.
>>44658
Sheila doesn't believe that the purges were okay, she was interested in documenting how the nomenklatura actually worked based on archival findings rather than inventing things.
>>44496
>No. But it is the hypocrisy of industrialising through capitalism and the unnecessary deaths such as the failure to have effective famine aid to halt the Holodomor and the brutality of the Ural Siberian method as a means of proletarianisation rather than using pull factors. Combine this with the failure to increase consumer products outputs and the channelling of most of the heavy industry output ("tractorisation") to black military projects rather than to capital goods production which is primarily attacked.
Certainly there are a lot of questions about where the spending went, but there was a considerable time where Soviet consumer goods were both better and cheaper than western ones.
>Both the 1930s growth spurt and the post 1946 growth spurt were improperly channeled towards capital goods production. Additionally, much of the former peasantry and urban proletariat would have liked a labour discipline system that wasn't reliant on the use of gulags against the mass of the population.
I'm sure they would have! But I'm not trying to say the USSR was blameless; rather, that I'm not convinced they were meaningfully worse than Western powers. Did the British appreciate sweatshop labour, and being shipped to Australia if they made trouble?
>It was the profit motive in the Soviet Union too. Failures to achieve profit targets resulted in black camps, gulags or death. Foremen and middle managers became stakhanovites by sweating surplus value from the working class.
Eeehhh, I feel that's stretching things a little. Though there was plenty of corruption (hi beria) and such, there was definitely a big attempt to relieve e.g. rural poverty. Not that it was some kind of unqualified success or anything!
Stalin was a gud boy, he dindu nuffin!
>>44769
>The center of attention was always focused on the victims of the purges rather than its beneficiaries, noted the historian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Fitzpatrick
Fucking kek.
>>44260
Death toll of Stalin's actions is insanely exaggerated. Numbers like 60 million are simply insane and wrong.
We could be talking about 10 million max if counting Holodomor (which was mostly a failure of agriculture rather than intentional genocide).
But that still doesn't excuse him. He was a brutal dictator.
He did accomplish something, but that could've been accomplished without so much bloodshed and suffering.
He also made great mistakes which cost Soviets millions of lives in WW2.
It's dumb to say he didn't do anything good, but cost was simply too much.
Stalinism raped every ideal of revolution in Russia. During his time, USSR was a totalitarian state on par with Nazi Germany, only difference being the absence of racial factor.
Considering that under free market capitalism, countries like South Korea and Japan managed to industrialize much, much faster than the USSR ever did, I'd say yes.
>>44907
This, but you also have to take into account that SK had US support.
>>44907
Yeah but it's a lot easier to industrialize painlessly when existing major industrial powers bankroll it.
>>44874
it probably won't get banned because it's not against the rules and /pol/ already exists for fascists like you
>>44777
>but there was a considerable time where Soviet consumer goods were both better and cheaper than western ones.
Not going to deny this at all. I'd rather live in Moscow than West Virginia as a worker in 1935.
>I'm not convinced they were meaningfully worse than Western powers.
Worse is a value judgement I'm not going to make.
>Did the British appreciate sweatshop labour, and being shipped to Australia if they made trouble?
By 1850 there were strong pull factors to Australia, including the spending power of £1 in Australia being about £1/4/- in UK.
>Eeehhh, I feel that's stretching things a little.
Try some Andrle on what it was to work under Stakhanovites.
>>44851
>The center of attention was always focused on the victims of the purges rather than its beneficiaries, noted the historian.
Somebody was benefitting from the purges. Often it was working class children who wished to become evil fuckwit bosses. To do so, they proved they were more loyal to the party's line than the previous management.
>>44852
>Holodomor (which was mostly a failure of agriculture rather than intentional genocide).
The post-archival researchers have recently (last 15 years) gotten a hold of CC minutes for the period. The CC initiated famine relief as soon as they knew about the famine.
The famine relief got shipped to the major cities.
And the destruction of NEP and peasant trade networks meant that it didn't get any further out.
I think that we can hold the CC singularly responsible for ensuring that famine relief would be ineffective in this manner. This isn't intentional as we think of the German agreement to kill millions of Europeans. But it is an intention rooted in the desire to control the countryside and end the scissors-crises through violence and death.
>>44852
>Stalinism raped every ideal of revolution in Russia.
Lenin and Trotsky raped a fair few, if not most, of those first.
>>44907
>countries like South Korea and Japan
Both due to US inflow.
>>45203
I agree that there were certainly opportunities for weasels to climb the ranks, I just find it hilarious anyone could construct a narrative like that to "look on the bright side" of forced labor camps and political fanatics.
>>46621
Sheila doesn't look on the "bright side." I put "necessary" in quotation marks because it was necessary for the nomenklatura to replicate itself and achieve its extraction of surplus value from the working class while maintaining its imperialist class rule against other capitalist powers.
