SweetLava

read hegel, play disco elysium. play disco elysium, read marx

hegel's revolutionary plasm

\\

"In the dark times, should the stars also go out?"

damn so im not the only one who read some Camus recently? i'm not even an existentialist, i just find the work comforting

fucking awful

He was mostly alright, but his significance really comes from popularizing and formulating what is now known as Marxism-Leninism.

As a result of mounting internal and external pressure, as well as the power-struggle following Lenin's death, Stalin had to make countless concessions to deal with problems that could not be avoided.

Because of his role leading a country that was led into, and greatly harmed by war (tens of millions of deaths as a result), it can be very challenging to get an appropriate critique and analysis of his role. You are not going to find any example of peaceful revolution, nor will you find any examples of countries in a state of war that can grant complete freedom and liberty.

I defend him to the extent that he led a struggle against European fascism, and I defend him against accusations that Marxism and fascism are the same. Going so far to condemn Stalin generally has a tendency to grant a certain level of forgivenes and apologia for fascists and their collaborators, as well as a wide assortment of reactionaries and nationalists.

When it comes to people who would be identified as "Stalinists", usually what is meant is something more similar to what we would call National Bolsheviks (NazBols). If not that, then in reference to the tendency of certain Marxist-Leninist groups to justify social conservatism, petty nationalism, and premature centralization.

One thing I'd like to touch on: the experience of the Bolsheviks told us that we need unity of Marxists, where we exclude the distorters of Marx. If you want to be a Marxist, you need Marx - no way around that. Stalin had to read Marx's major works, Lenin did so and more, and so did Trotsky, Luxembourg, even Kautsky and Bernstein.

Any major revolutionary figure is going to be smeared and distorted for someone else's gain. People still hate Robespierre, for instance, and people still try to rewrite the narrative of people from Nat Turner to Huey P. Newton - Stalin was no different. You don't have to defend him at all, nor do you have to condemn him (or any other historical figure), but you should at least understand the real Stalin and understand that the USSR was born out of the ashes of the Russian Empire - generally for worse as we came closer and closer to its dissolution. If you don't care to catch the full story, you are going to be clueness when it comes to any revolutionary movement across the Americas, especially the US. You can try to overcorrect or overly emphasize how much you don't like Stalin, if you'd like, but remember that Stalin's opposition and the leftists who opposed the initial October Revolution were well on their way to make mistakes in the complete opposition direction - equally as harmful and destructive. That doesn't make you superior, it makes you blind. Stalin's errors were far from the only possibility.

It could've went way worse, or it could've been far better off - which would you prefer?

When you were a kid (if you ever grew out of being a kid, that is), did anyone tell you the story of the apples and oranges? Did you ever hear someone talking about comparing apples to bananas? Anything of that nature? You still can't explain why you specifically chose to compare Hitler and Bin Laden to Raisi.

Let me break it down for you slow, in hamburger American terms.

Say I want to talk about America. Should I compare America to McDonald's and apple pie? Or should I compare America to shrimp and gyros?

Fill in the blank: As American as _______.

Did you say "apple pie" or did you say "shrimp and gyros"? Why? Reflect on this in your own time.

Just admit you make awful comparisons and fail to make analogies work.

Hitler, for one, had a specific fascist ideology comparable to Mussolini. I'd feel comfortable comparing the two. Not only based on their alliance and ideology alone, but also their actions taken.

When we compare people to Hitler, we generally make the assumption that we are talking about genocide, fascism, and an extreme passion for exterminating and villifying the "other" (whether that be Jews or Muslims or Slavs or something else). I wouldn't even make a comparison between Hitler and Netanyahu if I had to be professional and make time for an appropriate comparison.

On to Bin Laden, now. Why isn't he similar to Hitler? Back in the day, the US had a strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia. Backing the dollar with gold wasn't the best plan for us, we didn't gain a strong advantage doing so. Saudi Arabia was happy to help us with new US policy abroad. We went above and beyond to treat Saudi monarchs to the best life available, all at our expense. We even ignored the Saudis backing of people like Bin Laden back when we first knew of his type, all the way in the 1970s. We even used his allies and people with the Mujahideen that fought against the Soviets in the 1980s. Long story short, we had a blowback incident. 9/11 came around to hit us, likely with Saudis allowing it to happen while US intelligence was too incompetent or bogged down to act effectively (or maybe we knew and couldn't or wouldn't do anything). We went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan - not Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was a failure the US contributed to actively for about 20 years, not including the interference from years prior. The Taliban is still governing Afghanistan today in fact. It wasn't anything like Hitler, except for the brutal anti-Communism. It certainly wasn't like Raisi either, considering that Iran and Afghanistan's Taliban aren't on the best terms.

I would compare Raisi to General Torrijos. Why is that? Because they were both nationalists, both concerned with sovereignty and not bending the will of their country to the US, yet each of them were not inherently accepting of either far-right extemist ideology or Communism (or other explictly left-wing political movements or ideologies). In spite of ideological differences, they both had a desire to stay neutral, choose key allies, and were rather accepting of liberation movements. People didn't really celebrate the death of Torrijos, at least in Panama. I wouldn't say people were exceptionally happy in Iran about the death of Raisi either. They weren't good leaders per se, but they stood on principles. I don't care for either figure myself, but I recognize who they were and what they fought for as humans.

Again, I know what an analogy is. We already established that. So, that means I do know Hitler is not just a nom de plum or alias for Raisi, or vice versa.

It's just not a good analogy. Look at the names I wrote and think about it for a second.

Why do I think comparing Hitler to Bin Laden is not a good comparison? Why do I believe comparing General Torrijos to Raisi is a good comparison?

Then, back to you. "[Celebrating] the death of horrific people is not necessarily a bad thing." You didn't even clarify what made Raisi a horrific person comparable to Hitler. You sound like everyone else in that Reddit-esque circlejerk.

If you read closely, you can see I don't really mind the act of celebration itself. My problem is that there is no acceptable reason to compare Raisi and Hitler, first of all; and, secondly, the people celebrating don't even know who Raisi is. Your comparison alone tells me you're in that group, the people who are celebrating without even knowing.

I can celebrate the deaths of Hitler, Mussolini, Kissinger, Pinochet, Reagan, and so on. That's because I actually know who they were and what they did.

I understand what an analogy is. But you know (and I know) that we don't make analogies at random. There's a specific reason you chose Bin Laden and Hitler to make the analogy. Even comparing Bin Laden and Hitler is dishonest and lacks appropriate context.

I'd say Raisi's death celebration is more akin to celebrating the death of someone like Omar Torrijos (Panama), and I'm not speaking of similarity of death itself or the conditons that created the death. I'm talking about their respective policies.

Death happens everyday and you chose to make the specific comparisons you did. It wasn't an accident, no one forced it into your brain. You did that.

If you think Iranian leaders are equivalent to Biden Laden and Hitler, you still have a few years (or decades) of brain development left. Please at least make an attempt to sound educated when making comparisons. This place is going to be more embarrassing than Reddit soon....

It's not the fact that they celebrated his death that is most important. It's the fact that the people celebrating have no coherent understanding of who he was. All they know is "Media told me Iran bad. Iran bad means Iranian dying is bad man dying. Funny meme death of people I don't see as human."

You can tell based on responses they haven't read even a single article in full about anything even tangentially related to the man.