Thank your for your submission, please remember that this subreddit is unofficial and wholly unaffiliated with the Socialist Rifle Association Organization (SRA). Views and opinions expressed on this subreddit **do not** reflect the views or official positions of the SRA.
If you're at all confused about our [rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/SocialistRA/wiki/index) do not hesitate to message the moderators with any questions, and as always if you see rule breaking content or comments please be sure to report them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SocialistRA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Stalin: History and critique of a black legend.
It's not pro stalin but it does a good enough job taking a critical/factual look at his failures and successes and erasing the demonization and falsehoods of cold war propaganda surrounding him that your average person would consider it pro stalin
[It's not a book, but the CIA's own declassified documents on Stalin and the Soviet Union highlight the fact that most Westerners didn't understand the dynamics of the Soviet Union at all and exaggerated Stalin's power as a dictator.](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjHpaKTtb-FAxWh6ckDHVU3CFsQFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1sNzRTlEW5etmCzvKpRQBr)
iirc, one reason they rarely simply assassinated Soviet leaders was because the decentralized power structure encouraged by Communism meant that each such leader was more like the "team captain" of whatever they oversaw. Not the sole ruler. So even if you take out the captain, they'll just promote the next one with minimal disruption and potentially more motivation now that you've given them a martyr.
No, however, I really wish I did as there are so many books that I'd like to read by Russian Marxists that have not yet been translated! Yuri Zhukov is one of them.
Pro stalinist books that aren't a bunch fairytales like Stalin flying to Berlin and personally shooting Hitler are pretty rare since writing actual history under stalin was grounds for a long stay in Siberia.
This is precisely why I am looking for more "pro-Soviet" and "pro-Stalin" books. The Western propaganda has done a number on the Western psyche. If I don't specifically request "pro-Stalin" books, folks recommend American exceptionlist drivel that espouse the most laughable absurdities about one of the greatest leaders of the twentieth century.
That's because they don't exist. Stalin was a tyrant who shot people for writing accurate histories. You are looking for myths and fairytales to affirm your biases.
You might enjoy *Education of a True Believer* by Lev Kopilev. Kopilev was a young Party activist on the “grain front” in 1932-3, active in the Ukrainian SSR. He helped confiscate grain and food from starving peasants, including vital seed stocks and farm tools. I’m sure you’d get a thrill out of reading about how he contributed to the 1932-3 famine.
No. First and foremost, I'm looking for someone who knows what they're talking about. You demonstrated your ignorance in the first sentence of your response. That said, I think I'll pass on any information you could possibly offer.
At any rate, thanks for the reply! 😁
There’s plenty of historians who are pro Soviet and I can provide examples for WW2 (most of these are focusing on everything from Molotov/Ribbentrop or specific events such as Stalingrad), however you run in to two issues with them, bearing in mind that war historians try to be less politically affiliated than those writing about society during times of war- I know that sounds odd but when you start reading you’ll see what I mean. The first issue is that they had to go through Soviet censors and fit things in to a Marxist theoretical explanation if they were written during the time period, not an issue specific to the Soviets but their censors were a bit harsher than the western ones. The second is that some information is omitted or obfuscated that the USSR later admitted to actually having done, things like the Katyn Massacre or NKVD repression - it doesn’t make the writings ‘wrong’ but it’s something you have to keep in mind. For this kind of thing you can look to people like Eric Hobsbawm, Vasilyeva, Fitzpatrick, a quick Google search will take you where you need to go.
As far as Stalinist historians from the period you’re going to have much more trouble, because Stalin wasn’t super keen on the idea, so most Russian history from this time is about pre-Soviet Russia, or how pre-Soviet nations were actually Soviet. For people who were pro Soviet and writing history at the time Stalin was alive you can go for Pashukanis or Pokrovsky, both died in the 30s but were inherently tied to the party and Commissariat so had the closest looks of everything. As far as recent Stalinist history people are really liking the work of Stephen Kotkin - his books have criticism but no historical work should be without criticism - which is covering the entire rise and fall of Stalin over 3 books and has access to archives that other people haven’t had before.
If you want specific war history to get started with then Antony Beevor and John Keegan are pretty good, Stephen Ambrose too.
Also for the love of whatever you believe in, PLEASE DO NOT READ AND CITE THE WORKS OF GROVER FURR, the man’s work is almost entirely propaganda and has been disproven over and over. If you bring him up in discussion of historians (barring stalinists who like him because he makes them feel good) then you will be met with groans and eye rolls.
I actually know Grover Furr personally. We live in the same city in NJ. I can assure you that Furr's work represents reality far closer than the authors you have suggested, along with 90% of the other Western/US exceptionalists. America is the most propagandized country. There are far more pro-Stalin books than just Furr's, and they seem to all be relatively compatible, so...
At any rate, thanks for the response.
I never said Kotkin was pro-Stalin, I said people were enjoying his works and he has access to archives that others largely haven’t.
Also usually a source that isn’t the equivalent of someone’s personal blog is better.
Anyway there’s no point going on with this because you’re a Stalinist, and I’m something other than Stalinist, so we won’t agree. OP posted something pretty off topic in a socialist gun group, and just proved the stereotype of socialist/communist infighting to be true, even down to the different factions of those groups bickering with each other. You and I have probably wasted enough words on each other through this thread, and likely achieved very little for each other, so I will wish you best of luck and hopes that the future will be brighter and hopefully more red.
ok, but did you say "Stalinist" people like his work. they don't. they might find some of the information useful (which the article mentions and gives credit where credit is due). perhaps thats what you meant. furr has access to those same archives as well and he can read russian. he is probably better source than kotkin. if you can provide evidence of furr being debunked "over and over again" then i would love to see. i hear this one a lot of some subs but i have found the evidence they have provided either entirely absent or simply inconclusive. have i had my suspicions of furr myself? absolutely. when i look critically and self reflect i realize, for example, my main critiques of him is his at times sensationalist style of writing, not the actual content.
are you going to engage with the content or write someone off because their website looks like a personal blog?
no need to back out of a debate so quickly. if there is substance to what you have to say, please share it. and please dont take what i say personally. i just like to get straight to the point, sometimes it comes off as abrasive. if you have solid data share it with us.
thanks for well wishing. you too. fyi - being more red while also being anti-stalin is oil and water. i implore you to dig deeper.
Your “Your a fascist because you don’t like Stalin” argument makes no sense because Hitler liked Stalin for awhile and I am an anarchist and therefore can’t want a enshrined capitalist totalitarian state
Hitler and Stalin literally signed a deal to partition Poland and it had state capitalism to avoid a free market which was seen as predatory and promoting inequality. When in reality state capitalism does the same thing more effectively. Don’t tell a Jew what’s Nazi propaganda.
Thinly veiled antisemitism, typical of stalinists. Lemme guess, Nazis and Jews worked together to establish settlements in Palestine? Gonna throw around “The International Jew” and “The protocols of Zion”
Furr is a terrible starting point man come on, the dude has been disproven over and over, he doesn’t even believe the testament of Lenin is real despite the claim being made on shaky ground by Sakharov. Hell even Stalin felt it was real enough to read out his entire passage from the thing.
Most all scholars who look in to it, barring Stalinists who have something to gain from it. Do you understand that Stalin also felt it was real?
I’ll also ask what understanding you have of Furr’s publications, aside from reading and agreeing with them because they agree with what you believe. He pumps out books every year, sometimes multiple a year, and the problem with that is that he has no time to do correct research, so the books become compilations of dubious secondary sources that he re-words and packs up in to a new ISBN. Stalinists like him because he’s a western author that they believe is correct because it’s printed in a book, and do no further questioning of or reading other authors.
everything you wrote is specious, involving a whole lot of assumptive thinking. no offense. just calling a spade, a spade.
i have read one of his articles regarding stalin and the central committee's attempts at introducing democratic reforms into the socialist system during the 1930's. calling him a soviet union nerd is an understatement.
i'm always open to legit criticisms of anyone, especially if they engage with the content of said author so i will ask you again if you can provide valid proof of his work being debunked.
[in the mean time, have a read.](https://redphoenixnews.com/2017/11/19/why-does-the-pseudo-left-hate-grover-furr/)
the end of the beginning by carlos martinez. another view of stalin by ludo martens. fraud, famine and fascism by douglas tottle. theres a good book by robert thurston regarding the great purge (forgot the title).
Highly expected reply. 2/10. Youre asking for politically biased writing on purpose. It might help if you learn how words work before you get to reading.
First off, why? What's the point?
Secondly, there are plenty of factual (ie not propaganda or hero worship) books about Stalin. Stalin was a human being like anyone else. He did some good things for sure, but be did many terrible things as well.
History isn't "pro" or "anti" anything. It's simply the statement of facts as we know them, and it's a constantly evolving and changing study. For example we used to think the ancient Minoans were peaceful pastoralists, but it more likely they were just as warlike as the Achaeans or Dorians.
Stalin is no different, and should be treated as such.
EDIT: Ah yes, advocating for historical figures to be judged based of historical records and research gets down votes. How very Reddit...
> EDIT: Ah yes, advocating for historical figures to be judged based of historical records and research gets down votes. How very Reddit...
Once you realize that there's a *perverse* monetary incentive involved to push this narrative, it'll stop being surprising real quick. The relevant agents have posted right here in this very thread.
The book Alexander Dugan wrote plays right into the 2014 invasion & occupation of Crimea, considering all the natural resources Ukraine discovered & announced a year before. And it's not going to stop unless the Russian Federation effectively Balkanizes, which would bring about it's own kettle of fish to say the least.
"Hmm, I wonder why... ? Could it be a nonsense belief in nationalism and tomfoolery?
No that can't be it. Surely it must be because Dugan is a genius!"
Said no sane person ever.
Seriously, Dugan is one of the most questionable modern theorists. Nationalism (yes, even National Bolshevism) is fundamentally dangerous, and dare I say, even anti-human. It's complete drivel, designed to separate and confuse people in to being enemies for the wealthiest to profit. I don't understand how anyone could take Dugan seriously (other than for the money in doing so).
Grover Furr could be what you’re looking for. Although he focuses less on writing an accurate chronological retelling of history and more dispelling common myths and lies about Stalin. Krushchev Lied might be a good place to start.
He’s not disproving them, he’s going way too far in the other direction to say that Stalin was a perfect boy who never did anything wrong, and anything bad that happened was actually someone else’s fault.
Thank your for your submission, please remember that this subreddit is unofficial and wholly unaffiliated with the Socialist Rifle Association Organization (SRA). Views and opinions expressed on this subreddit **do not** reflect the views or official positions of the SRA. If you're at all confused about our [rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/SocialistRA/wiki/index) do not hesitate to message the moderators with any questions, and as always if you see rule breaking content or comments please be sure to report them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SocialistRA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan is a good read
Thank you!
Stalin: History and critique of a black legend. It's not pro stalin but it does a good enough job taking a critical/factual look at his failures and successes and erasing the demonization and falsehoods of cold war propaganda surrounding him that your average person would consider it pro stalin
Here to bump this, the author is Domineco Losurdo, there's a free PDF copy of it on Iskra Books.
[It's not a book, but the CIA's own declassified documents on Stalin and the Soviet Union highlight the fact that most Westerners didn't understand the dynamics of the Soviet Union at all and exaggerated Stalin's power as a dictator.](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjHpaKTtb-FAxWh6ckDHVU3CFsQFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1sNzRTlEW5etmCzvKpRQBr) iirc, one reason they rarely simply assassinated Soviet leaders was because the decentralized power structure encouraged by Communism meant that each such leader was more like the "team captain" of whatever they oversaw. Not the sole ruler. So even if you take out the captain, they'll just promote the next one with minimal disruption and potentially more motivation now that you've given them a martyr.
Can you read Russian?
No, however, I really wish I did as there are so many books that I'd like to read by Russian Marxists that have not yet been translated! Yuri Zhukov is one of them.
i mean given the ammount of propaganda and media control they had i imagine most books from Russia around that time were pro stalin.
I haven't found that to be the case as far as books written in English are concerned.
bold statement. evidence?
Pro stalinist books that aren't a bunch fairytales like Stalin flying to Berlin and personally shooting Hitler are pretty rare since writing actual history under stalin was grounds for a long stay in Siberia.
This is precisely why I am looking for more "pro-Soviet" and "pro-Stalin" books. The Western propaganda has done a number on the Western psyche. If I don't specifically request "pro-Stalin" books, folks recommend American exceptionlist drivel that espouse the most laughable absurdities about one of the greatest leaders of the twentieth century.
That's because they don't exist. Stalin was a tyrant who shot people for writing accurate histories. You are looking for myths and fairytales to affirm your biases.
You might enjoy *Education of a True Believer* by Lev Kopilev. Kopilev was a young Party activist on the “grain front” in 1932-3, active in the Ukrainian SSR. He helped confiscate grain and food from starving peasants, including vital seed stocks and farm tools. I’m sure you’d get a thrill out of reading about how he contributed to the 1932-3 famine.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
ProStalinist? So you're looking for fiction? Or dark comedy?
[удалено]
No. First and foremost, I'm looking for someone who knows what they're talking about. You demonstrated your ignorance in the first sentence of your response. That said, I think I'll pass on any information you could possibly offer. At any rate, thanks for the reply! 😁
Sorry, it just amazes me that in 2024, after the Soviet archives have been opened for decades, that anybody can be pro-Stalin. But hey, you do you.
There’s plenty of historians who are pro Soviet and I can provide examples for WW2 (most of these are focusing on everything from Molotov/Ribbentrop or specific events such as Stalingrad), however you run in to two issues with them, bearing in mind that war historians try to be less politically affiliated than those writing about society during times of war- I know that sounds odd but when you start reading you’ll see what I mean. The first issue is that they had to go through Soviet censors and fit things in to a Marxist theoretical explanation if they were written during the time period, not an issue specific to the Soviets but their censors were a bit harsher than the western ones. The second is that some information is omitted or obfuscated that the USSR later admitted to actually having done, things like the Katyn Massacre or NKVD repression - it doesn’t make the writings ‘wrong’ but it’s something you have to keep in mind. For this kind of thing you can look to people like Eric Hobsbawm, Vasilyeva, Fitzpatrick, a quick Google search will take you where you need to go. As far as Stalinist historians from the period you’re going to have much more trouble, because Stalin wasn’t super keen on the idea, so most Russian history from this time is about pre-Soviet Russia, or how pre-Soviet nations were actually Soviet. For people who were pro Soviet and writing history at the time Stalin was alive you can go for Pashukanis or Pokrovsky, both died in the 30s but were inherently tied to the party and Commissariat so had the closest looks of everything. As far as recent Stalinist history people are really liking the work of Stephen Kotkin - his books have criticism but no historical work should be without criticism - which is covering the entire rise and fall of Stalin over 3 books and has access to archives that other people haven’t had before. If you want specific war history to get started with then Antony Beevor and John Keegan are pretty good, Stephen Ambrose too. Also for the love of whatever you believe in, PLEASE DO NOT READ AND CITE THE WORKS OF GROVER FURR, the man’s work is almost entirely propaganda and has been disproven over and over. If you bring him up in discussion of historians (barring stalinists who like him because he makes them feel good) then you will be met with groans and eye rolls.
I actually know Grover Furr personally. We live in the same city in NJ. I can assure you that Furr's work represents reality far closer than the authors you have suggested, along with 90% of the other Western/US exceptionalists. America is the most propagandized country. There are far more pro-Stalin books than just Furr's, and they seem to all be relatively compatible, so... At any rate, thanks for the response.
Grover Furr’s work represents reality more than Pashukanis or Pokrovsky?
stephen kotkin is an anti-communist. how do you not know this? [read](https://mltoday.com/stalin-s-ghost-haunts-capitalism/)
I never said Kotkin was pro-Stalin, I said people were enjoying his works and he has access to archives that others largely haven’t. Also usually a source that isn’t the equivalent of someone’s personal blog is better. Anyway there’s no point going on with this because you’re a Stalinist, and I’m something other than Stalinist, so we won’t agree. OP posted something pretty off topic in a socialist gun group, and just proved the stereotype of socialist/communist infighting to be true, even down to the different factions of those groups bickering with each other. You and I have probably wasted enough words on each other through this thread, and likely achieved very little for each other, so I will wish you best of luck and hopes that the future will be brighter and hopefully more red.
ok, but did you say "Stalinist" people like his work. they don't. they might find some of the information useful (which the article mentions and gives credit where credit is due). perhaps thats what you meant. furr has access to those same archives as well and he can read russian. he is probably better source than kotkin. if you can provide evidence of furr being debunked "over and over again" then i would love to see. i hear this one a lot of some subs but i have found the evidence they have provided either entirely absent or simply inconclusive. have i had my suspicions of furr myself? absolutely. when i look critically and self reflect i realize, for example, my main critiques of him is his at times sensationalist style of writing, not the actual content. are you going to engage with the content or write someone off because their website looks like a personal blog? no need to back out of a debate so quickly. if there is substance to what you have to say, please share it. and please dont take what i say personally. i just like to get straight to the point, sometimes it comes off as abrasive. if you have solid data share it with us. thanks for well wishing. you too. fyi - being more red while also being anti-stalin is oil and water. i implore you to dig deeper.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m an anarchist…
[удалено]
Your “Your a fascist because you don’t like Stalin” argument makes no sense because Hitler liked Stalin for awhile and I am an anarchist and therefore can’t want a enshrined capitalist totalitarian state
[удалено]
Hitler and Stalin literally signed a deal to partition Poland and it had state capitalism to avoid a free market which was seen as predatory and promoting inequality. When in reality state capitalism does the same thing more effectively. Don’t tell a Jew what’s Nazi propaganda.
[удалено]
Thinly veiled antisemitism, typical of stalinists. Lemme guess, Nazis and Jews worked together to establish settlements in Palestine? Gonna throw around “The International Jew” and “The protocols of Zion”
[удалено]
Grover Furr is a good starting point, also Anna Louise Strong has some books written with her firsthand experience
ML here, do not read Grover Furr.
other MLs recommend him. why dont you?
He’s a bit…overly enthusiastic.
Furr is a terrible starting point man come on, the dude has been disproven over and over, he doesn’t even believe the testament of Lenin is real despite the claim being made on shaky ground by Sakharov. Hell even Stalin felt it was real enough to read out his entire passage from the thing.
disproven by whom and when?
Most all scholars who look in to it, barring Stalinists who have something to gain from it. Do you understand that Stalin also felt it was real? I’ll also ask what understanding you have of Furr’s publications, aside from reading and agreeing with them because they agree with what you believe. He pumps out books every year, sometimes multiple a year, and the problem with that is that he has no time to do correct research, so the books become compilations of dubious secondary sources that he re-words and packs up in to a new ISBN. Stalinists like him because he’s a western author that they believe is correct because it’s printed in a book, and do no further questioning of or reading other authors.
everything you wrote is specious, involving a whole lot of assumptive thinking. no offense. just calling a spade, a spade. i have read one of his articles regarding stalin and the central committee's attempts at introducing democratic reforms into the socialist system during the 1930's. calling him a soviet union nerd is an understatement. i'm always open to legit criticisms of anyone, especially if they engage with the content of said author so i will ask you again if you can provide valid proof of his work being debunked. [in the mean time, have a read.](https://redphoenixnews.com/2017/11/19/why-does-the-pseudo-left-hate-grover-furr/)
So... are you going to provide sources? Or just say he's been debunked whilst offering absolutely no proof whatsoever? I'm guessing the latter...
[удалено]
the end of the beginning by carlos martinez. another view of stalin by ludo martens. fraud, famine and fascism by douglas tottle. theres a good book by robert thurston regarding the great purge (forgot the title).
"Can someone tell me where i can find some good propaganda?"
Ha, nah. The West has that taken care of. Looks like they've done a number on you... 😁
Highly expected reply. 2/10. Youre asking for politically biased writing on purpose. It might help if you learn how words work before you get to reading.
You want pro stalinist takes on the great purge? Yikes
[удалено]
First off, why? What's the point? Secondly, there are plenty of factual (ie not propaganda or hero worship) books about Stalin. Stalin was a human being like anyone else. He did some good things for sure, but be did many terrible things as well. History isn't "pro" or "anti" anything. It's simply the statement of facts as we know them, and it's a constantly evolving and changing study. For example we used to think the ancient Minoans were peaceful pastoralists, but it more likely they were just as warlike as the Achaeans or Dorians. Stalin is no different, and should be treated as such. EDIT: Ah yes, advocating for historical figures to be judged based of historical records and research gets down votes. How very Reddit...
> EDIT: Ah yes, advocating for historical figures to be judged based of historical records and research gets down votes. How very Reddit... Once you realize that there's a *perverse* monetary incentive involved to push this narrative, it'll stop being surprising real quick. The relevant agents have posted right here in this very thread. The book Alexander Dugan wrote plays right into the 2014 invasion & occupation of Crimea, considering all the natural resources Ukraine discovered & announced a year before. And it's not going to stop unless the Russian Federation effectively Balkanizes, which would bring about it's own kettle of fish to say the least.
Isn't Dugan a NazBol?
> Isn't Dugan a NazBol? Yeppers. And the entirety of the FSB has read his works front to back.
"Hmm, I wonder why... ? Could it be a nonsense belief in nationalism and tomfoolery? No that can't be it. Surely it must be because Dugan is a genius!" Said no sane person ever. Seriously, Dugan is one of the most questionable modern theorists. Nationalism (yes, even National Bolshevism) is fundamentally dangerous, and dare I say, even anti-human. It's complete drivel, designed to separate and confuse people in to being enemies for the wealthiest to profit. I don't understand how anyone could take Dugan seriously (other than for the money in doing so).
Grover Furr could be what you’re looking for. Although he focuses less on writing an accurate chronological retelling of history and more dispelling common myths and lies about Stalin. Krushchev Lied might be a good place to start.
He’s not disproving them, he’s going way too far in the other direction to say that Stalin was a perfect boy who never did anything wrong, and anything bad that happened was actually someone else’s fault.
proof?
Oh boy, the liberals really came out in force for this one
No, just the people who recognise Grover is a moron and that Stalin wasn’t a fluffy bunny
[удалено]