“Stalinism” & Linguistic Bias

[@alexcharlick3212]

Imagine if we routinely referred to 1930s America as “The Roosevelt Regime”

[@drakoronus]

Well, Stalinism is an academic term is both Russia and Europe, which represents the new socialism interpretation made by Stalin. And Stalin's Era is also an actual term, though idk what it's called in English. The cult of personality and ideological flushing, the architecture dominants that made the outer look of the cities new because of direct Stalin's orders, the overall spread of his administrative forces to all the fields of human interaction (a totalitarian regime, btw) is linking this historical period DIRECTLY onto his person.

[@muha0644]

@@drakoronus Damn, another idiot 😔 If you still think Stalin was a totalitarian dictator, how about you read: 1. some actual primary sources from the USSR and not some US liberal think tank 2. the mf 1936 Stalin constitution 3. any book not from the US, actually. Read any book from the USSR if you want to learn about the USSR.

[@drakoronus]

@@muha0644 LMFAO AHAHHAHA, я из России и в России родился, занимался в олимпиадной сборной по истории и обществознанию, взял несколько крупных олимпиад, читал исторические сводки, официальные документы, историю СССР, мы анализировали ВСЕ конституции СССР и их дизайн, логику и отношение к ней. А ещё я фанат советского кинематографа и литературы, посмотри "Иди и смотри" или "Афоня", или почитай поэтов Серебряного века или работы "Как закалялась сталь". Now use the translaror to understand what I say, you uncultured biased whatever you are.

[@drakoronus]

Ну что ж ты малыш Мухаммед удалил свой коммент? Застеснялся?

[@drakoronus]

@@muha0644 В России, кстати, население признает преступления Сталина и тот очевидный факт, что он тоталитарный диктатор. Проблема только в том, что около 30% населения (в основном люди старшего поколения, которые слабо разбираются в истории и социальных науках, потому что в СССР эти дисциплины подавляли) считает, что при тоталитаризме живется лучше, врагов устраняют, всё по правилам, просто и приятно. Это тоже ложно, но уже в другой плоскости, не из изначального спора. Так что да, ты неправ во всем, в чем можешь быть неправ. Советую тебе почитать историков СССР из 1950-1970-х, а также экономистов и социологов современной России. Хотя бы посмотреть образовательные и публицистические ролики на Ютуб на русском языке с английскими субтитрами. Парфенов, Пивоваров, Chamade!, Дудь, можешь посмотреть споры с коммунистами и сталинистами (Клим Жуков, Гоблин, Стас Ай-Как-Просто, Мятежник Джек - коммунисты-сталинисты, с ними можешь посмотреть дебаты), лол. А можешь почитать другую советскую литературу, например литературу репрессированных людей, или вовсе не художественную литературу, а документы, подписанные сталинской администрацией: документы о ГУЛАГе, лежащие в музее истории ГУЛАГа в Москве, документы о коллективизации и раскулачивании, документы о политических преследованиях и показательных казнях, документы о голоде в Поволжье и в Казахстане, документы о коррупционных схемах друзей Сталина. Просвещайся. And yeah, I ain't writing that in English, sorry. And a whole-hearted wish for you to study.

[@josemaria8177]

I find that academia loves to create fancy scary words for things that threaten their class interestes. I'm doing a masters degree in clinical psychology and most of the time I am not alowed to openly discuss economical or social factors in regards to mental illness. In the few moments I was allowed to be critical of capitalism, I wasn't allowed to propose any alternatives, and more often than not I was met with a sarcastic comment about the USSR or Venezuela from the professors. I apologise for rambling and straying from topic, but this whole discusion frustrates me to no end. Thank you for the great video

[@fun_ghoul]

As a poor person who struggles with mental illness -- depression, anxiety and ADHD, per my armchair self-diagnosis -- the phenomenon you describe is why I've been reticent to talk with doctors about this stuff. They don't want to solve the MATERIAL problems of people like me or, charitably, they know they are powerless to do so. Instead, they whip out a notepad and dispense pills, as with my father, mother and brother...and even those shits cost money! Of course, even with the alleged "universal" health care system here in so-called Canada, mental health therapy is for all intents and purposes nonexistent unless or until someone really loses their shit (e.g. suicide attempt, violence towards others, schizophrenia, etc.), at which point they're basically incarcerated in a hospital room, possibly with more and/or more powerful drugs.

[@RedLucarian]

@@fun_ghoul how would you want a therapist to fix your material conditions?

[@aliceinwonder8978]

@@RedLucarian i can't speak for him but i think the critique is that the doctors and therapists wouldn't have as many patients if our communities took care of each other to begin with. I think a lot of blame goes to insurance companies but also to doctors who push fake theories, pills, and treatments and all those who uncritically follow along

[@grigorimolotov2955]

The psychologizing of class struggle is a serious problem. It sometimes seems as though the entire field of psychology was created to combat historical materialism.

[@fun_ghoul]

@@RedLucarian For a start, they could acknowledge material reality instead of pathologizing my entire experience so that it more closely matches the absolute GARBAGE they learned in a university for $150,000. Basically, what Григорий said. Of course, it doesn't sound much like you want an answer...maybe you have a future in mental health "care"!

[@comrademax57]

your optimism and your love for soviet history and its people is contagious

[@ΝικολαοςΣπυριδακης-ε7ν]

Her optimism is delusional. 1/3 was communist once WHY DO YOU THINK IT DIDNT LAST

[@theyabib3323]

it seems naiive and revisionist, one always remains critical, just my opinion anyways.

[@Layd36]

Your love for capitalist history and its people is contagious

[@Layd36]

​@@theyabib3323 it seems naive that westerners think neoliberalism will always save them while they carry out neocolonialism on foreign lands

[@Dorian_sapiens]

This reminds me of Parenti's passage about the "nonfalsifiable orthodoxy" of anticommunism in _Blackshirts and Reds._ We could imagine him giving another example: If people were happy with how well their retail sector was doing, it was just because they were so accustomed to "dingy shops" with "poor-quality merchandise."

[@LadyIzdihar]

The first paragraph of the chapter "left anticommunism" is perfection

[@ShubhamBhushanCC]

It's amazing how the western liberals and conservatives seem to know the Soviets better than they themselves.

[@squamish4244]

I would say Stalin's propaganda regime was the best in history and modern Russians have a very difficult time coming to grips with Soviet history.

[@kxkxkxkx]

Russians are the #1 victim of their own KGB disinformation ☝️

[@RaLeTiNo]

@@squamish4244 Nah, the US has got the best propaganda regime. If what you say is true then USSR would still be standing due to the supposed immense power of Stalin propaganda.

[@seabrain1212]

Same reason most soviets would think they knew more about the US than actual Americans; each state had an entire apparatus established for the express purpose of telling them what to think of their own country and what to think about the other.

[@depotemkin]

Я, который изучает историю СССР по американским каналам: (шучу, по русским тоже)

[@rimaq_]

"Once again I repeat that I am not an impartial, objective critic. My judgments are nourished by my ideals, my sentiments, my passions. I have an avowed and resolute ambition: to assist in the creation of Peruvian socialism. I am far removed from the academic techniques of the university." -Jose Carlos Mariategui on the Author's note of Seven Essays on Peruvian Reality It's more intelectually honest to admit your biases than to hide them in "objectivity" when it's clearly obvious it's still bias instead of plain statements without connections to your experience reading or understanding them.

[@fun_ghoul]

Indeed, "neutrality" is a bourgeois myth erected as a bulwark against proletarian doubt in capitalists, their regimes and institutions.

[@titi53221]

The thing is that bringing all the attention to a single leader, like Stalin, Mao, The Kims in NK and Castro serves a very specific ideological purpose: it denies any kind of collectivist action, or reduces it to the the masses being "brainwashed", and it furthers the myth that communism = authoritarianism and lack of democracy(as if that's not the case in the capitalist world) It also coincides with the Great Man Theory of History and meritocracy, but in a negative way. Great men can accomplish great things, but also terrible things, so there's the (fictional) contrast: Heroes like, idk Churchill and FDR (lol) and Villains like Hitler, Mao and Stalin. It's all fiction. It's rather depressing that people hold these very dehumanizing ideas about millions of people without even realising it, just because it is "common sense". I think if people questioned everything we see as "common sense", the world would make a whole lot more sense. Thanks for the video! it was very informative as always. I'm looking forward to more reviews of books like this one.

[@TheNightWatcher1385]

It’s not really so much that those populations under authoritarian regimes were brainwashed as much as they were simply resigned to the status quo and saw it as too difficult or too dangerous to change things. I heard it was a common saying in the USSR that, “A good Soviet citizen listens to everything the government tells him, and privately believes none of it.”

[@rosserjake]

I'm a trainee history teacher. When I brought up Churchill killing millions of Indians in the Bengal famine, this teacher told me "it is wrong to judge history by today's standards". Wtf I was not using today's standards- I was using the standards of the Indians in early 1940s! The audacity of her- a Brit telling me (my grandparents lived in India at the time) I'm wrong to judge perpetrators of mass murder against my people. If I ever see that teacher moralising about other historical travesty's involving mass murder and starvation, I'll say "it's wrong to judge history by today's standards."

[@TheNightWatcher1385]

@@rosserjake True. Even the British imperial agents in India at the time were pleading for aid and were saying the famine was a threat to the empire’s honor. Churchill gets a lot of defense because of his zeal against the Nazis, but it doesn’t change the fact that he failed India.

[@rosserjake]

@@TheNightWatcher1385 Even contemporary sources by Westerners such as Will Durant, JT Sunderland et al were critical of British attrocities in India. Her charge of me being anachronistic is absolutely ridiculous. It's not like a group of people in 2008 randomly decided "oh what Churchill did in 1943 wasn't very nice". There was condemnation of his actions at the time of them occuring. Funnily enough, victims of starvation and mass murder don't seem to like such things- even in the 1940s! If a Jewish person were to criticise Hitler for his crimes against Jews, I wonder if that same teacher would say "it's not right to judge history by today's standards". Absolute lunacy.

[@ernestokrapf]

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c." - Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1848. "17. Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity." - Engels, The Principles of Communism, 1847. You know what it looks like? It looks like you haven't read anything. Saying "wasn't real socialism!!1!" only makes you look an idealist and a dogmatist.

[@Darwinator1859]

Thank you for your videos and your information about Soviet Life and your book reviews. As someone who is very interested in Soviet Society and wrote some books and articles about Soviet Union in the Stalin Era (published by some minor German marxist publisher), i know how biased Western Lterature can be. Sometimes I think the Western Scholars did not read the primary sources they cite or try to disagrre with them to get pubished...

[@LadyIzdihar]

I mean I'd have to agree! I have an extremely hard time getting anything published because of my positive bias. Sometimes I feel like it would be so much easier if I critique things instead, but I won't. And my opportunity suffer because of that.

[@ГромкаяЧашка]

Grüße! :D

[@MisterTactless]

what have you published. i would be curious to read it.

[@markcorrigan3930]

This is very obvious in military history. I mean germans seem to think, to this day, that they won WW2 from barbarossa all they way to Berlin. The same with english and the hundred years war

[@SWProductions100]

@@LadyIzdihar Are there any small things you cover during the Stalin time period, like hobbies, chores, activities? Positively covering small things people enjoyed could *possibly* allow non-Russians to be eased into a more broader understanding of the people and culture of the time. (unless you've already tried that, in which case, all the best.).

[@spellman007]

when you think you are have no bias at all, that is when you are eating from the trash can of bias.

[@seanpol9863]

We often get told that we are biased and stuck in our own bubbles. And let me just say that... they are right. But the thing about bias is that it doesn't really mean anything because everyone skews everything to their own perspective. The only difference is that we are willing to admit it.

[@minhng7208]

You can be biased toward knowing facts

[@MarxyMarxAndTheFunkyBunch]

Your channel deserves so much more attention, comrade.

[@LadyIzdihar]

Thank you so much 💖😭 that's very kind of you to say

[@zaraj22]

seriously!!!!!

[@sebastiantigani2720]

Help iv been cloned

[@Ailasher]

Thank you for this video and channel. Both of my grandpas was a diehard commie. One successfully returned from Nazi captivity (he was a sailor). The second before the war was actually expelled from the Communist Party, he fought in the Soviet-Finnish and the entire Soviet part of World War II from 1941 to 1945. Both experienced a huge traumatic experience. But because of the positive that was in Soviet society in the 20s and 30s, I believe they preserved and carried their ideals through this horror and pain. That grandpa, who was expelled from the Party, then joined it again, already at the frontline, when this in his position meant literally less than nothing and he could be killed at any moment without using "party privileges".

[@contemptuoushomer6136]

It's always disappointing when a book which should have been a historical descriptor of a niche topic is clearly used as an ideological bludgeon.

[@Cassedy3]

Greetings, Lady Izdihar. Would you consider making a video about childrens books in the USSR ? I'm russian myself and I talk to my american friends often. It always saddens me when they just instantly assume all the children media in my childhood was propaganda and brainwashing.

[@veryveryveryvery161]

Moidodyr certainly was. A propaganda of personal hygiene.

[@stariyczedun]

@@nihilismful "незнайка в солнечном городе" и особенно "незнайка на луне" вполне себе тянут на пропаганду. Вообще, чем ближе к концу СССР, тем более "человечной" становилась детская литература. Всё-таки от "мальчиша-кибальчиша" до простоквашино большой путь пройден.

[@alexmcp5153]

It is really a relief, as someone from the US, to see someone examine primary sources from this era. Going through history classes during primary education here, you always have the vibe you're not getting the full story, but the route to getting it is totally opaque. These vids are very enlightening

[@redvelvetunderground]

i absolutely love your work and i'm so happy you're out here doing it. the USSR is so unfairly maligned and demonized to such a degree that the people who lived within it cease to be even seen as human or having their own will or inner lives, unless those specifically prop up american hegemony in some way. as someone who's been wanting to learn more about the culture and lives of the people who lived in the first socialist projects it's been a struggle to find any sources in english that will even try to talk about the soviet union in anything but a purely negative light. i started learning russian as a way of getting a better understanding and it's been pretty wonderful, i continue to be inspired every day by the songs and art and films and spirit of the soviet people! that being said my russian is still pretty basic so i'm really thankful you're doing this work to give real context and understanding to westerners poisoned by cold war propaganda!! thank you for all that you do & your book pdf scans!

[@t.c.3560]

Thank you for your work! If you can find it in English (I doubt so, the original is in Italian, but why not try) one of my professors wrote a very interesting book titled "C'era una volta l'URSS: 70 anni di storia culturale sovietica" (Once upon a time there was the USSR: 70 years of cultural soviet history). It gives a wide understanding of the Soviet era and for this it is extremely long (and the chapter are divided in specific years), but it's a beautiful volume. Keep up the good work! ❤️‍🔥

[@savosia499]

Credo il titolo sia "quando c'era l'URSS"

[@kontankarite]

Subbed. Yep. Im a simple man. Folks who speak of history from a materialist view gets my enthusiastic support. 👍

[@guy-sl3kr]

I've noticed that there's an entirely separate vocabulary that people are expected to use when talking about "bad countries", for lack of a better term. "Regime" instead of "government", "mandate" instead of "law", "ruler" instead of "president", etc. It's so prevalent that I think many people aren't even doing it purposely anymore.

[@matheusvillela9150]

Camps as opposed to prisons

[@nasiknosik]

@@matheusvillela9150 ГУЛАГ - Главное управление исправительно-трудовых лагерей where “лагерь” stands for “camp”, thats their own terminology

[@matheusvillela9150]

@@nasiknosik "Camp" isn't a word inherently more authoritarian than "prison", but the trauma of the nazi extermination camps, which were later (dishonestly) compared to gulags lead to the word being associated with authoritarianism and genocide. Which is why America, which has forced labor and the largest incarceration rate and prison population in the world, loves to say their enemies have "prison/concentration camps" as opposed to prisons like any other country.

[@ash3972]

@@matheusvillela9150 whataboutism to it's finest

[@sophiatalksmusic3588]

"President," at least, refers to a specific type of ruler, as opposed to a prime minister, chancellor, monarch, etc. I wouldn't say the words "president" and "ruler" are interchangeable, and the word "ruler" doesn't necessarily have the same sort of negative connotation as "regime."

[@JSmusiqalthinka]

As a socialist, one of the most frustrating things I experience is when I express my largely negative opinions towards Stalin/USSR in that time/Marxism-Leninism/what-have-you (again, BECAUSE of my belief in socialism), and then other various leftists just treat it like I said the same tired cliche anti-communist tropes. The fact that the most widely known criticisms towards Stalin, etc. are actually just plain ol' anti-leftist/right wing propaganda certainly doesn't help with that, nor does it help when trying to talk politics with many non-leftists.

[@jcrass2361]

It was literally this western bias against the Soviet Union, that I didn’t pursue a study of history on the USSR. Sucks, but I don’t think you can escape this type of language about this subject in academia.

[@jayasuryangoral-maanyan3901]

My understanding was that the main difference between Lenin and Stalin was that Lenin introduced preestablished industrialisation techniques used in Germany and partially in Russia, while Stalin established a novel industrialisation method copied by Mao and other socialist countries. That's what I see when I see stalinism used

[@Armyjay]

Wow what a pleasant, lovely surprise it was, is, to stumble across your channel. For once Utube recommended something interesting in my feed. I was immediately hooked from the moment i heard you speaking so passionately, eloquently and with deep knowledge and understanding of the subject. I must admit i rather liked your “ticked off” Tik Tok reaction to the book, i found it endearing. I am now subscribed and look forward to more of your informative and immensely watchable videos. Thank you. Solidarity Comrade.

[@mauriziobruni5728]

Hi there. YT's faulty algorithm advised your video, and here I am. I duly subscribed, looking forward to watching more of your interesting output. However, things didn't go as smoothly on Instagram, where an attempt to follow your account was firmly refused with the following warning: "We restrict certain activity to protect our community". Further confirmation that you are on the right track. Keep up your good work, comrade. :)

[@radicalrazel9156]

Thank you for yet another great video. As an anarchist and yiddishe Bundist, I will always have my fundamental disagreements with the USSR and Marxism-Leninism, but to critique something you must first actually understand what it is. Too many of my anarchist comrades don't work nearly as hard as they should on deconstructing the anti-communist propaganda that is fed us throughout our lives. We must have a balanced understanding of the USSR, Marxism-Leninism, and the propaganda surrounding it to fully understand contemporary communist movements and organisations, and why we disagree on the things we do. Keep up the good work ✊

[@phoneticalballsack]

FUCK ANARCHISM

[@radicalrazel9156]

@@phoneticalballsack why?

[@phoneticalballsack]

@@radicalrazel9156 Anarchism has NEVER worked. Meanwhile communism HAS worked and has lifted millions out of poverty.

[@radicalrazel9156]

​@@phoneticalballsack Minor Anarchist experiments have seen some success in modern times, along with proto-anarchistic societies being found throughout history, but yes, you are correct in that modern Anarchism has not seen large-scale success yet. But there was a time where Marxism was untried, and had only seen a handful of failed attempts. Should the Bolseviks not have risen up in the Russian Empire, because communism hadn't worked yet?

[@phoneticalballsack]

​@@radicalrazel9156 Marxism-Leninism is a science. Lenin already knew communism would work. So communism has never been "tried", it was implemented knowing that it could already provide a high quality of life for its people. Previous Marxist experiments like the Paris Commune were not as dialectically developed as Lenin's Russia. And it shows that even under circumstance where Marxism is implemented perfectly, without the dictatorship of the proletariat and without the necessity for strict enforcement of communism it still couldn't exist. Now, how long a society was able to function through the socialism phase before being overcome by capitalist forces? Some Marxist "socialist" states have existed for decades but stood no chance against the rise of capitalist armies. Couldn't the same happen in the US? A strong powerful anarcho-communist nation could theoretically survive for years, but as we saw in the revolutions of Russia and China, both great Insurrections were necessary before a genuine communist system could be established. The rise of despotic Tsar Nicholas and the bloodthirsty warlords assisted the revolution enormously; the ruthless military of Chiang Kai-Shek and British, Japanese and American imperialism were forces that anarchists can't fold. If such a communist community of American anarchists exists, how do we bring them to a point where Bennie Smith, Chevron and Halliburton discover that supporting communism is bad for business?

[@KohanKilletz]

I deeply respect your work. I do a very similar thing with my work about Ancient Canaan, which is so often derided and disrespected on account of the strong Judio Christian bias that has pervaded even in Academia

[@michadg4928]

I have been into revolutionary politics the last 15 years and I still catch myself struggling with internalized bias towards former socialist regimes. Your insights and confidence really help me in the process of unlearning all these crap.

[@danielhadad4911]

Your channel is a gold mine of empowering knowledge and good will. I'm sure that for every bigot out there trying to get under your skin, there will be 1000 of us learning from your honest effort. Love from Brazil!

[@SteelShad0w_]

I think one of the hardest things for me to process as an American is the separation of Authority from Power. One of the biggest reasons being, here in the West, the two are wielded as methods of oppression as though they're the same thing.

[@stella_h2o320]

This video just appeared in my recomended, and damn im so happy i came across your video and channel! Really making me want to learn more about the soviet union!

[@stella_h2o320]

@Zal-Zhurk yea i saw her aswell on that but didnt look at her work for some reason? Glad i found it in my recommended because now im reading USSR 100 questions and answers because of her :D

[@c4burger]

Gonna sound absurd to a certain degree but this is why I am inevitably going to learn Russian simply to have access to actual first hand resources. Can say learning French (which is well a lot fucking easier for an English speaker let me acknowledge this) has already opened up an entire nother world of history. Specifically regarding post-colonialism and the Algerian war of independence which to be honest until I began learning French, I knew little about. And this is after 1 year of learning French on my own. Can only IMAGINE what it would be like to learn a language with less political influence or association like Arabic or Russian or mandarin may open your eyes too, because even for French seriously WOW. And this is the language of the colonizer. Spanish will probably be next but yeah, eventually Russian someday. I want resources on the Soviet economy.

[@pppLT19]

Yeah especially since Putins regime closed all the centres concerning soviet crime research and registration (one of them gor Nobel peace prize this year)

[@stuartgrooves1115]

If you do learn Spanish, they sell a lot of very cheap, high quality vintage books about communism, Marxism and everything URSS in Cuba! (You can also learn a lot more about cuban socialism, if that's is of your interest ;) )

[@ar_tseg653]

Good luck in your future endeavours)

[@fun_ghoul]

Per Grover Furr, a lot of the most contentious (READ: Stalin) stuff is in places whose access is tightly controlled, like the Harvard library and the Russian Federation national archives. Even so, he would surely commend you for insisting upon primary source documentation! ✊🚩🛠️

[@karlfriedrich7053]

Hi i share your goal of learning Russian, i can only imagine the wealth of knowledge that is untranslated. By the way if you do begin to learn Spanish and want someone to practice conversation i could help you. Spanish is my mother tongue (Mexico) so let me know if you are interested. Either way i wish you the best in your learning adventures.

[@anitanielsen1061]

You look so pretty and your voice sounds nice and it's AWESOME for somebody to FINALLY ACKWLEDGE that EVERYTHING has bias!

[@maronin5215]

Ikr she's so pretty and engages the subject matter so beautifully, I'm simping dude

[@GustavoSor3y]

damn, your video was randomly suggested to me and I gotta say its so good. Thanks a lot for your work comrade! You're awesome! We really need more people like you to revive through social media the only path to actual freedom.

[@classcalamity669]

Here from the deprogrammed, and I'm here to stay. You're criminally underrated!

[@victorianeechan]

I follow you on tiktok, what a pleasure it is to have longer videos! Your aesthetics are impeccable

[@jesseleeward2359]

But when people talk about 'Stalinism' they are not talking about an academic theory or concept. They are talking about what Stalin did in power. So movements where there is a single strong man leader and it is considered not mentally healthy to defy him, and old fashioned thinking is considered 'a threat to the revolution' would be regarded as Stalinist.

[@Julia-gl7zu]

also girl ignore the mfs online who discredit your intellegence when you speak on political science I would be beyond interested to hear your thoughts on soviet politics !

[@LadyIzdihar]

I mean honestly I don't personally enjoy talking specifics of political structure as much as I enjoy talking about history, life, and material/ visuals of the USSR So I'd rather speak in what brings me joy and gets me excited!

[@Julia-gl7zu]

@@LadyIzdihar understandable i truley enjoy your historical content and as an Eastern European, I really respect that you try to humanize former eastern bloc countries :) I think it would be really cool if you made some videos about fashion and how you make your style, especially as a hijabi revolve around soviet history ! you inspire me to dress like u

[@marlonbryanmunoznunez3179]

Western narratives tend to be very annoying and repetitive. They have a set of assumptions and "facts" that use to describe the whole period. For example in discussions on housing in the USSR and Socialist states. They go constantly on how small and dreary and dehumanizing Soviet housing was. In contrast with what Capitalist housing? lol. Then you see some videos and pictures of actual Soviet built apartments and I always end thinking: for someone like me that under Capitalism won't ever be able to own anything and stop renting, I could really use one of those apartments. lol Keep the great work and don't be discouraged. There's still comrades out there that appreciate your work and need it. Subscribed.

[@guy-sl3kr]

That's so true. I swear, it's almost like introspection itself is outlawed over here because every time our media decries another country, it's practically guaranteed that we're doing something similarly reprehensible, or even worse. Goes without saying but I'm from the US.

[@BTin416]

Western capitalists all come back to one point. They know they have a corrupt system that gives people the shaft in their work, in their housing, in their health care, in their education. But what they all point to is "look how many consumer goods we have, how big our homes are, and how big our cars are." I mentioned this in my own reply to this wonderful video, but its true. They practically know that capitalism is a screwup system that fails every few years, but they just insist that's how we have such immense consumer goods as the reason to keep this disaster train moving. Its time leftists exploit this charade of reasoning. Its easy to have immense consumer goods when you oppress so many nations of the Earth into producing for you, blockading other systems from buying everything from bananas in central America to clothing in Bangladesh and ensuring the world's capitalist class countries get the benefit. Its time for a system that works for everyone, not the wealthy and well connected private ownership class.

[@annyjones7228]

As in contrast to Eastern narratives that are toooootally nuanced and un-biase. Yoi do know this doesn't make much sense right? Yes the West propagated against Communism because the saw ot as a major threat jut as much as the UdSSR vetted against Capitalism. It made sense in the historic context and seeing as all the previous UdSSR states like Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and DEFINITELY Ukrain do not want to relive the Soviet experience does show how much the regime did not work. Not saying that the US is better but if I have to choose an overlord I will definitely choose the one with an intact democracy.

[@richnothnagel]

My partner the other year, having noticed my growing interest in Communism and Socialism, picked me up a book about life in China after the revolution. Before I even got to the book proper, the introduction said that this book about the evil and oppressive Chinese government was fiction but could be true. 🙄 At least the cover looked cool.

[@elonmusksellssnakeoil1744]

The "Grover Furr anti-Stalin paradigm" is absolutely real. It's really sad.

[@Слышьты-ф4ю]

On your nickname: #spacetitanx

[@noracola5285]

Please don't become too discouraged by negative comments, especially on TikTok; they are all desperately coping with their own cognitive dissonance. ❤

[@fun_ghoul]

Also, capitalist state-sponsored trolls are a thing. The more dangerous the message is to P**ky, the more apt you are to see them flinging...uh, let's say "invective"! 🐵💩

[@dinnerwithfranklin2451]

Well said.

[@GuyWhoLikesTheSnarkies1435]

5:23 You know, you're gonna hurt the feeling of this guy in his gaming chair who self-proclaimed as "Taliban Stalinist" lmao😂 Loving your priceless Soviet history content so far, lady. Keep it up!❤️🥰

[@chanegun]

Stalinism was a thing. The term she uses to refer to Stalin’s ideology “Marxism-Leninism” was invented by Stalin. Describing it as Stalinism is just being intellectually honest. That’s why his opponents in the party described it as such.

[@Moebius8282]

​@@chanegunits not a whole ideology on its own. Like with marxist leninism lenin used marxism and applied it to under developed societies and the concept of a vanguard party also comes from him and both these things became the main points on which many communist states like cuba, china, Vietnam were founded. Stalinism initself is not much of an ideology but a way of governance. The main ideological point is essentially just a response to trotskyism and his ideas of a permanent revolution.

[@grigorimolotov2955]

I've read similar biased books about the Soviet Union. There's mostly really bad scholarship being done in America, especially in the field of legal research and law.

[@TundraTrash]

Over 99% of legal research in the US is aimed at justifying and protecting the power and authority of capital.

[@GoodStarfish]

Just found your channel today and It's so refreshing to hear somebody push back against this anti-materialist bs

[@Joao_eddie]

I started following the channel a little while ago but I'm delighted. On the Internet there are few people who honestly talk about the Soviet Union, unfortunately. Especially with all the anti-communist propaganda in the western media. Congratulations for the great content, greetings from Brazil.

[@valirupe]

I just discovered your channel but the way you combine socialism, islam and feminism is very mesmerizing and pretty unique, keep up the good work.

[@DinizCabreira]

You are bringing very necessary views on how to analyze the Soviet Union, and on questioning the dominant narrative in the capitalist centre. Thank you for your work.

[@sophiatalksmusic3588]

As someone who also researches Soviet history with an emphasis on the cultural side of things (in my case, classical music), I can agree with you on some points here, such as the use of "Stalinism" being more properly applied to the time period, culture, and policies during Stalin's time in power, as opposed to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. I also appreciated the fact that you acknowledged your own biases; however, my one issue with this video is that while I understand you want to bring the more positive side of Soviet history to your audience's attention, by understating the atrocities that took place in the 1930s as simply "things that didn't work out," you also portray an incomplete picture of the realities of the time period to your audience. I'm not saying you have to explicitly focus on things like the Purges, Holodomor, and collectivization campaigns, and the positives of the 1930s are just as important to discuss, but dismissing the brutal negatives as simply failed experiments also detracts from a nuanced discussion of the time period, just as much as solely focusing on them does.

[@LadyIzdihar]

Perhaps I used the wrong wording. My intention isn't to dismiss anything.

[@CWFpresentes]

You can be autocritic, but not autofagic. The liberals have already a lot of "critic" about the CCCP, we cannot focus on the mistakes, specialy when we are not in power, there is a lot of anticomunismo propaganda, we have to focus on the good things. The chinese have the possibility to bem autocritic, and they mostly are.

[@sophiatalksmusic3588]

@@CWFpresentes You can focus on the good things while also acknowledging that the bad things were, well, bad. That's just good historical practice.

[@sophiatalksmusic3588]

@@LadyIzdihar No problem; thanks for your response!

[@hospod163]

Extremely based answer. I feel very wary when someone dismissed these things as expirements that failed often times people who say this want to excuse what happened or make it seem not that terrible. Not saying she wants to do that per se but viewers should take this into account the next time she makes a video

[@DinoCism]

This is the thing about modern scholarship on the USSR. We finally have academics that use primary sources rather than "rumor, conjecture and speculation" ie. Robert Conquest. But these modern liberal academics (Getty, Naumov) will cite accurately sources which demonstrate achievements of the Soviet system and undermine cold warrior narratives, but then immediately after that they will just assert "but that's bad actually." Either they are afraid of being called communists or they are so inculcated that they need to put even positive things in a negative light, it's probably a combination of both tbh. I literally spoke to a boomer the other day at a protest who said "everything you're saying is a no brainer, but it can't happen because communism is scary to people." When you demonize something enough that all people know about it is that it's "demonic" apparently that becomes the primary obstacle rather than any real disagreements that people have.

[@Shuhannazy]

I’m homeless and disabled in the US America is doo doo. Let’s change it. Keep up the good work 💜

[@MegaTang1234]

I think you should have mentioned Kruschev and Trotsky. While both never used the term "Stalinism" or any words similar to it, it's thanks to them that they propagated the ideas of Stalin having a cult of personality.

[@iamjoeysteel]

So I was just reading up on some Stalin history stuff and decided to comb biographies for a change. Found some interesting ones. One I'm looking at suggests the CCCP majority around 1937 started revisionism. It states that Stalin's opponents push for the cult of personality to use against him later. In an interview with Lion Feuchtwanger in 1937 Stalin himself says as much. Also when Lion asked about the poor busts of him everywhere some of what Stalin said was, "Alien elements, careerists, are attached to any party that wins. They try to defend themselves on the principle of mimicry - they exhibit busts, write slogans that they themselves do not believe in. As for the poor quality of the busts, this is done not only on purpose (I know it happens) but also out of an inability to choose. For example, I saw portraits of me and my comrades on the May Day demonstration: similar to devils. People carry it with delight and do not understand that portraits are not good. You cannot issue an order for good busts to be exhibited - well, to hell with them! There is no time to do such things, we have other things to do and worries, you don’t even look at these busts…” Kinda rough translation.

[@colonel__klink7548]

I mean... They named a city STALINGRAD... there is irrefutable proof that there was a cult of personality. Now it's worth pointing out WASHINGTON D.C and WASHTINGON (the state) in the USA. So it's not like cults of personality only existed in the Soviet Union. Now there are Leninist youtubers who say "Stalin was actually very much against the cult of personality and it was Kruschev that principally pushed it and then capitalized on it after Stalin's death." But... That sounds to me like Octavian ("Augustus" Meaning "Enlightened" ) Caesar saying "What?! Emperor!? No no no, I'm not an Emperor. I am just a very respected citizen and the senators all respect my wisdom! There's nothing more to it than that!" Stalin absolutely totally dominated the Soviet leadership and wound up being the focal point. In truth the Soviet system probably was unworkable without a figure like him. After his death nobody was able to amass that kind of control, so when the Soviet Union wanted to cyberize in the 1950s the Army couldn't be made to share it's computer technology (some of the best in the world) with the civilians because that would mean sharing power. None of the civilian leaders could agree on who would be in charge of (and gain the power from) the program to cyberize the economy and it all fell apart due to infighting. By the mid-late1970s there was no longer the political capacity for centralized economic planning. By the 1980s civilian leaders were carving the economy into their personal fiefs for profit. IN 1991 this became formalized as they carved the union up politically as well as economically. Without the Stalin figure, brutal or not (jury is still out on that one) the Soviet Union drifted apart as the party members carved it up for their own personal benefit.

[@Слышьты-ф4ю]

Yeah, but the main point is that in USSR, class struggle remained. Between workers who care about entire class, and workers who yet have remains of bourgeoisie morale and primarily care about personal benefit (up to trying to become capitalists). First class have got significantly weaker and lower in numbers during WW2 due to, well, death. Second have started to replace the first in the party, installing Khrushchev and turning the Soviet democratic power into a suggestion.

[@RonanGHarte]

This is a fantastic video. I stopped talking to people about the state socialist experience with people who aren't familiar with socialist theory and practice because it is a thankless task trying to cut through misconceptions and propaganda and bias. Keep making videos please

[@ФоняСахалинский]

Эм что такое государственный социализм ?

[@LaudianoHeathen]

@@ФоняСахалинский it’s when anarchist mad

[@RonanGHarte]

@@morgancody6752 Then you don't know what capitalism is or anything about the economic relations of the USSR.

[@RonanGHarte]

@@morgancody6752 Wrong. You don't understand capitalism. And silly bean is not an argument.

[@user-bv7um1ds7y]

@@morgancody6752 and the USSR was largely democratic, with more democratic structures than most western countries. Maybe learn Soviet history and political structure first

[@bugsby4663]

It is great to see a different viewpoint, especially from someone so passionate and interesting. When I learnt about Stalin's policies compared to those of Lenin or Trotsky etc, the one thing that came up was 'socialism in one country'. This was the idea of getting it right in Russia first, which was certainly more practical than Trotsky's belief in world revolution. Does this count as 'Stalinism'? As you mentioned, the USSR was such a vast landmass with so many different peoples that it is sloppy thinking to make one size fits all. Also, you mentioned things being taken down? Is this because it is pro socialist or because we are expected to believe CIA taling points that Russia is an evil country?

[@fun_ghoul]

To answer your terminal question even tho you weren't asking me (sorry!), both.

[@rileyboyer3582]

I am still figuring out where I fall, definitely a marxist leninist, and I find myself agreeing with trotsky, especially in the modern world, I think in the coming decades a global revolution is going to become more and more practical, and more necessary with our brethren in the third world already seeing catastrophic climate change-related events. and I feel that's what is going to take to get anything done. Western countries are far too powerful, to overthrow one at a time, and in the third world the west will try is very best to stop any attempt at socialism, so I think in our lifetime, soon even, we'll have a real opportunity to have a wave of revolution, as I think trotsky puts it. I just think achieving revolution, and then socialism in the modern world is going to look very different than it did in the 20th century

[@timurnurzhauov1917]

No it isn't because Stalin didn't even come up with the concept - it was first formulate by Nikolai Bukharin and the right current of the VKP(b) which later became known as the "right opposition". Stalin didn't have a concrete ideology per say, in that while he was a communist, he didn't really have his own "-ism", at least during his rise to power, with him and his "centre" faction trying to compromise with all the different ideological currents in the part leading to a hodgepodge of concepts and ideas. The 5-year plans were directly taken from Trotsky and the "Left Opposition". Socialism in one country was borrowed from Bukharin and the "Right Opposition". The subjugation of the parties of the Comintern to the interests of the VKP(b) was done under Zinoviev and merely continued by Stalin. It was these pragmatic compromises and mix of ideas that would be carried out under Stalin's rule, which would be termed by Western historians as "Stalinism", which demonstrates how flawed it is to try to characterize it as the brainchild of one man.

[@user-bv7um1ds7y]

@@timurnurzhauov1917 Very true, Stalinism is for the most part a western scare word. Stalin furthered Marxism-Leninism, but he was not singlehanded.

[@ppazpppaz8618]

And Trotsky was proved correct, that taking a national road to socialism, only leads back to capitalism. Try reading the WSWS site, which is a Trotskyist Website, it has extensive articles on the USSR, its history and an in-depth analysis of Stalinism (which was a nationalist reaction against socialist internationalism).

[@TheAnthraxBiology]

I understand what you're getting at when you say Stalinism isn't a thing as you'd prefer to use Marxism Leninism, but there is obviously a difference between someone like Che Guevara who wanted an almost immediate transition to communism in Cuba and third world socialism vs Stalin who maintained an authoritarian state and wanted to create a somewhat mixed economy where the Soviet Union profited from its trade with third world countries to their detriment. The Marxist Leninists of the third world have very little in common with Stalin, and even someone like Brezhnev or Kruschev is quite different from Stalin given the heavy censorship and inflexibility of certain aspects that were central to his economic ideas as well as his total rejection of the NEP and the persecution of its supporters as the bourgeoisie. Stalinism may not be a fully technically developed political theory but it is useful in describing a set of characteristics that characterise a certain time period where party power was more centralised in the hands of Stalin and Molotov, and where the previous independence of the other nations was slowly chipped away at. A lot of people throw it out the window completely, say it's Marxism Lrninism, and everyone else is actually dumb because they clearly haven't read the theory but this still ignores the importance and utility of the term in historiography. I don't think that's exactly what you're doing because I know you're coming from a good place but I think that you are forgetting that it has a purpose in history books beyond just promoting western imperialism. Scholars of the revisionist school like Sheila Fitzpatrick who are often criticised for being too kind to the Soviet Union (she also lived there for a while to access their archives) as well as the later synthesis school agree on this. Yes, Stalin's period was long and varied but it normally trended towards greater centralised power for the party in Russia and the power in that party was centralised in an increasingly small circle around him with a certain set of economic and Conservative social policies. It is not useless. Also you're right in saying that a lot of things were failed experiments rather than evil conspiracies as the west makes them out to be eg. Collectivisation that resulted in the holodomor - the general consensus being that this was not a genocide - but you also seem to make out as though the very present and severe repression during the stalinist years (those from 1937 onwards especially) were just...not really that bad? Or there at all? The material conditions of urban people improved compared to under the czar but a lot of their social lives were worse than under Lenin or the early years after Lenin's death and you seem to ignore this. Shostakovich literally had to apologise for just making music Stalin didn't like because by his later years the suppression had become so extreme. This seems a bit like "focusing on the positives" gone too far to me. Not all of this throughout his entire reign was done by Stalin himself - he was only one person - but as I said before throughout his time it became increasingly centralised in his smaller circle and he became increasingly detached from his own people and revolution. And remember that the Bolsheviks themselves were a MINORITY in the revolution who eliminated the other factions. And also you mention the party membership as a way of bolstering the idea of popular support for the party - members of the army were automatically members of the party so that's a bit deceptive to say the least. I enjoyed the video, I like the thesis at the heart of it, but I think you should do some research on historiography and how to research history if you're going to read up so much on a very controversial period of history especially to debunk the arguments of others. I don't know if you have a background in history but if not I'd recommend reading The Modern Researcher by Barzur and Graff because it's fairly comprehensive but doesn't fall into the trap of being two academics just patting themselves on the back for too long. Also to address what you said about universities earlier, that can be true in some universities but not in others. It really just depends on the country and university and that's unfortunate because it makes it super difficult to discern who's being genuine and who's not. One thing that is useful about a formal background in history is that you learn how to critically analyse sources/historiography which most people who do not study history - even those who read tons of history books - often times don't do. So it's a mixed bag. My college in Ireland is good for that but my year in seville sent me to one backward ass college because of the way they'd set up their system.

[@g.m.9180]

Thank you for expressing that so well

[@g.m.9180]

And I kinda want to read "the modern researcher" now even though I don't work in history. Hope she sees this.

[@emmetharrigan5234]

Thank you for this comment; you are evidently knowledgeable about the subject. I absolutely agree that the stalinist period, as in the period of stalin's rule, was quite varied. However, one consistent thread is the marked change in foreign policy, having domestic repercussions. In a slight rebuttal: as Marxism is a project of disestablishing the state structure in any given country through the arming of the proletariat and violent overthrow of the ruling class, the essential idea of the Stalinist foreign policy is that of "socialism in one country", which is a departure from both marx and lenin as it purposefully and indefinitely sustains the state structure. To that extent, the regime of Stalin did have a consistent ideological through-line, which can establish the basic ideology of what we can call "stalinism"; that is- mainly a consolidation of central power, forced deportation and imprisonment for the purpose of ethnic confusion in subservice of the national project, and an idea of the ever-expanding global socialist state without any concrete plans to later dissolve the state structure

[@jangrebennikov8753]

Thank you for making this video. This is an issue I've been encountering quite often recently - and it significantly hinders my ability to find credible books on topics which interest me. A couple days ago, for example, I started reading a book on the history of Communist Czechoslovakia by Kevin McDermott and it almost seemed like the author himself was not aware of his biases. Apart from using the term 'Stalinist' 102 times, the book is littered with sentences such as: _"Stalin’s repeated protestations of non-intervention in Czechoslovak internal affairs were not completely disingenuous"_ ...where the author goes to great lengths to avoid using the word "honest" in regards to Stalin. Or this paragraph: _"Upward social mobility for hitherto disadvantaged groups was a particularly noteworthy aspect of ‘Stalinisation’ with hundreds of thousands of ‘traditional’ work ers moving into non-manualadministrative jobs to be replaced by even more ‘new’ workers from largely non-proletarian backgrounds. It seems reasonable to conclude that these beneiciaries of the sys tem formed a solid, if not permanent, social base of support for the regime."_ ...which makes providing opportunity for disadvantaged groups sound like a manipulative tactic employed to gain support. The lingistic bias is just so obvious once you start noticing it and it pains me to have to be so careful about choosing the books I read.

[@Hchris101]

Stalin was a philipino who spoke portugese it’s true i read it on wikipedia

[@grmpEqweer]

It sounds like the writer can't seem to admit that there was anything at all that the Soviet Union did right, without practically screaming, "BUT WE DID IT BETTER! SOCIALISM BAD! SOCIALISM BAD! MURICUH!"🇺🇲

[@barbarakasomenakis2536]

Finding your videos and channel was a beautiful discovery ... شاكر!

[@ernstthalmann4306]

The USSR had collective leadership.

[@ernstthalmann4306]

@J bruh, read the definition of each, fascism and communism, and it's obvious the USSR was not fascist. Fascism is their #1 enemy. Authoritarian? Yes. But not all authoritarian are fascists.

[@Darth.Vermilius]

I love that Cheburashka behind you; nice job, by the way!

[@fredflintstone5776]

When and where were lives improved?!

[@yaoischolar]

i read a post about how marxist theory genuinely changes your outlook on life to be more positive. pre-war USSR is just full of so much hope, the same kind i find myself trying to emulate and carry every single day. it really is about building a better future for the collective so that we can continue to live and thrive. even if i cant have that right now, maybe my children or grandchildren can.

[@mcrisologo4]

I dont really have much to add but i just wanted to say i appreciate your content

[@DimitryCheniche]

I absolutely love your Cheburashka!;) Thanks for your work. Good luck with everything.

[@Jack-ns9sz]

I am SO glad I've found your channel. Looks like great content. Subscribed!

[@doodle3984]

Completely besides the point but I had an extremely similar, maybe the exact same head scarf one right now. I use it as a shawl however hope it's not disrespectful I never knew what that purpose was. I assumed it was just a shawl.

[@LadyIzdihar]

This is a Russian Pavlovo Posad shawl, it's used for many many reasons! To keep your shoulders warm or your head!

[@doodle3984]

@@LadyIzdihar thank you i was concerned there for a bit.

[@TiberiumAusten]

You said you don't like to get political but boy would I love to hear your thoughts on Trotsky and others who had very critical analyses of Stalin.

[@razahrtelvanni2018]

I’ve decided to try to make as objective of a study of the Soviet Union/Socialism as I can. In the past I used to be very much against Socialism, then very much for it (I even became a newsboy for a short lived radical newspaper) and in both times I let prior ideological convictions cloud what sources I decided to investigate, and let me dismiss things I didn’t like without further inquiry. Recent resurgences of Lysenkoism in academia (and its attempts at penetrating natural science) have made me become very wary of when I am searching for facts to support my position rather than forming a position based on the facts. I have always been an Atheist, so the Socialist philosophy of Dialectical Materialism has been my favorite point of study, as I also very much love science.

[@ppazpppaz8618]

Try reading the WSWS site , which has an extensive array of articles on the USSR and Stalinism.

[@PsychedelicCoco]

Think you’re definitely right to critique the prejudices of bourgeois scholarship in this video as it relates to the development of the Soviet Union. By rejecting the legitimacy of the revolution they must reframe their whole analysis around the whole society’s fundamental illegitimacy and consequently portray more about their own prejudices than offering any insight into the real processes in the country. However I do think there is some limited use in the term “Stalinism” insofar as it can help describe the official ideology of the Soviet Union in its period of bureaucratic degeneration. The policy of Stalin and the Communist Party was quite distinct from Marxism and Leninism imo and in fact a rejection of much of its revolutionary thrust. I’d recommend checking out works from Bolshevik critics of Stalin and the policy of the Soviet government in the late 20s and 30s such as Victor Serge’s “Memoirs of a Revolutionist.” Such works offer criticism from a radical standpoint which I believe stand closer to the kernel of Marxism and Leninism that flourished in the revolutionary period of the Soviet Union. At the very least examining the debates within the Communist Party in the period between Stalin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Bukharin, Radek, etc. give important insights in the problems of developing proletarian democracy

[@MrCarlWax]

I just found you, that was a great video. I had no idea you were the one who were on DeProgram. I should have subscribed to you back then. Keep up informing and making great content, comrade!

[@wilikoki_ula2540]

Beautiful distinction between power and authority

[@toinpituba6590]

Sempre é muito agradável ouvir você Lady Izdihar! Abraço fraterno do Brasil !

[@hee_hee9964]

Fico muito feliz de ver outros brasileiros que tambem partilham do conhecimento que esse tipo de vídeo traz. Izdihar é de fato uma pessoa muito agradável e informativa!

[@LilithVictoria537]

Que belo encontrar outros brasileiros aqui. Saberiam me informar a linha de pensamento dela? Se é mais marxista-leninista, trotskysta ou maoista, pois ajuda bastante saber a linha de pensamento que ela se baseia mais

[@lukabogdanovic4658]

Could you do a video on good books on the USSR in the 1930's like what was life like ?

[@WhalePolarizer]

From my point of view Stalinism is mostly used for describing the purges during the 1920s, 30s and 40s. While probably not adding anything new to Marxist-Leninist thought, Stalin did add his ideas on governing. He constructed an immense network of bureaucrats accumulating the power in their hands which, in the beginning, was destined to lay in the hands of the people. He also had his own understanding of the concept of „nation“ and the notion of „self-determination“. When you read Stalin‘s works and compare them to Lenin‘s you see clear differences. Thus, „Stalinism“, so do I think, can at least be legitimately used for describing new circumstances in everyday’s life at that time in the Soviet Union, i.e. massive industrialisation, purges, notions of different political concepts, bureaucracy. Still, as you have pointed out, it is very problematic describing all that with only a single word while putting it on the same shelf with Leninism because people might think that massive changes have occurred in marxist thought which clearly was not the case.

[@SkyguyFilmsZooruvfilms]

I have a bunch of books of first hand accounts of the early USSR and other periods which I don’t have any time to read and I think some of them would be of great use to you if you don’t have them or internet access to them, if you ever do a PO Box thing I would definitely send them to you, let me know I guess

[@LadyIzdihar]

I hope to open a PO box soon!

[@turroluca]

Thx tovarisch. Do you have any reccomendation on books about stalin and the soviet era? Not the level of grover furr, which doesn't have peer review. Especially italian or engliah book.

[@katfayegarrett3872]

So excited to come across your channel. I've been studying up on Marx/Lenin/Trotsky and found this vid fascinating. I love learning about Soviet/Russian history. Such a fascinating country.✌️✊

[@chanegun]

It was forbidden and punishable by death to study Trotsky in the period she is talking about.

[@igorT487]

If you had studied Trotsky you certainly wouldnt find this video great

[@igorT487]

If you had studied Trotsky you certainly wouldnt find this video great

[@Слышьты-ф4ю]

​@@chanegun and for a good reason.

[@dinnerwithfranklin2451]

Thank you for your work to humanize the people of the Soviet Union. It is important work.

[@oliviasonell960]

Really want to read some of the Anna Louise Strong, the excerpt you shared from the dictatorship pamphlet about authority is fascinating since that understanding of the difference between power and authority was one articulated by the early revolutionary anarchists. If accurate, it just highlights why there should be consistent solidarity between these disparate "left" groups.

[@noheroespublishing1907]

This is why I support Grover Furr's main thesis; the more society "dies out" of the remaining Cold War Generation, the closer we will come to honest historical research.

[@KrasMazovHatesYourGuts]

Yeah...but I'm afraid neither Furr or his work will be a part of it.

[@noheroespublishing1907]

@@KrasMazovHatesYourGuts If it's inspiring people to dig into Soviet history; it's serving as a spark of inquiry, and by default is a part of kindling the inquiry. The same way Ludo Martens "Another View of Stalin" has spurred on people to reevaluate the Stalin period, Furr is in a similar category.

[@slipknotboy555]

Thank you! There is no such thing as "Stalinism." Stalin, as you said, was a Marxist-Leninist. He always referred to himself as a student of Lenin. And despite what some people like to claim, he was a Leninist through and through. "Stalinist"/"Stalinism" is absolutely intended to be an insult. I recently started a new channel, and actually named it "It's Called Leninism" in response to this very thing. I've been working on a Stalin biography project -a more honest one - for a good while, and made the channel for it (but it'll probably end up going beyond that). The first two videos (An intro, and Pt.1) are up now! (I haven't done any of the ""branding"" stuff for the channel yet, so excuse that). If anyone wants to check them out, it would be appreciated. And wait, z-lib is down!? When did it happen? Pretty sure I got 2 out of my 3 main sources from it! (There are more, of course, but 3 main ones). That sucks. Great video, and sorry for the plug, but I felt it was appropriate; this video is fitting for it, heh

[@itscalledleninism]

Here's the channel, for anyone who might be interested!

[@aimeenasryn9773]

Hey sorry to bother but as a comrade in an international M-L organization, what's your perspective on Trotsky?

[@slipknotboy555]

@@aimeenasryn9773 Haha, to give a short, relatively nice answer - it's not very positive

[@itscalledleninism]

Thanks to everyone who checked the videos out! I appreciate it!

[@bilbobaggins5752]

I think "Stalinist" is a good term when used to describe that type of socialist classical architecture. It is sort of a time period thing, but it spells the end of constructivist modern architecture into a revival of Roman architecture, again.

[@fuad000100]

Assalaamualaikum sister❤ Great content. Subbed!

[@n7kk1]

thanks to my friend Schlatski for sharing this video

[@travis8895]

Personally I'm a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Stalinist-Dengist-Allendeist-Pinochetist-Hoxchaist with Anarcho-Monarchist-Bidenist tendencies and this video is important!

[@Larwill-OmniGothic-NeoFuturist]

Didn’t Stalin break with the previous Marxist idea that the direction of the main blow should be for the Soviet Union to primarily support worker movements in industrial countries where there was a developed proletariat; and instead, did Stalin not see the main blow to be against imperialism and that the Soviet Union should focus on supporting national liberation struggles in the third world? So in this sense would not Mao be a Stalinist following in this direction? Would change come by financially supporting worker movements in Europe or by sending AK47s to the third world. The problem with the term “Stalin-ism” is it is mostly a term used by anti-communists to equate it with “bad evil dictatorship” and does not include much analysis of what Stalin might have actually believed that was different or the same as other Marxists.

[@das81]

The problem Is American Sovietology... Latín American sovietology Is not that creepy.

[@bannistg]

Rather than videoing the book which produces unclear shaky iphone footage, it might be a better Idea to do a voice-over on a screenshot of text rewritten from the book.

[@everlyphoenix2978]

first time seeing this channel, I'm already subscribed :)

[@alexrediger2099]

You're making my brain feel better.

[@janefrericks8488]

Stalin memorials are all over Russia. If the people who lived under his leadership and their descendents had terrible memories of bad experiences with Stalin, this would not be so

[@fun_ghoul]

I don't think your argument is sound, inasmuch as there are monuments to Sir John A. Macdonald all over so-called Canada, and most people know nothing of the man save for him having been the first prime minister of the current iteration of this squatter colony. That said, many Russians and other post-Soviet people do indeed hold Stalin in high regard, and rightly so. Cheers from my squat on unceded Omamíwininíwag land, a bit upstream of Aladdin Trudeau's palace.

[@janefrericks8488]

@@fun_ghoul Maybe a difference is that Stalin art continues to be produced there now? Soviet symbols are abundant and they're not all from the Soviet era

[@fun_ghoul]

@@janefrericks8488 Yes and no. Putin et al. still uphold Stalin as good, but always in chauvinistic Russian nationalist terms (e.g. "he was good for Russia!"), while loudly denigrating MLism in every way possible. This is how you end up with Nazbols who purport to love Stalin, but completely disfigure his legacy to make it compatible with their latter-day Hitlerism or, dare I say, Putlerism? Lol Anyway, there's defo still residual admiration for both Stalin and MLism in Russia and some post-Soviet republics, but it's largely been defanged and co-opted by 🐷y, not unlike what's been done to MLK, Malcolm X and the Black Panther Party in -America- occupied central Turtle Island.

[@kumquatninja]

Google destalinification

[@thaiscare]

What about all of the confederate monuments and flying of the confederate flags in America? Some state flags even memorialized the confederacy

[@stasacab]

My relatives lived in the USSR, some returned to Finland, some still live in Russia. I am fortunate to speak a minority language used in the USSR and also some Russian. I am a big fan of the Karelia.

[@cadmannnichols7759]

Thank you for the video! Your videos are so thoughtful and I really appreciate the perspectives and stories you highlight.

[@Cesar1492Enjoyer]

Stalin did contribute to Marxist thought, socialism in one country.

[@randomserb761]

That's actually Lenin's idea (On the Slogan of a United States of Europe, or something like that, is the name of the article where the idea first emerges). Stalin said as much himself. He never claimed to have invented the idea, he only defended and elaborated it to fight the left opposition's nonsense.

[@digdigdigo]

your videos are so good, we need more critical analysis like this

[@unkeptmenace]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this before and I don't want to be knit picky but I think the author did not mean to say that they had worse stores before the revolution but that comparing the first hand accounts situation to contemporaries' shopping situation you would find it to br much better etc.

[@unkeptmenace]

this does not change your point but just a little thing that I noticed. Idk maybe i got it wrong too

[@jaredmcdaris7370]

I recently started reading ‘National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union.’ I knew ahead of time that the author (Antony C Sutton) was a reactionary conservative, but somehow I had convinced myself that there would at least be a veneer of ‘objectivity.’ But hoo boy… equating soviet socialism and nazism on the third page of the intro. Frequent use of “statism,” which in this context evidently means, just… when the state has authority. This man was a US citizen. #ExcuseMeWhileIRollMyEyesIntoNextCentury

[@pppLT19]

I mean...Stalin deported entire ethnic minorities, he deported around 100k jews from western Ukraine, many of whom holocaust survivors. He made soviet victory into a myth of western slavic victory (and presented them as poor victims and victoriuos, while in reality russians collaborated with nazis like other ethnicities) etc. etc. Repressions were huge, gulag existed and yes, you can still be fascinated about soviet makeup or military strategies and not deny Stalins crimes like how hard can it be? Why on earth people like her feel like they need to defend Stalin? Why act like he was a pure hero? Academics are indeed academics for a reason and girlie is just a tankie who made her personality into whitewashing USSR and russian imperialism.

[@matheusvillela9150]

@@pppLT19Yeah, I'm gonna need a source on those claims. Nobody is saying Stalin was a flawless hero. She's just asking that we take a more complex perspective on a society that is not that of the personal playground of a cartoon villain.

[@jaredmcdaris7370]

@@pppLT19 I meeeeeeeean... why do people feel the need to defend Joe Biden? Donald Trump? Barack Obama? FDR? They all murdered many thousands of people, they all committed heinous crimes against vulnerable ethnic groups, they all happily oversaw the continuation of the US prison system, just to name a very very few of their super-villain-level misdeeds. Any crime pinned on Stalin (or indeed any ruler of any state of roughly comparable size and power) can be pinned on any president from WWII to modern day (or, indeed, any ruler of any state of comparable size). But people are perfectly happy to say, "Okay, sure, but here are the good things Bill Clinton did..." and that's just accepted as normal. This kind of treatment towards Stalin (and I really don't know what about this translates as "pure hero" for you) seems perfectly in line with how most people in the westernized world treat the rulers of westernized nations.

[@pppLT19]

@@matheusvillela9150 1. Deported all the Koreans in USSR to central asia (claimed thats because they collaborated with nazis) 2. Deported 100% of crimean tatars on the same basis (which is particulary disgusting, because many of the tatars fought in the red army and some even participated in taking berlin, didnt matter, all deported) 3. All poles and jews deported from western ukraine after the war, some were holocaust victims, didnt matter. 4. There are tons of stories like these regarding repressions and deportations, but practically all national minorities, especially in european part faced mass deportations, deporting proportions of their people and in all cases russian settles were moved in, often into the property of deported people. They used to have quatas in collective farms in Russia to go for that coloniastion bs. These policies are the only reason why Kaliningrad and Crimea are russian.

[@pppLT19]

@@jaredmcdaris7370 I mean if that is the reason for you to defend Stalin thats your own fkd up thinking. People also justify their support for russia that way, it can be homophobic, imperialistic, ultra conservative regime, but people on far left would support it because of whataboutism. Tbh you just look stupid with this argument, criticize both ffs

[@raiorai2]

Such an interesting video! Your perspective is quite informative and it's great to see a nuanced take on soviet russia, which takes the people into account. Only thing that kinda bugged me is the wording in the beginning of your TikTok: saying researchers are just as credible as everyone else may feed anti-intelectualism of a kind that's becoming a big problem in the US specially. Of course, we need to be very skeptical of any researcher (specially those that pretend to be unbiased...) and the average person's perspective should be taken into account nonetheless. Great video!

[@qwilfish6339]

Stalinism refers to a regime where the bureaucracy gradually usurped the power of the working class. It was a social phenomenom which can be explained by the extreme poverty in USSR after the civil war and the defeat of all other Revolution in Europe (especially the german Revolution). Stalin did not become a dictator alone, he was the main representant of the bureaucracy: there were plenty of little Stalin in USSR. The bureaucracy did have its own political goals which were not to expand the Revolution world wide (we can see that by studying how the Komintern was used in order to avoid any proletarian revolution or to provoke their defeat for example in China in 1927 in France and Spain in 1936) but simply to stabilise its power in USSR and obtain advantages by parasiting the soviet economy (the "Socialism in one country" doctrine). However, thanks to the legacy of the October Revolution, USSR remained a worker state but a degenerated one. It was not a capitalist state and despite the bureaucracy, its socialised economy has proven to be not only possible but better than capitalism. All that can be found in the left opposition writings and specifically in Trotsky's ones.

[@jakobsmith4046]

That is a myth, intentionally created as US propaganda during the cold war. Let me guess you're a trot?

[@qwilfish6339]

@@jakobsmith4046 which part is a myth ? I don't think that the US ever agreed with Trotsky thesis as a whole

[@harsht17]

Came here to say this. Lovely video otherwise. I just can't share the same amount of enthusiasm about pre war ussr given the purges of the left opposition and the destruction of internationalism through the comintern itself (CLR James' book World Revolution is a great analysis of how the bureaucracy inside the ussr ended up obstructing revolution elsewhere).

[@pppLT19]

@@jakobsmith4046 😆 Jesus Christ as a balt I always love to read comments like yours. Yeah sure Stalin was pure as a kitten and didnt deport or killed no one on ethnic basis.

[@jakobsmith4046]

@@harsht17 Nice strawman, clown.

[@GatekeeperOfTruth]

I'm watching this after spending time speaking to folks in Azerbaijan whose families experienced the horrors of Soviet despotism. I think your videos are interesting and I haven't completely gone through all of them, so far your reasoning is immensely flawed and irreconcilable with the teachings of the Prophet (SAWA) let alone the reality of the suffering of millions of Muslims in every corner of the Soviet empire. How do you explain the hujoom, the ethnic cleansing of Crimean Tatars, the repression across Central Asia ...the list goes on. This isn't American propaganda. These stories live on in families who retain the memories of Communist repression inside and outside of the former USSR . Families who don't share your misplaced nostalgia for totalitarian rule.

[@josephgeorge5741]

Very good content, as always Comrade.