Stalinism

Iosif Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union between 1922 and 1953. His policies in the Soviet Union came to be known as a specific ideological expression of communism, Stalinism. Hence, Stalinism is an interpretation of communism but also a specific regime institutionalization. If you want to know more about Stalinism check out this video.
Learning Objectives
- Who was Stalin?
- What do we mean by Stalinism?
- What is his legacy?
Timestamps
00:00 Introduction
00:53 The successor of Lenin
01:57 The implementation of Stalinism
03:04 Stalin’s legacy
#understandingpolitics #stalin #gianmarcomoise
References
Robin Gilham “Stalin vs Trotsky: The Soviet Union at a Crossroads”: www.thecollector.com/leon-tro...

[@erikprank4611]

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact did not only lead to an invasion against Poland. Soviet Union also invaded Finland and occupied the Baltic states and part of Romania. I also think that it is not correct to say that Stalin is celebrated as a great leader across the countries of the former Soviet Union. Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians have only a deep hatred for Stalin. If anyone in these countries thinks anything positive about Stalin, then it is only ethnic Russians who came to these countries during the Soviet occupation.

[@UnderstandingPolitics]

Thank you for watching the video 😃 Sure! Each additional information is useful. That’s also a major reason why Finland is still very anti-Russian to this day. About people liking Stalin, it is not correct to say it’s not correct 😂 what you say about the Baltics is true, but I mention a specific case (the city of Gori in Georgia, but most cities in Russia have similar nostalgic movements) when I say that there is a lot of people that like Stalin still today. The two things don’t exclude each other. There is still a lot of Soviet nostalgia which is not grounded nor based on Stalinist policies. At the same time, a lot of countries (such as the Baltics) remember Soviet times as a period of occupation and colonization.

[@stoggafllik]

Thank you for shilling

[@Jc-yu2ot]

I love how Eastern European nationalists hate Stalin but were also the same ones who were recruited by the wermacht to commit atrocities

[@gothic-rosenovorossiya5740]

Never saw Stalin as cruel dictator. And I am maybe too young for that but none of my grandparents or their siblings or friends saw him as such neither. Stalin was respected for hard job that he did to help society, inventing pensions for elderly people, giving people free education and medicine, jobs and living places to everyone.... Given, it was war times and post-war period, what he did was total wonders, no one believed he could do so much for the people. I am not alone who can claim that Soviet Union was all build by Stalin and after his dead it only lasted because of inertion created by Stalin because no one else did any really good job any more and were simply either destroying Soviet Union or simply loafting... And as everyone and everything, what is good for one person will be harmful for another, so some people loved Soiviet Union, others hated it.

[@UnderstandingPolitics]

Hi! What you say in the last bit it’s true. At the same time please mind that individual anecdotes and personal experience do not invalidate statistical realities and general historical reconstructions. There are still many peoples in the Soviet Union that could claim being victims of this cruel dictator. And many others disappeared from history dying in remote places with no possibility to say the opposite of what you claim. Many people were happy also under Mussolini and Hitler. They (especially Mussolini) worked actively to make some citizens feel good in a hospitable country, but this does not mean that the general historical evaluation on these dictators should be that clement. Historical evaluations should be always critical, dictators or not. I’m not clement with the racist policies of Churchill in the British empire either, for what is worth. Many times people apologetic of fascism in Italy say: “Mussolini did also good things”, which cannot be denied, but bad things he did, willingly or not, were so bad that invalidate the good results. And this is because of the fact that he decided alone and did not accept different decision mechanisms that would involve the participation of others.

[@gothic-rosenovorossiya5740]

@@UnderstandingPolitics Statistics do not consider that certain people were froudsters. Some were innocent victims and others were criminals who got justice, and both would scream blue murder all the same. Also, there is a huge difference between the State and dictator/leader and corruption and victims of either. Statistics usually do not go that deep. I go deeper than just mere surface, I look for various reasons, for example, why some churches were closed and priests and nuns were sent to prisons and others were left be? What statistics say about that? Reality is, it depended on many factors. Government factor was to close down anything corrupt. So the churches that abused children would be closed and everyone involved would be sent to prison. But all the same, there were many corrupt cases of simply church haters who would torture innocent ones and send to prison, actually, they would go after anyone related to religion just the same- innocents and criminals alike. Statistics only caunt how many of them were sent to prison, but leave out the REAL reasons. Al;so, how many criminals would admit they were criminals, like child abusing priests and nuns that sells children and sells women for prostitution and stuff? Statistics are blind to that, and we, whoi were neighbours, only knew some certain things happened but how largely this or that was happening even we would not know, because no one adds us, the neighbours, into statistics.

[@UnderstandingPolitics]

@@gothic-rosenovorossiya5740 in some cases it might be certainly true. But it’s not surprising to hear that dictators claim that they are acting the way they are to save their country from corrupt people, criminals, and nazis. Think what you like. All the best!

[@nauticalnovice9244]

There's a lot of misinformation in this video, I'll point the main ones out: 0:05 - 0:20 Stalinism is not a movement neither is it a Marxist Leninist ideology in the traditional sense, it refers to Stalin's policies. I do no know the origins of this word though, but I've seen it used differently like you did here. Thus I don't think this term should even exist, it can be very vague. 0:32 - 0:37 Stalin was not a dictator, a dictator is somebody who had absolute power which Stalin did not have. Stalin was elected by the Congress and even tried stepping down 3-4 times. Yes, he did allow Gulags to exist, but keep in mind that Gulags (which weren't called Gulags) existed in the Russian Empire, so he continued their use. Which was nowhere near as bad as people make it seem to be, 80% of the Gulag population were criminals. And about 85% of them survived. And the vast majority of the population were never in Gulags. He was not responsible for any famines, there's no evidence for that. He was not responsible for the Holodomor if you're going to mention that. 0:42 Stalin was not totalitarian, check the definition and you'll know, although it may not be obvious considering the amount of propaganda around him and his policies. 0:47 Stalin never had a cult of personality in the sense that it was orchestrated by him, the people of the USSR loved him, that's why there were portraits of him in many places. He was not a fan of this, but he recognised that people loved him so he did not stop it. He also banned naming places after him in 1937 I think. This "cult of personality" comes from Khrushchev who said in a meeting in 1956 that Stalin created it. 0:53 Lenin was not a dictator, he did not have absolute power either, and that letter "The testament of Lenin" was likely a fake, most historians will tell you that. Stephen Kotkin had a great lecture on this. You can find it on the "TheFinnishBolshevik" KZbin channel for example. 2:05 The only voices Stalin silenced were of people who were fake Marxists (opportunists) which included liberals! Not just liberals though. 3:11 That's cherry picking, picking the 20 million number. Historians have vastly different estimates. But from looking at the official Soviet archives, Stalin was responsible for the deaths of 3.3 million.

[@UnderstandingPolitics]

Hi! Thank you for watching the video. My definition of ideology is very precise: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rp3akqSsacaabKc I actually referred to Stalinism as a series of policies he adopted. At the same time, as an interpretation of communism it remains an ideology. It is hence: a series of policies, an ideology, and the movement that emerged in support of what he did in those years. It can be said it is a movement. You’re evidently a Soviet apologist so we won’t find a common ground. I do agree there are different figures on the number of victims Stalin caused, but nonetheless it is a few million too much. The real figure is matter of historical speculation and we will never find it for real. While I do not agree at all that Lenin was not a dictator per se, in the video I never said he is. Check twice, I was still referring to Stalin. Dictators use legitimacy (for example through the type of votes you discussed) to justify in eyes of the public that they are not dictators, rather, that they are elected. So no, you did not make a real point. Yes, it was totalitarianism: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6nOlquerLiBgaM No, the cult of personality was not by accident, it was propaganda. Did he have supporters? Yes, for sure, but that’s a whole different story. You find a million sources on this. For example: theyorkhistorian.com/2015/09/18/stalins-cult-of-personality-its-origins-and-progression/ I’m posting this for other viewers to counterbalance your “accuses”. Those are really not mistakes. I’m not looking for a debate, I don’t really think any of us can make the other change idea. All the best!

[@-BUILT_LIKE_A_BAG_OF_MILK]

@@UnderstandingPolitics you just got schooled, you git a view though so guess it was woeth it for someone uneducated in the subject, nice effort though, as faulted as it was. Maybe look into it in more depth if you release another video relating to this time period.

[@UnderstandingPolitics]

@@-BUILT_LIKE_A_BAG_OF_MILK not really. Anything said above is inaccurate at best. Hard to get schooled by propaganda. If people would stop create ad hoc historical narratives based on their political views it would be best. My educated guess is that neither of you is originally from a former Soviet Union country… Anyway, if that’s what you believe, good for you!

[@-BUILT_LIKE_A_BAG_OF_MILK]

@@UnderstandingPolitics I would like to think we are all adults capable of critical thinking here & not blind to the negatives & positives of ideology, which is why it's a little dissapointing you refer to things as propoganda just because it might not be suitable to you for whatever reason. Also to assume viewers don't have blood ties & therefore primary knowledge of a Soviet society is a foolish assumption. I have had the pleasure of living in countries with different ideologies, all of them have negatives, all of them have positives..doesn't make it propoganda. I'm also assuming (as you did that none of us know Soviet life) that you have experienced it yourself? Or have family who have done so & madebyoubperfectly aware of its dangers & also its benefits? Enlighten me.....I'd love to hear it.

[@UnderstandingPolitics]

@@-BUILT_LIKE_A_BAG_OF_MILK man if “Stalin was not a dictator, Lenin was not a dictator, and there was no cult of personality” is your idea of correct information and not propaganda, regardless of the fact we’re adults or not, I don’t know what to tell you anyway. Any of these comments can be elaborated to explain the technicalities of the system, but to explain it simple in a 7 minutes video you have to omit some details in exchange for clarity. Also, Khrushchev himself argued most of the things recalled in the video during the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. I’m not from those areas, but I conducted research during my PhD, studied the topic for years, met various people and learnt different things and experiences. You’re right, there is no patent for having blood ties… also, as said in the video, there are still many in those areas that defend Stalin’s legacy. And as argued in the video, the legacy is complex, because many people still like him. Which makes sense, some people only care about economic anchievments (as you mentioned in your other comment), which is both true from a historical perspective and absolutely fine in terms of personal evaluation, but this does not mean we should become apologetic from a political standpoint. I could mention tens of cases of dictatorships where the economic conditions improved for the general population, but it does not mean they were not dictatorships. And this was primarily a video about politics not history of the economy in the Soviet Union. Albeit this is a very interesting topic and really relevant.

[@-BUILT_LIKE_A_BAG_OF_MILK]

Stalin found Russia with the wooden plough & he left it with Atomic weapons.

[@LIVEWELLLIFESTYLE]

Stalinism > Marxism for todays world too.

[@geeljire9247]

Stalinism is just Stalin's interpretation of Marxism-Leninism.

[@UnderstandingPolitics]

Yes, thank you. That’s also one of the first sentences of the video.