I’ve seen people idolizing Thatcher and pissing on Stalin, at the same time. But, answering your question, no, you can be a ML even without aprooving Stalin’s job in the USSR, unless, probably, if you lived in the USSR in the early 1950s.
Stalin didn’t betray nor “bureaucratize” the soviet union. Marxist-Leninists uphold Stalin and his leadership, even if we don’t believe him perfect. As Weng Weiguang says, The Evaluation of Stalin is Essentially an Ideological Struggle. Marxist-Leninists don’t idolize Stalin. At the same time, Stalin synthesized Marxism-Leninism, and oversaw the world’s first socialist state during its most turbulent period. The CPC rates him as 70% good, 30% bad, and this rating is roughly orbited by most communist orgs. Those who denounce Stalin entirely, also denounce the USSR, and existing socialism.
Stalin was a committed Marxist-Leninist, and oversaw the world’s first socialist state for the overwhelming majority of its most tumultuous period. He was no saint, but at the same time was no monster either. He is remembered by liberal historians as far worse than comtemporaries like Churchill who in actuality were far worse than Stalin.
As Nia Frome says, we can either distance ourselves from Stalin, and by extension the USSR and actually existing socialism, or we can fight back against bourgeois narratives about Stalin and the USSR, acknowledging their faults while being able to uphold their tremendous successes as examples of the possibilities of socialism in power. Historical nihilism, and throwing Stalin and by extension much of the early soviet union under the bus, was ultimately what allowed for liberalization within the USSR and partially contributed to the death of socialism in eastern Europe.
As a side note, “Stalinism” is either used as a fearmongering term by Trotskyists to refer to Marxism-Leninism, or to refer to policies specific to the Stalin era.
If anyone wants a place to start with Marxist-Leninist theory, check out my intro reading guide.
Demystifying Stalin
I know that after my death a pile of rubbish will be heaped on my grave, but the wind of History will sooner or later sweep it away without mercy.
Stalin's Major Theoretical Contributions to Marxism
I have come to communism because of daddy Stalin and nobody must come and tell me that I mustn’t read Stalin. I read him when it was very bad to read him. That was another time. And because I’m not very bright, and a hard-headed person, I keep on reading him. Especially in this new period, now that it is worse to read him. Then, as well as now, I still find a Seri of things that are very good.
I’ve seen people idolizing Thatcher and pissing on Stalin, at the same time. But, answering your question, no, you can be a ML even without aprooving Stalin’s job in the USSR, unless, probably, if you lived in the USSR in the early 1950s.
so i can support a synthesis of marxism and leninism without supporting the actions of stalin?
On the contrary, the most marxist-leninist thing you can do is condemn Stalins betrayal and bureaucratization of soviet union
Stalin didn’t betray nor “bureaucratize” the soviet union. Marxist-Leninists uphold Stalin and his leadership, even if we don’t believe him perfect. As Weng Weiguang says, The Evaluation of Stalin is Essentially an Ideological Struggle. Marxist-Leninists don’t idolize Stalin. At the same time, Stalin synthesized Marxism-Leninism, and oversaw the world’s first socialist state during its most turbulent period. The CPC rates him as 70% good, 30% bad, and this rating is roughly orbited by most communist orgs. Those who denounce Stalin entirely, also denounce the USSR, and existing socialism.
Stalin was a committed Marxist-Leninist, and oversaw the world’s first socialist state for the overwhelming majority of its most tumultuous period. He was no saint, but at the same time was no monster either. He is remembered by liberal historians as far worse than comtemporaries like Churchill who in actuality were far worse than Stalin.
As Nia Frome says, we can either distance ourselves from Stalin, and by extension the USSR and actually existing socialism, or we can fight back against bourgeois narratives about Stalin and the USSR, acknowledging their faults while being able to uphold their tremendous successes as examples of the possibilities of socialism in power. Historical nihilism, and throwing Stalin and by extension much of the early soviet union under the bus, was ultimately what allowed for liberalization within the USSR and partially contributed to the death of socialism in eastern Europe.
As a side note, “Stalinism” is either used as a fearmongering term by Trotskyists to refer to Marxism-Leninism, or to refer to policies specific to the Stalin era.
If anyone wants a place to start with Marxist-Leninist theory, check out my intro reading guide.
Demystifying Stalin
[8 min]
[6 min]
[30 min]
[16 min]
[42 min]
[38 min]
[9 min]
[5 hr 51 min]
[5 hr 25 min]
Stalin's Major Theoretical Contributions to Marxism
Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
History of the CPSU (B)
The Foundations of Leninism
Marxism and the National Question
can i condemn stalin’s betryal and bureaucratization of the ussr while supporting marxism-leninism, and can i call ml “orthodox leninism”?
Of course. You would be a real marxist-leninist
you DIDN’T say anything against calling marxism-leninism “orthodox leninism”, did you?