The idea that the purges were “Stalinism” is ahistorical. If anything, the documentary evidence suggests that the purges happened at the urging of the wider populace as a revenge against the excesses of the kulaks and bourgeoisie, and that Stalin spent his energy trying to curb the worst of the purges. Also, the Soviet state in the wider provinces was very weak at that time, so many of the purges happened without much oversight from Stalin or other central leaders.
Of course, Stalin was the leader, and so ultimate responsibility lies with him, as he himself admitted, but the purges were not some machine born of ideology, they were the reaction of a brutalized country against their former oppressors that got out of hand, combined with a clean-out of spies and saboteurs who were plotting against the USSR at the behest of western capitalists.
I recommend Prole’s Pod’s “Stalin Era” series to learn more. They go over the actual historical evidence, much of which was only declassified in the last decade or so.
Thanks, interesting perspective. I think you can explain a lot at a time where they didn’t have radio broadcasts but only newspapers and not a strong grasp over the country and people were bitter and resentful.
Why do you think it important to rehabilitate the purges and Stalinism? Like what is the political theory or strategy behind that would be lost if we don’t all agree to rehabilitate Stalinism?
Maybe that is a more productive question than arguing why the purges must never be rehabilitated.
There was clearly an institutional and political component to it in the form of the NKVD was there not? Did they or did they not torture to get false confessions from political adversaries? Or is that also ahistorical?
You could argue that the times required an iron fist and hammer to rule the people and prevent the revolution from being lost by letting traitors go free. This might very well be true. It’s possible that this was unavoidable at the time, but that doesn’t mean it can be condoned or rehabilitated.
If those two things (institutional+necessary) are even halfway true, I do not see how you can separate the purges from Stalinism, from that political era.
And the comment I replied to was about the purges being necessary work to make the world better. If that is the current view, then it is hypocritical or sophistry to say the “necessary” purges and Stalinism are separate.
Furthermore it does not explain why Khrushchev denounced it and called it an abuse of power. I’ve read comments that this makes him a traitor. But it is either true and it was an “abuse of power” or it is not true and Krushchev lied made it all up.
It is possible it is as you say, a social phenomenon that Stalin was unable to stop. The will of the people. And that Krushchev wanted to draw a line behind it and blame it all on Stalin. Make him the scapegoat. If I were to write this as a novel with a captivating romantic twist, it would have been Stalin writing to his successor in a secret letter to blame it all on him - to let him bear the shame of the killings and terror that got out of hand.
But we live in the real world. In the end the purges did happen. We cannot view life as cheap any more. The numbers might be only half of what is cited as consensus, but it’s still orders of magnitudes too high. And the death and suffering of millions demands justice.
Even if all that you say is true, what happened must be condemned. And what other name than Stalinism would you give to what happened?
Why do you do this to me? Why do I have to listen to 20 hours of podcasts or read the historical tomes cited there to form a more accurate view on the history? The body count isn’t going to move much. Why do you do this to yourself? Why not say “the purges were bad and must never happen again, not lets move the fuck on!”? Instead you argue passionately about the minutia of this era of terror?
The idea that the purges were “Stalinism” is ahistorical. If anything, the documentary evidence suggests that the purges happened at the urging of the wider populace as a revenge against the excesses of the kulaks and bourgeoisie, and that Stalin spent his energy trying to curb the worst of the purges. Also, the Soviet state in the wider provinces was very weak at that time, so many of the purges happened without much oversight from Stalin or other central leaders.
Of course, Stalin was the leader, and so ultimate responsibility lies with him, as he himself admitted, but the purges were not some machine born of ideology, they were the reaction of a brutalized country against their former oppressors that got out of hand, combined with a clean-out of spies and saboteurs who were plotting against the USSR at the behest of western capitalists.
I recommend Prole’s Pod’s “Stalin Era” series to learn more. They go over the actual historical evidence, much of which was only declassified in the last decade or so.
Thanks, interesting perspective. I think you can explain a lot at a time where they didn’t have radio broadcasts but only newspapers and not a strong grasp over the country and people were bitter and resentful.
Why do you think it important to rehabilitate the purges and Stalinism? Like what is the political theory or strategy behind that would be lost if we don’t all agree to rehabilitate Stalinism?
Maybe that is a more productive question than arguing why the purges must never be rehabilitated.
There was clearly an institutional and political component to it in the form of the NKVD was there not? Did they or did they not torture to get false confessions from political adversaries? Or is that also ahistorical?
You could argue that the times required an iron fist and hammer to rule the people and prevent the revolution from being lost by letting traitors go free. This might very well be true. It’s possible that this was unavoidable at the time, but that doesn’t mean it can be condoned or rehabilitated.
If those two things (institutional+necessary) are even halfway true, I do not see how you can separate the purges from Stalinism, from that political era.
And the comment I replied to was about the purges being necessary work to make the world better. If that is the current view, then it is hypocritical or sophistry to say the “necessary” purges and Stalinism are separate.
Furthermore it does not explain why Khrushchev denounced it and called it an abuse of power. I’ve read comments that this makes him a traitor. But it is either true and it was an “abuse of power” or it is not true and Krushchev lied made it all up.
It is possible it is as you say, a social phenomenon that Stalin was unable to stop. The will of the people. And that Krushchev wanted to draw a line behind it and blame it all on Stalin. Make him the scapegoat. If I were to write this as a novel with a captivating romantic twist, it would have been Stalin writing to his successor in a secret letter to blame it all on him - to let him bear the shame of the killings and terror that got out of hand.
But we live in the real world. In the end the purges did happen. We cannot view life as cheap any more. The numbers might be only half of what is cited as consensus, but it’s still orders of magnitudes too high. And the death and suffering of millions demands justice.
Even if all that you say is true, what happened must be condemned. And what other name than Stalinism would you give to what happened?
Why do you do this to me? Why do I have to listen to 20 hours of podcasts or read the historical tomes cited there to form a more accurate view on the history? The body count isn’t going to move much. Why do you do this to yourself? Why not say “the purges were bad and must never happen again, not lets move the fuck on!”? Instead you argue passionately about the minutia of this era of terror?
EDIT: Link to podcast episodes