you’re just working backwards to justify your conclusion
And anyone who denies that the preponderance of evidence shows that Stalin was capable of considerable ruthlessness and brutality towards his own people is guilty of the same.
I’m not denying that at all. Ruthlessness and brutality are some editorialized words, but fair enough to describe the attitude the early Soviet Union had to assume to stomp out opportunists and reactionaries. Every single actually existing, surviving socialist state had to do something similar. The ones who didn’t, like Allende and Arbenz, were swiftly dealt with by the reactionaries they treated with mercy which was not paid back.
Yes that’s very true. The argument I was trying to capture is that when us socialists try to do things the nice and peaceful way, reactionaries don’t spare us the same mercy. So to everyone who believes in the goals of socialism, they should accept that the only way they’ve been achieved in history is through the suppression of reaction.
But what you say is also true and it reminds me of Parenti’s remarks on liberal criticism of the Cuban revolution in the yellow lecture. Liberals will look at a brutal, oppressive capitalist government that has no regard for civil rights in a third world country and say, “that’s the cost of development; it’s very unfortunate but there is no other way for these nations to succeed”. But when socialists overthrow that regime and turn the mechanisms of repression back on the fascists, the liberals pipe up, “Oh you’ve established better quality of life for the workers, but what about the fascists? Are there civil liberties for the fascists?” And just like that, liberals go from pragmatic, realpolitikers to bleeding heart humanitarians protecting the rights of every fascist in the globe.
And anyone who denies that the preponderance of evidence shows that Stalin was capable of considerable ruthlessness and brutality towards his own people is guilty of the same.
I’m not denying that at all. Ruthlessness and brutality are some editorialized words, but fair enough to describe the attitude the early Soviet Union had to assume to stomp out opportunists and reactionaries. Every single actually existing, surviving socialist state had to do something similar. The ones who didn’t, like Allende and Arbenz, were swiftly dealt with by the reactionaries they treated with mercy which was not paid back.
Every single actually existing state had to as well. Capitalists killed the monarchists and the competing monarchs killed each other.
Liberals literally think violence only happens when it’s not “their” police or soldiers killing people
Yes that’s very true. The argument I was trying to capture is that when us socialists try to do things the nice and peaceful way, reactionaries don’t spare us the same mercy. So to everyone who believes in the goals of socialism, they should accept that the only way they’ve been achieved in history is through the suppression of reaction.
But what you say is also true and it reminds me of Parenti’s remarks on liberal criticism of the Cuban revolution in the yellow lecture. Liberals will look at a brutal, oppressive capitalist government that has no regard for civil rights in a third world country and say, “that’s the cost of development; it’s very unfortunate but there is no other way for these nations to succeed”. But when socialists overthrow that regime and turn the mechanisms of repression back on the fascists, the liberals pipe up, “Oh you’ve established better quality of life for the workers, but what about the fascists? Are there civil liberties for the fascists?” And just like that, liberals go from pragmatic, realpolitikers to bleeding heart humanitarians protecting the rights of every fascist in the globe.
He said the line