Stalin is typically regarded as one of the most evil people in the 20th century (depending on how you compare him to Hitler). He is responsible for the Great Purge, the Ukrainian Famine, the network of Gulags in the USSR, invading Poland in 1939, turning eastern Europe in to soviet satellite states after world war II, and many, many other things widely considered abuses of power or generally wrong/evil. I could emphasise how I agree that many objections are valid and true, but I suspect that most people who will be outraged by this thread won't care regardless.
However, much as has happened to Hitler, the way in which we understand Stalin occasionally borders on the demonic at the expense of historical complexities and political realities at the time. A single individual comes to represent the actions of an entire state apparatus and we hold them responsible for pretty much anything that happens in that country during their rule. Whilst we try to draw moral lessons from history, it is often in such a way that it greatly oversimplifies and reduces the picture. We speak of the "lessons of history" but are only aware of a very small part of the history and it is often distorted to fit our preconceptions. We have substituted the myths for reality, and in some ways we are poorer for it. Whether you are for or against communism, if people really wanted to bring down communist tyrannies or prevent them from ever happening again they would want to understand what actually happened. basically, knowledge is power.
Mentioning Stalin is like mentioning Cancer: You get a very strong knee-jerk reaction to it because they are both considered threats that must be treated accordingly. This is not necessarily the right thing to do and it saves us from really thinking about things by wanting to conform to what we think is "right" and "wrong".
If it was taboo to play "devils advocate" in the 16th century, simply trying to defend Stalin on the basis of historical accuracy is as taboo in the 21st century. He's not unique, as Hitler and the Nazis create as much passion, but the passion of Anti-Communists is uniquely concentrated against Stalin (and to a lesser extent Mao and Pol Pot) unlike other Communist dictators. If you want to get an emotional reaction- you bring up Stalin because he's the one everyone knows and has opinions on. Its all-but a duty of members of free, democratic societies to despise Stalin and what he stood for even if much of the hysterics and outrage subvert many of the traditions of scepticism and free thought that such societies pride themselves on.
So, after this rambling introduction, I'd like to ask if you think:
1. it is worth trying to ensure historical accuracy when discussing Stalin and "Stalinism"?
...or...
2. historical accuracy should be sacrificed if it threatens our moral judgements of the man and his regime? Is questioning the "official version" of history inherently dangerous and taboo for the risk of revising and falsifying history?
However, much as has happened to Hitler, the way in which we understand Stalin occasionally borders on the demonic at the expense of historical complexities and political realities at the time. A single individual comes to represent the actions of an entire state apparatus and we hold them responsible for pretty much anything that happens in that country during their rule. Whilst we try to draw moral lessons from history, it is often in such a way that it greatly oversimplifies and reduces the picture. We speak of the "lessons of history" but are only aware of a very small part of the history and it is often distorted to fit our preconceptions. We have substituted the myths for reality, and in some ways we are poorer for it. Whether you are for or against communism, if people really wanted to bring down communist tyrannies or prevent them from ever happening again they would want to understand what actually happened. basically, knowledge is power.
Mentioning Stalin is like mentioning Cancer: You get a very strong knee-jerk reaction to it because they are both considered threats that must be treated accordingly. This is not necessarily the right thing to do and it saves us from really thinking about things by wanting to conform to what we think is "right" and "wrong".
If it was taboo to play "devils advocate" in the 16th century, simply trying to defend Stalin on the basis of historical accuracy is as taboo in the 21st century. He's not unique, as Hitler and the Nazis create as much passion, but the passion of Anti-Communists is uniquely concentrated against Stalin (and to a lesser extent Mao and Pol Pot) unlike other Communist dictators. If you want to get an emotional reaction- you bring up Stalin because he's the one everyone knows and has opinions on. Its all-but a duty of members of free, democratic societies to despise Stalin and what he stood for even if much of the hysterics and outrage subvert many of the traditions of scepticism and free thought that such societies pride themselves on.
So, after this rambling introduction, I'd like to ask if you think:
1. it is worth trying to ensure historical accuracy when discussing Stalin and "Stalinism"?
...or...
2. historical accuracy should be sacrificed if it threatens our moral judgements of the man and his regime? Is questioning the "official version" of history inherently dangerous and taboo for the risk of revising and falsifying history?