I should get around to reading it one of these days. What did you find objectionable? Just skimming it seems like he’s mostly going though historical documents and people that contributed to Stalin’s reputation in the west.
It’s hard to pin down; I think it was a kind of overarching effort at both-sidesism. To be fair, I didn’t finish it, so maybe he tied it all together in the end.
So here we’re using different definitions of liberalism.
Here’s a book on what liberalism has meant over the last 300 years. It’s only 344 pages and one of my favorites.
Good for you. People on hexbear label anything outside of Marxism or Maoism liberal…unless it deals with Russia or China.
That’s not true, they call marxists and maoists liberals like all the time.
Oh yeah, the Stalin-apologist communist is definitely an impartial source.
Oh you read his Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend?
I should get around to reading it one of these days. What did you find objectionable? Just skimming it seems like he’s mostly going though historical documents and people that contributed to Stalin’s reputation in the west.
If you want a more nuanced view, Life and Terror in Stalin’s Russia is pretty good. I’d hardly call it Stalin apologia.
It’s hard to pin down; I think it was a kind of overarching effort at both-sidesism. To be fair, I didn’t finish it, so maybe he tied it all together in the end.