• Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    1 year ago

    Don’t you find it a little strange that this short bit of quote is so often repeated but we never hear the context for it?

    When you hear it out of context it sounds callous and cruel, but it would be a very different statement if (for example) he said it in response to finding out Hitler killed himself or that some enemy had died of cancer or something.

    And that’s not even taking into account the fact that it’s inherently very suspicious that nobody seems to be able to produce a source for the original context and attribution of the quote.

    • aleph@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Whether the quote is aprocyphal or not, it seems fitting because of the way Stalin dealt with political opponents. The list of early Bolsheviks were rounded up and shot during Stalin’s purges is quite lengthy.

        • aleph@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          whether it’s true doesn’t matter because it fits my opinion of him the historical facts.

          FTFY

          • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            80
            ·
            1 year ago

            No investigation, no right to speak. If you don’t even have evidence he said it you’re just working backwards to justify your conclusion, which is what every westerner is taught. If you don’t have an actual source to cite don’t be arrogant and just accept that you made a mistake.

            • aleph@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                61
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • The_Jewish_Cuban [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  31
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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

                  • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    28
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

      • charlie [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        68
        ·
        1 year ago

        Whether the quote is aprocyphal or not, it seems fitting

        Reread this again and again until it sinks in that you are making stuff up based on feelings. Facts don’t care about your feelings.