And fighting in more different places somehow makes the sacrifice of US soldiers more significant? And what home front are you talking about? Do you mean the camps where people were imprisoned and tortured just for being of east Asian descent?
Your framing of this issue as "We", "You" and "You're welcome" is really grinding my gears by the way. Not because I feel attacked in any way. I'm not from eastern Europe. I wasn't even alive at the time, and neither were you, I'd be willing to wager. But a nation state such as the US is not a "We". You are not responsible for the accomplishments nor for the atrocities committed by the US military in WWII. Identifying with such concepts is nationalistic and anti-anarchist in my perception. And the fact that you had to stir up this debate from a simple post celebrating the defeat of Nazi Germany doesn't do anything to avert my suspicion.
Firstly, the fact that you've devolved into near-histrionics at the mere mention of Hitler's defeat is enough to generate suspicions about your political leanings.
Secondly, Joseph Stalin - for all his many, many flaws - was not a fascist. Fascism isn't a stand-in for 'authoritarian'. It refers to a very specific ideology, characterised by contempt for the weak, the rejection of modernism, racism, embrace of big business, and so on. Stalin met some of the criteria for fascism (strong central control, bigotry, etc.), but he didn't meet nearly all of them. Fascism is a racial and cultural ideology, whereas even authoritarian versions of communism retain their focus on class struggle. Stalin was a dictator, for sure, but not a fascist. National socialism differs from socialism in one country insofar as the former was a rhetorical guise, intended to win voters and completely divorced from actual Nazi policy, while the latter was an implementation of some genuinely socialist ideas - the abolition of private property, for example. Stalin's ideas represent the right-wing of international socialism, absolutely, but they're not comparable to Hitler's. Hitler emphatically supported the right to private property, and indeed took steps to strengthen corporations.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is pretty widely acknowledged by historians as an agreement of convenience. Stalin and Hitler were fundamentally opposed to one another, since Hitler had promised to secure lebensraum (living space) for the German people in the east, and Soviet Russia was an obstacle to those ambitions. It's worth noting here that Molotov-Ribbentrop wasn't an alliance, but merely a non-aggression pact - Stalin knew he was in no position to defeat Hitler's Germany, and hoped to buy as much time as possible with a paper-thin Pact.
To be clear, I'm a libertarian communist who oscillates between anarchism and some form of libertarian Marxism. I unequivocally condemn Joseph Stalin's authoritarian tendencies, and his counter-revolutionary behaviour in suppressing genuine working-class movements. That said, it's historically inaccurate to describe him as a fascist. An authoritarian conservative, yes. A fascist, no.
I agree with the central point here, namely that Stalin was not a fascist.
I do not believe that stalinism was an implementation of genuine socialist ideas. It was a totalitarian perversion of said ideas to consolidate power at the top of the communist party. Stalin didn't just have authoritarian conservative leanings. He was a megalomanian psychopath and mass murderer, and he pushed an ideology of totalitarianism that came close to the dystopia painted by George Orwell in 1984.
Hitler took the word "socialist" and adapted it as a brand name to lure working class people into his movement. Stalin, on the other hand, took control of an already authoritarian state-socialist movement, and took it to the totalitarain extreme.
There is no sense in arguing how bad Stalin was exactly, of course. Millions died under the regimes of both Stalin and Hitler and none of their ideologies had anything to do with libertarian socialism. It doesn't matter if industry was mostly private or under state control under fascism or socialism-in-one-country respectively. Both men did everything they could to consolidate executive and economic power at the top, in their hands, at the expense of the people.
I guess my point is that the few remaining socialist elements in the Soviet Union are not reason enough for libertarians such as ourselves to condone any aspect of that dictatorship and its ideology.
Certainly, and my intention was not to condone Stalin or his ideology. By Ďimplementation of genuine socialist ideasí, I meant to suggest that what Stalin did originated from a kernel of genuine socialism. For example, collectivization was justified as the seizure of the means of production by workers, which is a genuine socialist idea. Stalinís implementation of those ideas left a great deal to be desired, but the original idea he seized upon was genuinely socialist.
Contrast that with Hitler, who used the label Ďsocialistí while totally failing to fulfill any genuinely socialist ideas. The means of production were left in private hands, race was prioritised over class, and so on. Stalinís dictatorship was every bit as brutal and cruel as Hitlerís, but it was clothed in genuine socialist thought - its disguise was the work of genuine socialists like Marx and even Lenin (who, though hardly a libertarian socialist, was a genuine socialist nonetheless). Moreover, the rationale Stalin claimed for consolidating power in his exclusive possession - namely the need to Ďdefend the revolutioní from subversive elements - is a genuinely socialist premise, albeit one which Stalin had no intention of actually carrying out.
I suppose what Iím trying to say is that whereas Hitlerís regime was a fascist one masquerading as socialist, Stalinís regime was an authoritarian state-socialist one masquerading as a slightly less authoritarian socialist one. Stalin, as you say, was a perversion of socialism, but he was inspired by - or at least had an understanding of - genuine socialist thought in a way Hitler never was and never did. There was a kernel of genuine socialist thought beneath his perversions, but the same cannot be said of Hitler.
I'll be as civil as possible here. Huh? I think you're taking all of this a tad too personally. Perhaps be a bit more charitable? They've made it clear they don't want hostility: "Not sure why you're trying to pick a fight...." Nobody is praising Stalin, nor do I think anyone in this region would have the mind to. We all know what he's responsible for. And, he's also largely responsible to defeating the Nazis (granted he's also allied with them). We can accept that he did that one good thing, without having our opinion of him as a whole being any less negative.
Psyched that I'm 1% away from the top 10% for eco-friendliness, environmental beauty, and the black market. Hopefully I don't screw it up. I went from top 0.5% for drug use to 20% not too long ago.
youth rebelliousness is always a good sign in nationstates. sadly in the real world, esp. in western countries the accelerating capitalism is making (or forcing) the youth (to be) more and more docile. today young people often, even if they share our ideals, are often rather looking to improve their cv, taking unpaid positions as something natural, instead of not playing the game and risking their position in society by standing up and getting a taste of tear gas as we did back then.
of course. i am also not blaming the youth. but i see even less potential for change now than ten or twenty years ago. i see less of a counter-culture with shared values that differ from mainstream society. if you're caught up in a wheel spending all your energy to get a decent job or earn money so you can live a normal life, you cannot spend any on questioning or opposing an unjust system.
Good post. Stalin is not responsible for defeating the nazis though. Neither is Churchill, nor Roosevelt.
It was the people of the Soviet Union, of Poland, Denmark, France, Great Britain, the US, etc. etc. who stopped fascism and ended World War II. This feat cannot be attributed to any one single person, especially not to a totalitarian dictator.
we cannot have two polls running at the same time, so let's do it the old fashioned way: i vote yes.
I ask uniamious consent to pass. 48 hours for a objection.