Literally trying to understand this side lol. You can look at the rest of the comments I have here. Everything I’ve read and heard, even from self described communists has been anti stalin/mao. It’s not a crazy leap to ask if Pol Pot is in the same category. I troll in shitposting communities but here I’m literally trying to hear you. I haven’t been combative or argumentative. I haven’t even disputed a single claim made by anyone. I did just now start responding “rule 2” to people not being respectful though.
You can check what removed comments said by clicking the 3 dots and going to comment moderation history. Removed comments were ableist, sexist, or extremely rude. You can see many comments critical of socialism still up, despite this being a socialist community.
As for Pol Pot, Pol Pot was more of an agrarian nationalist than a socialist, and the overwhelming majority of Marxists today don’t support him. There was some Sino-Soviet split shenanigans going on back in the day with some supporting him for a time, but now we have added clarity from knowing just what actually happened there.
I can’t see them when looking at “view source” but maybe it’s because I’m on a phone. I’m still suprised by the assertion that mao and stalin were good leaders that did more good than harm. Everything I’ve read says otherwise about those two in particular. I guess both sides must be pretty good at propaganda with the truth being somewhere in the middle.
Some were permanently removed, which is usually reserved for bigotry. No way to know for those. “View source” isn’t how you view removed comments, though, you have to look at comment moderation history.
As for Stalin and Mao, both were leaders of rapidly developing socialist countries that saw mass expansions in literacy, a doubling of life expectancy under both, and much more. Stalin is still widely loved in Russia, as is Mao in China. It’s difficult to know what you are referring to when you say “more bad than good,” no Marxist thinks they were perfect of course but the idea that they played a damaging role is simply not representative of reality.
The Gulag Archipelago, Bloodlands, Mao’s Great Famin, The Great Terror, Wild Swans and Cambodia Year Zero.
Probably a couple others I’m not thinking if at the moment. All are very anti everything you’re saying. Don’t worry I’ve read plenty of anti imperialist/western books too. I am absolutely open to some recommendations that show more of you side of thinking/history though. I can buy it if available online or I do have a really good local library.
Mao did not cause the famine, China was a slave-feudal society where famine was a recurring feature due to underdeveloped agriculture and poor technology to cope with weather disasters. Famine was abolished under socialism during Mao’s time, just not overnight.
Wild Swans is a personal biography and anecdote, not an actual work of historical analysis.
Cambodia wasn’t socialist and the overwhelming majority of socialists condemn Pol Pot, so I don’t care to offer anything here.
All in all, you essentially have some of the worst of liberal academia combined with essentially historical fiction. That’s not a good basis for any historical analysis.
For the Soviet Union, I recommend the following works:
Also, are there any books critical of communism/stalinism/maoism/leninism you’d recommend? Figure I’ll stagger one pro one anti and find the middle. So far I have if any have major issues let me know and I’ll decide if they are worth my time.
Anne Applebaum, Gulag: A History
Yang Jisheng, Tombstone
Orlando Figes, The Whisperers
Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928
No, because I haven’t read anything critical of Marxism-Leninism that I’d recommend. Further, finding a “middle” between two ideas doesn’t translate into being more correct, or more nuanced. All of the works I listed do bring up real issues that exist within socialist states, so you already are getting a good, critical view.
Everything you’ve listed is heavily biased. None of it is neutral at all when I looked into them. Which is fine, but I’d like to read both. Not to be correct, just for full context. The second list I presented I haven’t read anything of but all are supposed to be more historical and less political.
There’s a bunch of removed comments in this thread specifically… I have no idea what they said. Would Pol Pot be in that list? If not, why?
Pol Pot was installed and backed by the US. What do you think?
Literally trying to understand this side lol. You can look at the rest of the comments I have here. Everything I’ve read and heard, even from self described communists has been anti stalin/mao. It’s not a crazy leap to ask if Pol Pot is in the same category. I troll in shitposting communities but here I’m literally trying to hear you. I haven’t been combative or argumentative. I haven’t even disputed a single claim made by anyone. I did just now start responding “rule 2” to people not being respectful though.
You can check what removed comments said by clicking the 3 dots and going to comment moderation history. Removed comments were ableist, sexist, or extremely rude. You can see many comments critical of socialism still up, despite this being a socialist community.
As for Pol Pot, Pol Pot was more of an agrarian nationalist than a socialist, and the overwhelming majority of Marxists today don’t support him. There was some Sino-Soviet split shenanigans going on back in the day with some supporting him for a time, but now we have added clarity from knowing just what actually happened there.
I can’t see them when looking at “view source” but maybe it’s because I’m on a phone. I’m still suprised by the assertion that mao and stalin were good leaders that did more good than harm. Everything I’ve read says otherwise about those two in particular. I guess both sides must be pretty good at propaganda with the truth being somewhere in the middle.
Some were permanently removed, which is usually reserved for bigotry. No way to know for those. “View source” isn’t how you view removed comments, though, you have to look at comment moderation history.
As for Stalin and Mao, both were leaders of rapidly developing socialist countries that saw mass expansions in literacy, a doubling of life expectancy under both, and much more. Stalin is still widely loved in Russia, as is Mao in China. It’s difficult to know what you are referring to when you say “more bad than good,” no Marxist thinks they were perfect of course but the idea that they played a damaging role is simply not representative of reality.
I hear ya. I appreciate the conversation bud.
Books I’ve read about this subject are
The Gulag Archipelago, Bloodlands, Mao’s Great Famin, The Great Terror, Wild Swans and Cambodia Year Zero.
Probably a couple others I’m not thinking if at the moment. All are very anti everything you’re saying. Don’t worry I’ve read plenty of anti imperialist/western books too. I am absolutely open to some recommendations that show more of you side of thinking/history though. I can buy it if available online or I do have a really good local library.
Even Solzhenitsyn’s wife has come out to say that this is more a work of fantasy and folklore than meaningful historical record.
Haven’t read this but I don’t have high hopes seeing as it appears to be a “double genocide” theory advocacy work.
This book is garbage. It is an extended tabloid piece not a meaningful piece of academic work.
https://web.archive.org/web/20141009093707/http://chinastudygroup.net/2011/03/o-grada-review-of-dikotter/
I’d recommend looking into Robert Conquest and his bias (putting it lightly).
The Gulag Archipelago is a work of fiction from a Nazi sympathizer, so that makes sense.
Even Wikipedia can’t hide that Timothy Snyder is a hack:
Omer Bartov wrote that “the book presents no new evidence and makes no new arguments”,[28] and in a highly critical review Richard Evans wrote that, because of its lack of causal argument, “Snyder’s book is of no use”, and that Snyder “hasn’t really mastered the voluminous literature on Hitler’s Germany”, which “leads him into error in a number of places” regarding the politics of Nazi Germany
Mao did not cause the famine, China was a slave-feudal society where famine was a recurring feature due to underdeveloped agriculture and poor technology to cope with weather disasters. Famine was abolished under socialism during Mao’s time, just not overnight.
As for Robert Conquest, he’s a hack who includes Nazis killed as “victims of communism,” as well as non-births as deaths.
Wild Swans is a personal biography and anecdote, not an actual work of historical analysis.
Cambodia wasn’t socialist and the overwhelming majority of socialists condemn Pol Pot, so I don’t care to offer anything here.
All in all, you essentially have some of the worst of liberal academia combined with essentially historical fiction. That’s not a good basis for any historical analysis.
For the Soviet Union, I recommend the following works:
This Soviet World (1936)
Human Rights in the Soviet Union (1984)
Blackshirts and Reds (1997)
Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend (Published in English in 2023)
And for China, the following:
China’s Millions (1965)
The East is Still Red (2023)
People’s Republic of China
Thank you! In a few months hopefully I’ll have a nicely balanced perspective.
Also, are there any books critical of communism/stalinism/maoism/leninism you’d recommend? Figure I’ll stagger one pro one anti and find the middle. So far I have if any have major issues let me know and I’ll decide if they are worth my time.
Anne Applebaum, Gulag: A History
Yang Jisheng, Tombstone
Orlando Figes, The Whisperers
Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928
Sheila Fitzpatrick, Everyday Stalinism
Oleg Khlevniuk, The History of the Gulag
Arch Getty & Oleg Naumov, The Road to Terror
No, because I haven’t read anything critical of Marxism-Leninism that I’d recommend. Further, finding a “middle” between two ideas doesn’t translate into being more correct, or more nuanced. All of the works I listed do bring up real issues that exist within socialist states, so you already are getting a good, critical view.
Everything you’ve listed is heavily biased. None of it is neutral at all when I looked into them. Which is fine, but I’d like to read both. Not to be correct, just for full context. The second list I presented I haven’t read anything of but all are supposed to be more historical and less political.
deleted by creator