Once again, this is an actual question; and I'm hoping to broaden my horizons and have a good conversation or two. I'm relatively new to commie subs, still trying to read political theory to figure out which one I like the most, so this might come off as uneducated. But why am I seeing so many positive posts about Stalin, followed by some comments that boil down to "Stalin was good, if you think he wasn't, that's just western propaganda" I'm thinking of the post that mentioned the 1921 Soviet Famine as a specific example.
I know that Stalin didn't create the famine, it was a byproduct of almost a decade of war, unrest, and a ton of other factors. But Stalin did do some bad shit. Things like sending 14 million people to gulags to work as slave labor, and killing millions more in his purges. I would argue that he used communism to become an authoritarian. Similar to how Putin is ruling now, stuffing ballot boxes, starting wars, and pushing propaganda. (I realize that we get pushed propaganda, too in the form of faux news, MSNBC, and most media outlets. I don't wish to have a discussion that boils down to "we do it too, you just don't see it")
This is why I posted this question! I had no idea my sources were basically sponsored by the CIA. I appreciate the book recommendations. I realize that 50's Cuba and WW2 USSR are fundamentally different due to almost every aspect from time to culture, I was just confused as to why it seemed like Stalin is exalted while nobody mentions Fidel when (due to bad and/or misinformed information) Stalin seemed like a more brutal....dictator? Is that the right word? I'll definitely read those books, thanks again
Stalin might get more attention here, but there's no shortage of appreciation of Fidel.
I'm glad you found my comment helpful!
This comes from the fact that the USSR was a lot more powerful than Cuba (and every other socialist state that existed then) and could thus much more effectively, and on a much greater scale repel western imperialism and colonialism - the clearest example of this is the USSR's victory in World War 2. In the West, a lot more propaganda and effort to demonize was directed towards the USSR, and Stalin in particular as he sort of embodied the greatest victories of the Soviets. You can also see a similar dynamic with how the broader left in the West tends to like Che Guevara (who represents revolution but died young and can be idealized as a handsome, charismatic rebel) while in comparison demonizing Castro (who successfully lead a socialist country permanently blockaded and threatened by the US).
After the war, mainstream liberal philosophy and history, instead of promoting actual material analysis, proceeded to paint a picture of WW2 (and the Soviet Union in general) that didn't correspond to facts. The US wasn't instrumental in the defeat of Nazi Germany, and wasn't even ideologically opposed to it. It joined the war to protect its imperial interests which could be threatened by the rise of German (and Japanese) imperialism - this is only one part of the whole war. A second, key part of WW2 was the anticolonial war fought by the USSR and China (and Korea) against the colonial invasions by Germany and Japan. To obfuscate this reality, liberal theory often falls back on concepts like totalitarianism which seeks to falsely equate Nazi Germany and the USSR, and subsequently also Hitler and Stalin. This concept is flawed in many ways and, as we know, Nazi Germany and the USSR were polar opposites. Any similarities between the two could also be found in the "liberal" countries at the time.
Still to this day in the West there exists a sort of knee jerk reaction to Stalin and the need to quickly denounce him as nothing but bad which is a result of the propaganda I've described and also a way to try and demonize present day communist movements by associating them with Stalin. Both of these are erroneous and done in bad faith, as you can see from the articles I've linked.