Parenti is a good place to start. Blackshirts and reds is a good place to start with Parenti.
I loathe Chomsky, but he’s good for libs like you I guess. Palatable, though he’s more than likely just gonna make you an insufferable radlib. If you can do basic self-crit then read manufacturing consent.
This Soviet World by Anna Louise Strong is good too. Required reading really.
This series about authoritarianism is nice too https://jacobin.com/author/marcie-smith
There’s no single place I can point you to though. Education isn’t simple or easy, but being curious is. Not just taking everything you assume to be true for granted is important, and feverishly searching for keywords on wikipedia when your views get challenged is not the signs of someone with a solid intellectual foundation for their worldview. When you encounter heterodox opinions, take the time to consider that those that hold them have, like you, grown up in the same environment and so they’ve heard the same things you have. They do not think what you think because they haven’t heard what you have heard. They think differently because they have heard what you have heard and then they decided to look into it. Be curious, be humble when you get challenged and if you have no basis for thinking what you’re thinking, figure out why you think that. To quote a great man: “No investigation, no right to speak.”
I recommend frequenting the hexbear newsmega where plenty of good sources and analysis of current events can be found.
Edit: At the very very least just fucking use your own favourite source and learn about the black book of communism. Or just click the sources given for the many claims you make and actually read them. It’s biased as hell, but at least you’re engaging with someone engaging with second-hand sources, instead of reading the editorialized summary some neo-nazi cooked up for you
Thanks for the suggestions. I found a free copy of This Soviet World. I skimmed through a bit of it and it has some interesting talking points but it’s a bit dated. It was written in 1936. Stalin did a lot after the fact and we learned a lot after the USSR fell.
You’re welcome. Yeah I know, as I said there is no single place I can point you to, that’s not how education works. Anyone who claims to have one single source to answer all your questions are just indoctrinating you. If you ask the other users who have taken the time to engage with you, then I’m sure you’ll get more texts.
Edit: Since we’re talking about declassified intel This one about Stalin from the CIA might be of interest to you
You can find Parenti on marxists.org and most texts on Annas Archive
I appreciate that and you’re not wrong. But the topic of the conversation was Stalin killing a lot of people and not just CEOs. While western media has over exaggerated the numbers, it’s still a substantial amount. It’s well documented that he purged a lot of dissenters in the government and military.
You don’t really know that, you haven’t really provided anything but wikipedia articles. You have looked at no first hand sources and you have provided none.
But the topic of the conversation was Stalin killing a lot of people and not just CEOs
No, the topic was stalin killing a bunch of CEOs, then you chimed in. The post isn’t a discussion post wanting to engage in vague allegations from people who will feverishly search the wikipedia references for the first book with a title that sounds like it’ll support their claims.
Stalin killing a lot of people and not just CEOs.
Yeah, nazis. We’ve been through this. At least look through the black book of communism.
You and I can argue the numbers until we’re both blue in the face. But the fact of the matter is he did purge a lot of people out of Russian politics and society. If you think that’s an incorrect statement than you need to explain why.
Part of the problem is that even the Soviet perspective on what happened during Stalin’s time in power is in question. Khrushchev clearly lied about the extent to which Stalin was a brutal dictator. I suspect he did that to distance his own government from the brutality of the decisions the Soviet government was forced to make in order to survive through WWII. Capitalist countries were happy accept that narrative because it aligned with their desire to portray socialism as an abject failure equivalent to fascism. As such, by the time the Soviet archives were opened up for academics to research what actually took place during Stalin’s reign, the narratives concerning him were already set in stone.
In another discussion on this thread I quoted some numbers provided from declassified documents from the USSR after it’s fall. And even those have numbers in the millions. It seems those are the generally accepted numbers among historians.
You and I can argue the numbers until we’re both blue in the face
What? We haven’t argued any numbers yet. We’re at a very basic level where I am asking you to do basic due diligence if you’re going to discuss a topic, we haven’t even broached it yet.
But the fact of the matter is he did purge a lot of people out of Russian politics and society.
Once again you don’t know that, since all you base your statements on is heavily editorialised wikipedia articles. You haven’t actually done any research on your claims. I barely have any idea what you’re talking about, Stalin was in politics for a long time and I have no idea what particular set of brainworms you’re working with.
If you think that’s an incorrect statement than you need to explain why.
I don’t disagree that Stalin had people purged? Again, what we are having can barely be called a discussion, since you’re still flailing at the basic level of “engage in good faith”. It seems like you opened your mouth about something you don’t really understand, you got challenged, and instead of having a healthy reaction and engaging in good faith you instead started flailing.
I gave you examples and all you said was you didn’t give a shit since I said wikipedia.
You’re not one to talk about arguing in good faith. I’ve been pretty civil with you given some of your stupid replies to my other comments in this thread.
Again, if you want to tell me that what I’ve read is wrong then feel free to explain it to me. And not from very outdated books from the 30s or the CIA document from the 50s, neither of which say that I’m wrong btw.
I gave you examples and all you said was you didn’t give a shit since I said wikipedia.
“Hey I think this”
Okay, on what basis?
“Wikipedia”
Okay, then I don’t really care
“Wow I gave you so many examples”
You’re not one to talk about arguing in good faith. I’ve been pretty civil with you given some of your stupid replies to my other comments in this thread.
Oh no muh civility! Yeah dude civility is exclusively tied to the words you use and not your behaviour or actions.
Again, if you want to tell me that what I’ve read is wrong then feel free to explain it to me.
Okay, wikipedia is a site run by nazis and frequently misrepresents information.
And not from very outdated books from the 30s or the CIA document from the 50s, neither of which say that I’m wrong btw.
So you don’t want first hand sources, but rather editorialized online articles edited by nazis? Neat.
Kinda convenient that you then still ignore this brief breakdown that is now being shared with you for the fourth time.
Parenti is a good place to start. Blackshirts and reds is a good place to start with Parenti.
I loathe Chomsky, but he’s good for libs like you I guess. Palatable, though he’s more than likely just gonna make you an insufferable radlib. If you can do basic self-crit then read manufacturing consent.
This Soviet World by Anna Louise Strong is good too. Required reading really.
This series about authoritarianism is nice too https://jacobin.com/author/marcie-smith
There’s no single place I can point you to though. Education isn’t simple or easy, but being curious is. Not just taking everything you assume to be true for granted is important, and feverishly searching for keywords on wikipedia when your views get challenged is not the signs of someone with a solid intellectual foundation for their worldview. When you encounter heterodox opinions, take the time to consider that those that hold them have, like you, grown up in the same environment and so they’ve heard the same things you have. They do not think what you think because they haven’t heard what you have heard. They think differently because they have heard what you have heard and then they decided to look into it. Be curious, be humble when you get challenged and if you have no basis for thinking what you’re thinking, figure out why you think that. To quote a great man: “No investigation, no right to speak.”
I recommend frequenting the hexbear newsmega where plenty of good sources and analysis of current events can be found.
I doubt you’ll read any of that though, so just go ignore this comment instead https://hexbear.net/comment/168034
Edit: At the very very least just fucking use your own favourite source and learn about the black book of communism. Or just click the sources given for the many claims you make and actually read them. It’s biased as hell, but at least you’re engaging with someone engaging with second-hand sources, instead of reading the editorialized summary some neo-nazi cooked up for you
Thanks for the suggestions. I found a free copy of This Soviet World. I skimmed through a bit of it and it has some interesting talking points but it’s a bit dated. It was written in 1936. Stalin did a lot after the fact and we learned a lot after the USSR fell.
You’re welcome. Yeah I know, as I said there is no single place I can point you to, that’s not how education works. Anyone who claims to have one single source to answer all your questions are just indoctrinating you. If you ask the other users who have taken the time to engage with you, then I’m sure you’ll get more texts.
Edit: Since we’re talking about declassified intel This one about Stalin from the CIA might be of interest to you
You can find Parenti on marxists.org and most texts on Annas Archive
I appreciate that and you’re not wrong. But the topic of the conversation was Stalin killing a lot of people and not just CEOs. While western media has over exaggerated the numbers, it’s still a substantial amount. It’s well documented that he purged a lot of dissenters in the government and military.
You don’t really know that, you haven’t really provided anything but wikipedia articles. You have looked at no first hand sources and you have provided none.
No, the topic was stalin killing a bunch of CEOs, then you chimed in. The post isn’t a discussion post wanting to engage in vague allegations from people who will feverishly search the wikipedia references for the first book with a title that sounds like it’ll support their claims.
Yeah, nazis. We’ve been through this. At least look through the black book of communism.
You and I can argue the numbers until we’re both blue in the face. But the fact of the matter is he did purge a lot of people out of Russian politics and society. If you think that’s an incorrect statement than you need to explain why.
Part of the problem is that even the Soviet perspective on what happened during Stalin’s time in power is in question. Khrushchev clearly lied about the extent to which Stalin was a brutal dictator. I suspect he did that to distance his own government from the brutality of the decisions the Soviet government was forced to make in order to survive through WWII. Capitalist countries were happy accept that narrative because it aligned with their desire to portray socialism as an abject failure equivalent to fascism. As such, by the time the Soviet archives were opened up for academics to research what actually took place during Stalin’s reign, the narratives concerning him were already set in stone.
No disagreements on what you said.
In another discussion on this thread I quoted some numbers provided from declassified documents from the USSR after it’s fall. And even those have numbers in the millions. It seems those are the generally accepted numbers among historians.
What? We haven’t argued any numbers yet. We’re at a very basic level where I am asking you to do basic due diligence if you’re going to discuss a topic, we haven’t even broached it yet.
Once again you don’t know that, since all you base your statements on is heavily editorialised wikipedia articles. You haven’t actually done any research on your claims. I barely have any idea what you’re talking about, Stalin was in politics for a long time and I have no idea what particular set of brainworms you’re working with.
I don’t disagree that Stalin had people purged? Again, what we are having can barely be called a discussion, since you’re still flailing at the basic level of “engage in good faith”. It seems like you opened your mouth about something you don’t really understand, you got challenged, and instead of having a healthy reaction and engaging in good faith you instead started flailing.
I gave you examples and all you said was you didn’t give a shit since I said wikipedia.
You’re not one to talk about arguing in good faith. I’ve been pretty civil with you given some of your stupid replies to my other comments in this thread.
Again, if you want to tell me that what I’ve read is wrong then feel free to explain it to me. And not from very outdated books from the 30s or the CIA document from the 50s, neither of which say that I’m wrong btw.
“Hey I think this”
Okay, on what basis?
“Wikipedia”
Okay, then I don’t really care
“Wow I gave you so many examples”
Oh no muh civility! Yeah dude civility is exclusively tied to the words you use and not your behaviour or actions.
Okay, wikipedia is a site run by nazis and frequently misrepresents information.
So you don’t want first hand sources, but rather editorialized online articles edited by nazis? Neat.
Kinda convenient that you then still ignore this brief breakdown that is now being shared with you for the fourth time.