In all honesty this is a difficult topic to get utility from. The biggest problem is the deeply-seeded Christian moralism that poisons western thought, messily conflating tacticality and morality on multiple levels. The second problem is how much of the hard data has been corrupted, obscured, crowded out, or destroyed.

(I’m speaking mostly of the USSR because that’s the one I’ve read a bunch of books on. I only have a passing knowledge of post-rev China).

And I super empathize with unmedicated ADHD. One thing that sort of helped me in this specific case was taking a non-linear study approach to the USSR (which actually is the only good way to study this specific topic, imo, since none of the sources are both trustworthy and comprehensive). Rather than choosing one book and reading it cover to cover, I bought/downloaded a few of them, then continued to get more as I followed citation trails back. This let me start to get a picture of the life cycle of historiography, the process by which truth is narrativized and manufactured.

Which brings me back to the aforementioned second problem (which I’m addressing first for some reason): how do we know things? Or skipping a few steps past sense-certainty, how do historians claim to know things? Well, they read firsthand and secondhand accounts, contemporaneous documents, and other historians, then assemble a skeleton of events of varying certainty, using their own heuristics and intuition to fill in the gaps to construct a cohesive narrative (this description is a massive oversimplification of course). Given the right inputs and academic rigor, that tends to produce something that’s probably a pretty decent approximation of reality.

The historian then might write a book about the object of study, where a thought like “according to person A, event x happened, and according to historian B, event z happened, and I’m filling in the gaps to say event y happened” might get polished down to “events xyz happened - person A and historian B”. This sort of lossy compression is necessary to some degree, otherwise you end up with unreadable, long-winded blathering like this comment. It’s not realistic to, like, color code every single sentence in a history book based on how provable or controversial it is, or hotlink each claim to all existing sources that both confirm and contradict it (as much as I wish those were somehow the standard).

A result of this is that the skeleton of cited data might be informative, but the narrative flesh around it tends to reproduce already-existing consensus, assumptions, and ideology. And in the case of Western Sovietology, the skeleton of citable data comes in large part from (1) Nazis, (2) Trotsky, (3), Khrushchev, or (4) nowhere, pulled out of someone’s ass. So Historian A might cite a nazi for x, Khrushchev for z, then fill in y based on what they, an anticommunist, think is reasonable. Then Historian B comes along and cites Historian A for x, Radio Free Asia for z, and fills in y. Then Historian C comes along, etc etc etc. Including Historian A coming back with another book and citing Historian J and Trotsky, etc etc etc. I frequently call western sovietology incestuous and that’s what I mean. The academia factory produces the illusion of consensus, but if you start following the genealogy of a claim back, you often find there is no reliable factual ancestor.

Why is this relevant to the question of the mistakes of the USSR? Because if you want to do a proper analysis, moral or tactical, the particulars start to matter. Think of any difficult decision you’ve had to make, with both pros and cons on either side, and imagine if you erased most or all of those pros and cons. What may have been a justifiable/strategic decision might seem like an immoral/stupid one without all the data. Even omitting or mis-weighting a single data point might tip the scales. So imagine someone trying to do so using a century of historiographic incest as their source (often a single book, or worse, a couple YouTube videos).

It’s not at all to say you shouldn’t study and learn from history, but in the case of revolutionaries at least, the framing question shouldn’t be an analysis of whether decisions were justified/correct, but taking stock of what problems were faced and how they might correlate to problems we face today. The historic answers to those problems are only tactically useful in a very general sense, because (1) the veil of history prevents us from knowing the circumstances that demanded them or the particulars of the solutions and (2) the cross-applicability of a solution to an entirely different set of circumstances is not a given.

Attempting to circle back to the first problem of Christian moralism: as Marxists most of us have figured out we can disregard the vilification of revolutionaries. It takes practice, though, not to accidentally fall back on old habits when diving into particulars. People are often caught at the roadblock of moral-if-tactical faux analysis, which accomplishes little for the reasons I tried to lay out previously, and is still just a moralist analysis dressed up in the language of a tactical analysis. Roughly paraphrasing Hobsbawm as one example. After the fall of the USSR: the “crimes of Stalin” might have been justified if they had resulted in global communism, but since that didn’t happen and the USSR eventually failed, they were all for nothing.

Another side of that coin is attempting to do apologetics for revolutionaries, which is just accepting the framing and framework of anticommunists to argue on their ground. Convincing liberals that Stalin was a good person and is currently in heaven with Jesus and Lenin is a black hole of effort, and misses the point of studying history. (Contradicting this claim, I suspect de-vilifying Stalin might be necessary for communist theory and organization to advance in the US. I haven’t figured out how to reconcile these thoughts yet). But 9 out of 10 times when agitating and educating, if the topic of the USSR comes up, it’s more effective to focus on the successes of the Soviet Union and its workers, de-emphasizing specific figureheads as necessary.

I don’t currently have access to my books, but off the top of my head a few that I remember referencing are Kotkin’s biographies of Stalin, Roberts’ Stalin’s Wars, Fitzpatrick’s Everyday Stalinism and On Stalin’s Team, and of course Losurdo’s Black Legend. As memories drain from my colander-brain I can’t remember all of them or which ones are better than others. None should be taken at face value, although Losurdo’s benefits from his being a philosopher and communist.

I think I remember 100 Days that Shook the World and Black Bolshevik being pretty good for options that aren’t academic history books. If I remember others I’ll add em

Reminder to comrades below to follow Rule 3.

Be respectful. This is a safe space where all comrades should feel welcome

Learn to disagree without being disrespectful, or we won’t hesitate to issue temp bans.

Others: Please report comments that you feel are disrespectful or rude, and we’ll try get to them ASAP.

Hiiii, yay another ADHDer!! And omg yeeees, u’re absolutely on point about the innocently asked questions and posts. I have data on this.

Anyway, propaganda, mythologising, exaggerating and misattributed blame brushed aside, what is left?

historiography, mostly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtsjuZHOEb4

I wouldn’t mind hearing more obscure examples, or a deeper analysis of the mistakes and unjustifiable actions I am already aware of.

Ok, to get a better grasp on this and to provide a thorough answer, what are those mistakes and unjustifiable actions?

lowkey illiterate

omg noooo, pls no self-negative talk!!

“obvious wrongdoings”

Could you please explain what you mean by obvious wrongdoing? also another video on moralization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXQJW2YYS4

“Support of Khmer Rouge”

Could you clarify what you mean by ‘support’, pls.

“Ethnic deportations”

You mentioned ‘ethnic deportations’ - could you specify which deportations you’re referring to, and under what conditions they occurred? What do you mean by ethnic?

“Re-criminalising homosexuality”

hmmm, i’m unfamiliar w this. could you share the specific years and context for when this happened in the USSR / China? was this policy unique to those countries, or was it part of a broader global pattern at the time? I’m trying to understand the historical context.

The CPC ended up criticizing Mao for straying from Mao Zedong Thought, let me dig up the book screenshots will edit. For Stalin, I’d read Samir Amin’s Russia and the Long Transition from Capitalism to Socialism. Not a long book & not written in a way that is difficult to approach. Deals with macro-level problems the USSR encountered with geopolitics but much more. Critical book for understanding what the socialist mode of production is IMO, he argues that the USSR made their own whole new thing

What did Stalin and Mao objectively, undeniably do wrong?

dying

and what should be done to prevent future socialist projects from repeating these wrongs?

well…most of their issues imo were based on paranoia caused by a world war, intense anticommunist propaganda, that made a mild critique something suspicious of being “western agents trying to desestabilize the country and the system” because when there are spies everywhere, anything could feel life-threatening

Mao and Stalin were born before the invention of sliced bread. Mao died before most women in the US could have a bank account and Stalin died before full desegragation in the US. just as a medieval peasant has a vastly different view of disease than a 19th century doctor, we have vastly different views on social matters than Stalin or Mao did. Socialism is one of the very few progressive ideologies. We dont seek to mythologize anyone or worship them in any way. We dont look at a paper written in the 1700s and think that we should base our life on it. We as socialists will do something wrong because of Mao and Stalins past in the same way physicians will do something wrong in the future because newton invested in the slave trade. I dont think theres a reason to fear this. ”But past socialists were homophobic!” but we are not the same society from the 1950s anymore

I would just like to emphasize that although there are surely some things figures like these did wrong as individuals, as nation-wide policy, we’re more talking about “what did the CPC do wrong under Mao’s leadership” or “what did the CPSU do wrong under Stalin’s leadership.” That’s probably what you implicitly mean, but anti-communists would mean it a different way, as in claiming they were dictators and all decisions were coming from them.

Stalin recriminalizing homosexuality isn’t a justifiable act regardless of the rationale or context behind it.

The forced migrations are also indisputably bad and were clearly motivated by paranoia about the loyalty of ethnic minorities with little supporting evidence. It definitely wasn’t fair that the relocations persisted long after the war was over.

And of course supporting Israel. No excuse for that one; Stalin should’ve known better. Him walking it back later doesn’t make up for this blunder.

For Mao the biggest thing was the Sino-Soviet Split and especially the reproach with the USA. Khrushchev played a part, yes, but Mao didn’t help with this.

Mao also backed the Khmer Rouge alongside the U.S. and while he was dead by the time of the Sino-Vietnamese War and the Soviet-Afghan War he was indirectly complicit for China’s role in both via the Sino-Soviet Split and warming relations with the West.

That’s all I can say with confidence as those are the ones I’m most literate on.

The forced deportations that Stalin approved were unquestionably wrong. They should be understood within their historical context in which forced deportation was not incredibly unusual but they were still unethical and the Soviets could and should have done better.

Kill Trotsky and Khrushchev.

I guess I could argue that Stalin was too idealistic. He wrote in the constitution:

ARTICLE 119. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to rest and leisure.

The right to rest and leisure is ensured by the reduction of the working day to seven hours for the overwhelming majority of the workers, the institution of annual vacations with full pay for workers and employees and the provision of a wide network of sanatoria, rest homes and clubs for the accommodation of the working people.

Problem. USSR had to develop in the face of powerful hostile entities. Now, I don’t actually know if he limited the workday to seven hours during wartime but I’d be shocked if he did. Man, without the US and Germany the USSR could’ve been so amazing.

I remember reading that during The Great Leap Forward, the party encouraged people to have furnaces in their backyards to create steel, as they wanted rapid industrialization.

This lead to a drop in farmers and affected food production, as well as most furnaces didn’t get hot enough to smelt iron so they couldn’t use it.

Dont know about Mao, but Stalin shouldnt have stopped at Berlin

or a deeper analysis of the mistakes and unjustifiable actions I am already aware of

Can’t give you more examples that you aren’t already aware of, but just wanted to argue that within the historical context, most of these actions are somewhat justifiable i think.

Only in hindsight, with the information we have today, we wouldn’t support most of those actions. For example, as far as i know, they did gather information from farmers on how to fix the issue, the farmers themselves were just not knowledgeable enough about the ecological impact. So, they did everything right and asked the people that have the most authority and knowledge, but this specific knowledge was just not available to them in the first place and the famine got worse.

In this case, there is no way to not make this same mistake if we are in the same situation of our most knowledgeable people not having enough information and being under immense pressure to act now with the information we have.

The ethnic deportations seem to be contested. From what i have seen is that there are two camps on this. The first camp says that there have been rising numbers of fascist collaborators within those groups and that the deportations during war time and immediately after were a chance that they just weren’t willing to take, as it could have done irreversible damage to the union.

The second camp is more like “ethnic deportation bad, unless 100% justified due to guaranteed worse outcome if not done”. That would be the case for when the union moved a bunch of jews from their home because they were about to be invaded by the nazis there and the soviets couldn’t defend that area. They see those other ethnic deportations by the USSR more like what the USA did with asian people due to fear of collaborating with japan.

“Traditional Chinese Medicine” (TCM) was a mistake, but only because the west and capitalism corrupted it.

As I understand the modern incarnation of TCM, it came about in the beginning of the PRC. People were poor, and didn’t have access to medical professionals (even if they had money, there wouldn’t have been many doctors and nurses available). To help with this lack of access, Mao and the central government distributed a manual which combined accessible elements of contemporary scientific medicine with various traditional practices - the goal was a healthcare manual for the masses, within the material limitations of the period. It probably worked quite well at the time, at least compared to the previous status quo of no healthcare.

Unfortunately capitalism had to grab onto this and now TCM is huge within the “alternative health” industry. It’s mythologized as being hundreds or even thousands of years old, which elements of it may be but that doesn’t speak to efficacy or safety.

This is, in the grand scheme of things, a small error if one at all. I just have a lot of frustration with anti-science grifters.