6 ms·

> Or maybe it’s part of the “Stalin wasn’t so bad” nationalist revisionism that has been building in Putin’s 21st-century Russian Federation. Putin himself see

> Or maybe it’s part of the “Stalin wasn’t so bad” nationalist revisionism that has been building in Putin’s 21st-century Russian Federation. Putin himself seems to deplore Stalin; I think partly because it was Stalin that made Ukraine a soviet republic distinct from Russia. It's quite odd; Putin seems to be the most Stalin-like leader Russia has had since - well, Stalin. I have no way of knowing what ordinary Russians think of Stalin; I've not seen a Levada Centre poll on the question.

bemusedthrow75 3y ago
At this point, in 2024, ordinary Russians probably choose to think of Stalin whatever Putin thinks of Stalin, and are ready to put an apology video on social media if they happen to punt in the wrong direction. (Being downvoted for this is a trip. Yes it's a joke, and hyperbole. But you know it is also true in substance.)
shakow 3y ago
> Putin seems to be the most Stalin-like leader Russia has had since - well, Stalin I would argue he is much closer to the tsars in the following aspects: - incestuous state-church relationship (it took for WWII to happen for Stalin to let a bit of leeway to the Orthodox church) to enforce the state legitimacy; - dreams about re-building an imperial Russia directly under Moscow rule (Stalin focused on “Socialism in one country” after the failure of the USSR/Poland war and then went down the “buffer-states belt” policy post-WWII); - deliberately exhibits lavish luxury (Stalin had a life style that was closer to wealthy retired US surgeon – by which I mean a couple villas and nice cars – than imperial Archduke) - and no realistic, well-anchored long term view for the country – safe for making him and his cronies wealthier (this is not an apology of stalinism and its hundreds of thousands of murdered, but at least Stalin had an idea of where the Soviet Union was, where he wanted it to be, and what was materially required for that).
- tomohawk 3y ago
  The Russian Orthodox Church was completely subverted by the KGB and still carries that legacy and purpose. The church never reformed after the USSR went kaput. It is used by Putin to spy on and keep people in line. Putin is also a creature of the KGB. As an example of the fascist/statist bent of this organization, check out the artwork in this cathedral: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgQNs5GUyU4&pp=ygUZcnVzc2lhIG1pbGl0YXJ5IGNhdGhlZHJhbA%3D%3D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgQNs5GUyU4&pp=ygUZcnVzc2lhI...
  - shakow 3y ago
    > The Russian Orthodox Church was completely subverted by the KGB That's true of the post-WWII, post-Stalin USSR. Up until the big changes of 1941, nearly all churches had been closed, publication of religious texts was forbidden and many popes were deported.
  - exceptione 3y ago
    Indeed. And Kiril (patriarch) is just a "former" KGB-agent. Here you can see some Soviet-style photoshopping a $30,000 watch away. https://archive.nytimes.com/thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/russian-church-admits-photo-was-altered-to-hide-patriarchs-watch/ https://archive.nytimes.com/thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0... Conservatism is traditionally a great vector for propagating an extreme agenda. That's also why you nowadays can see the GOP being co opted by the Kremlin, while simultaneously Evangelicals are up in arms behind Trump. Some of these people really think Russia stands for traditional values and demand UA to surrender. Same occured here before WWII, where Hitler was seen as law&order and would finally do something against undesirable elements from society. The playbook of strong-men and their servants are boringly predictable. Lhbti-free zones (Orban, Hungary), racial rage, women needs to embrace traditional role, forbidding books, you name it. None of it contributes to society in any meaningful way, but you can get 50% of the USA behind it. "Nah, he is not really going to do what he says". Yup.
    - tomohawk 3y ago
      Propagandists do like to co-opt narratives. It's a natural vector for sympathy. In terms of US politics, this has affected both of the main parties over the years. Singling out the GOP here is itself a false narrative. There are surely people in that party who are co-opted, but that is only part of what's going on. The Dems also have their useful idiots. Speaking of WWII, Joe Kennedy (John's father) was quite useful to the Nazis.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  Agreed. Putin is an admirer of Peter The Great.
- bemusedthrow75 3y ago
  Right. Stalin's luxury was the functional luxury that anything would be done for him if he asked, if it was possible at all. Putin is much more like a monarch: rich to the point that almost nothing makes him feel rich. Which is why he's so desperate to pretend he excels at stuff: horse riding, ice hockey, shooting. (He probably does excel at shooting) Or perhaps he's more like an L Ron Hubbard with truly vast resources. Quixotic performative superiority.
  - Tuna-Fish 3y ago
    > Which is why he's so desperate to pretend he excels at stuff: horse riding, ice hockey, shooting. That's not about his own psychology, but what the Russian people wanted to see in their leader. Near it's end, the USSR had long been led by decrepit old men, and no small amount of blame for the state of the state was laid on the way the country became a gerontocracy. Public displays of Putin's vigor and virility were important PR/propaganda. They came off as really weird in the west, but we were not the target audience for them.
    - michaelt 3y ago
      Furthermore, every successful dictator has to project an image of excellent health. After all, if your finance chief is loyal because you let him steal $10 million a year and he expects you to be in power for the next 10+ years, that's $100M+ for staying loyal. If you're in poor health, though, and might only last 2 more years? Your finance chief is going to start thinking about who'll replace you. Earning that replacement's favour might be worth a lot more than the $20M he can expect from you. Your military chief and police chief and religious chief are having similar thoughts, and before you know it your successor controls the treasury, armed forces and religion and you're forced into retirement or dead. Granted, you can avoid the problem by having an obvious, powerful and deeply loyal successor. If Putin had a healthy young son he appointed the head of the armed forces he could be ill as much as he likes. But he doesn't have such a successor, so he's got to project an image of excellent health.
      - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
aebtebeten 3y ago
> Putin himself seems to deplore Stalin What makes you think that? I had the impression he is explicitly pro-Stalin. see also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LffLqUwlY2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LffLqUwlY2Y (Pugacheva denounced the SMO last year, many others decamped* for Israel, and there are a few artists who stayed despite being no longer in favour and are filming clips with their phones, but as far as I can tell hi budget videos are —and have been— pretty synonymous with toeing the Kremlin line) * the first Новогодний Голубой огонек after the invasion had to pad out the audience with military members; I had been assuming that was because either too many artists (obviously сердючка included) were elsewhere or because they had refused to guarantee their support live on-air. Haven't watched this years' yet.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  > What makes you think that? Well, he's said so.
  - aebtebeten 3y ago
    Works for me: do you remember where? (I can easily believe Putin would be happy to join in the Immortal Regiment parade while casting shade on the then-leader. Do any of the "Man Like Putin" lyrics refer to Stalin? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUh9pThGdm4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUh9pThGdm4 — my russian isn't good enough to tell if the various contrasts have referents or not...) Edit: upon reflection, if Putin were not behind the rehabilitation of Stalin, then who is?
    - denton-scratch 3y ago
      Perhaps I'm wrong - I've just done a little search. Firstly, it's Lenin that he blames for Ukrainian autonomy - not Stalin. Secondly, Putin has evidently said that Stalin was a mixed blessing; he industrialized the Russian economy, and he defeated the Nazis, but the repression and murder he caused were wrong. ""The positives that undoubtedly existed were achieved at an unacceptable price. Repressions did take place. This is a fact. Millions of our fellow citizens suffered from them," Putin said. "Such a way of running a state, of achieving results is unacceptable, this is impossible. We have not only lived through the personality cult but also witnessed mass crimes against our own nation." So, apologies for misinformation.
BlueTemplar 3y ago
How about this one ? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/06/26/for-russians-stalin-is-the-most-outstanding-figure-in-world-history-putin-is-next/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/06/26...
ffgjgf1 3y ago
> that made Ukraine a soviet It wasn’t really Stalin, that’s just how the Soviet union worked pretty much from the beginning (self determination and all that stuff). Stalin gave Ukraine additional territories which might be what you’re actually referring to.
bigfishrunning 3y ago
My mentor is a soviet refugee that left in the 80s before the Berlin wall fell. He has a very low opinion of Stalin (and Putin for that matter).
cyberax 3y ago
> Putin himself seems to deplore Stalin Putin doesn't have any fixed or strong beliefs. One moment he's a staunch "strong-hand" Stalinist, and another moment he's a pro-business economic liberal. And that's why Russia has no ideology, it's not a Nazi Germany or a Stalin's USSR. His only goal is to preserve his personal power.

bemusedthrow75 3y ago

At this point, in 2024, ordinary Russians probably choose to think of Stalin whatever Putin thinks of Stalin, and are ready to put an apology video on social media if they happen to punt in the wrong direction. (Being downvoted for this is a trip. Yes it's a joke, and hyperbole. But you know it is also true in substance.)

shakow 3y ago

> Putin seems to be the most Stalin-like leader Russia has had since - well, Stalin I would argue he is much closer to the tsars in the following aspects: - incestuous state-church relationship (it took for WWII to happen for Stalin to let a bit of leeway to the Orthodox church) to enforce the state legitimacy; - dreams about re-building an imperial Russia directly under Moscow rule (Stalin focused on “Socialism in one country” after the failure of the USSR/Poland war and then went down the “buffer-states belt” policy post-WWII); - deliberately exhibits lavish luxury (Stalin had a life style that was closer to wealthy retired US surgeon – by which I mean a couple villas and nice cars – than imperial Archduke) - and no realistic, well-anchored long term view for the country – safe for making him and his cronies wealthier (this is not an apology of stalinism and its hundreds of thousands of murdered, but at least Stalin had an idea of where the Soviet Union was, where he wanted it to be, and what was materially required for that).

tomohawk 3y ago
The Russian Orthodox Church was completely subverted by the KGB and still carries that legacy and purpose. The church never reformed after the USSR went kaput. It is used by Putin to spy on and keep people in line. Putin is also a creature of the KGB. As an example of the fascist/statist bent of this organization, check out the artwork in this cathedral: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgQNs5GUyU4&pp=ygUZcnVzc2lhIG1pbGl0YXJ5IGNhdGhlZHJhbA%3D%3D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgQNs5GUyU4&pp=ygUZcnVzc2lhI...
- shakow 3y ago
  > The Russian Orthodox Church was completely subverted by the KGB That's true of the post-WWII, post-Stalin USSR. Up until the big changes of 1941, nearly all churches had been closed, publication of religious texts was forbidden and many popes were deported.
- exceptione 3y ago
  Indeed. And Kiril (patriarch) is just a "former" KGB-agent. Here you can see some Soviet-style photoshopping a $30,000 watch away. https://archive.nytimes.com/thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/russian-church-admits-photo-was-altered-to-hide-patriarchs-watch/ https://archive.nytimes.com/thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0... Conservatism is traditionally a great vector for propagating an extreme agenda. That's also why you nowadays can see the GOP being co opted by the Kremlin, while simultaneously Evangelicals are up in arms behind Trump. Some of these people really think Russia stands for traditional values and demand UA to surrender. Same occured here before WWII, where Hitler was seen as law&order and would finally do something against undesirable elements from society. The playbook of strong-men and their servants are boringly predictable. Lhbti-free zones (Orban, Hungary), racial rage, women needs to embrace traditional role, forbidding books, you name it. None of it contributes to society in any meaningful way, but you can get 50% of the USA behind it. "Nah, he is not really going to do what he says". Yup.
  - tomohawk 3y ago
    Propagandists do like to co-opt narratives. It's a natural vector for sympathy. In terms of US politics, this has affected both of the main parties over the years. Singling out the GOP here is itself a false narrative. There are surely people in that party who are co-opted, but that is only part of what's going on. The Dems also have their useful idiots. Speaking of WWII, Joe Kennedy (John's father) was quite useful to the Nazis.
denton-scratch 3y ago
Agreed. Putin is an admirer of Peter The Great.
bemusedthrow75 3y ago
Right. Stalin's luxury was the functional luxury that anything would be done for him if he asked, if it was possible at all. Putin is much more like a monarch: rich to the point that almost nothing makes him feel rich. Which is why he's so desperate to pretend he excels at stuff: horse riding, ice hockey, shooting. (He probably does excel at shooting) Or perhaps he's more like an L Ron Hubbard with truly vast resources. Quixotic performative superiority.
- Tuna-Fish 3y ago
  > Which is why he's so desperate to pretend he excels at stuff: horse riding, ice hockey, shooting. That's not about his own psychology, but what the Russian people wanted to see in their leader. Near it's end, the USSR had long been led by decrepit old men, and no small amount of blame for the state of the state was laid on the way the country became a gerontocracy. Public displays of Putin's vigor and virility were important PR/propaganda. They came off as really weird in the west, but we were not the target audience for them.
  - michaelt 3y ago
    Furthermore, every successful dictator has to project an image of excellent health. After all, if your finance chief is loyal because you let him steal $10 million a year and he expects you to be in power for the next 10+ years, that's $100M+ for staying loyal. If you're in poor health, though, and might only last 2 more years? Your finance chief is going to start thinking about who'll replace you. Earning that replacement's favour might be worth a lot more than the $20M he can expect from you. Your military chief and police chief and religious chief are having similar thoughts, and before you know it your successor controls the treasury, armed forces and religion and you're forced into retirement or dead. Granted, you can avoid the problem by having an obvious, powerful and deeply loyal successor. If Putin had a healthy young son he appointed the head of the armed forces he could be ill as much as he likes. But he doesn't have such a successor, so he's got to project an image of excellent health.
    - bemusedthrow75 3y ago

aebtebeten 3y ago

> Putin himself seems to deplore Stalin What makes you think that? I had the impression he is explicitly pro-Stalin. see also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LffLqUwlY2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LffLqUwlY2Y (Pugacheva denounced the SMO last year, many others decamped* for Israel, and there are a few artists who stayed despite being no longer in favour and are filming clips with their phones, but as far as I can tell hi budget videos are —and have been— pretty synonymous with toeing the Kremlin line) * the first Новогодний Голубой огонек after the invasion had to pad out the audience with military members; I had been assuming that was because either too many artists (obviously сердючка included) were elsewhere or because they had refused to guarantee their support live on-air. Haven't watched this years' yet.

denton-scratch 3y ago
> What makes you think that? Well, he's said so.
- aebtebeten 3y ago
  Works for me: do you remember where? (I can easily believe Putin would be happy to join in the Immortal Regiment parade while casting shade on the then-leader. Do any of the "Man Like Putin" lyrics refer to Stalin? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUh9pThGdm4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUh9pThGdm4 — my russian isn't good enough to tell if the various contrasts have referents or not...) Edit: upon reflection, if Putin were not behind the rehabilitation of Stalin, then who is?
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    Perhaps I'm wrong - I've just done a little search. Firstly, it's Lenin that he blames for Ukrainian autonomy - not Stalin. Secondly, Putin has evidently said that Stalin was a mixed blessing; he industrialized the Russian economy, and he defeated the Nazis, but the repression and murder he caused were wrong. ""The positives that undoubtedly existed were achieved at an unacceptable price. Repressions did take place. This is a fact. Millions of our fellow citizens suffered from them," Putin said. "Such a way of running a state, of achieving results is unacceptable, this is impossible. We have not only lived through the personality cult but also witnessed mass crimes against our own nation." So, apologies for misinformation.

BlueTemplar 3y ago

How about this one ? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/06/26/for-russians-stalin-is-the-most-outstanding-figure-in-world-history-putin-is-next/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/06/26...

ffgjgf1 3y ago

> that made Ukraine a soviet It wasn’t really Stalin, that’s just how the Soviet union worked pretty much from the beginning (self determination and all that stuff). Stalin gave Ukraine additional territories which might be what you’re actually referring to.

bigfishrunning 3y ago

My mentor is a soviet refugee that left in the 80s before the Berlin wall fell. He has a very low opinion of Stalin (and Putin for that matter).

cyberax 3y ago

> Putin himself seems to deplore Stalin Putin doesn't have any fixed or strong beliefs. One moment he's a staunch "strong-hand" Stalinist, and another moment he's a pro-business economic liberal. And that's why Russia has no ideology, it's not a Nazi Germany or a Stalin's USSR. His only goal is to preserve his personal power.