diegeticscream[all]🔻 @ simply_surprise @lemmygrad.ml

[any/all]

---

Read more

Posts

12

Comments

233

Joined

4 yr. ago

You're trying to distract from avoiding the question at hand.

The Soviets and the USA are certainly not in the same group, though, so when they agree on an account, that is good evidence.

You'd accept as fact anything the Soviets and U$ agree on?

You'll need to accept that "Even in Stalin's time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on the subject are caused by the lack of comprehension of the real nature she organization of the communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers was merely the captain of a team...".

https://archive.ph/w3YpS

I'm looking forward to you admitting that you were wrong about Stalin. Or, will you just revise what you consider as good evidence to avoid it?

Your claim that Stalin seriously attempted to resign might potentially be false. Can you admit that?

I don't see any evidence or reason to think it is false. I'll be happy to revisit that stance when evidence is presented.

You still haven't answered the question

You're experiencing cognitive dissonance right now - mental discomfort because you can't square the existence of two conflicting things:

• Your original implication that Stalin was a power hungry monster who seized power.
• the fact that he attempted to resign, multiple times.

You asked, why didn't he? I'm saying your faith that he certainly tried is inappropriate. He might've tried, or he might've not. It's not a question of which side says what, it's the sheer quantity of different people that helps make an account reliable.

I honestly don't understand that this is a response to.

We can say yes, the Holocaust really happened, because such a wide range of people, from Americans to Soviets to Germans agree that yes, it happened. This makes it reliable. If only Americans said it happened, this would be less reliable.

No. We accept that the Holocaust really happened because of the absolute mountain of evidence. We don't accept things as fact solely because they're agreed on.

I already admitted just a couple replies ago what I do not know, and what I am unable to know. The one who has failed to acknowledge their own potential ignorance is not me.

No. You tried to say that no one can really know anything. You haven't admitted to your personal ignorance on the topic you chose.

Again, that is not fact. You can't just unilaterally declare one side as fact. You have to acknowledge that maybe it wasn't a good side vs a bad side. Maybe it was two bad sides vs each other. Maybe both were willing to lie. This is very important.

I don't understand what this is in response to, it doesn't seem related to the question at hand.

We admit we lie sometimes. This is why we doubt everything and try to seek consensus in our academic environments.

I'll eat my literal hat if you can find an academic field that explicitly looks for consensus over facts or truth.

You still haven't answered the question.

Rather than link, I'll just repeat myself. It is physically fucking impossible to be unable to resign. You can be talked out of resigning, but when a man genuinely wants to resign, he does so. Claims of being unable are claims.

You're picking at holes that don't exist, I didn't use the word "unable". This is a strangely desperate dive into semantics.

History only has facts when a lot of people agree on something. When one guy claims he was doing very good things, you must consider that he lie.

The history taught in the U$ does not agree with the history taught in China. You would have us believe that the history accepted by the majority is correct solely because it's accepted by the majority.

The brainwashed one is me, even though you're discussing a former world leader, all of which employ propaganda.

You started the conversation about Stalin. You were confident in your knowledge then, but you're scrambling to avoid addressing your cognitive dissonance at this point.

And you still haven't answered the question.

If Stalin was so intent on seizing power, why’d he try to resign so much?

Uh huh. If you think this charade of yours is fooling me, you're mistaken.

Is it a charade to stick to my original point?

This does not mean my answer is not an answer, though. An answer ... is an answer. You just don't like it I guess.

Can you please link me to what you consider to be an answer? I do not see it in this thread.

Of course I do not know why with any certainty, nobody but those that were there can really know. This is fundamental to history, where records were written by people, who have biases and ulterior motives. We can only suspect when it comes to people's reasons for doing things.

The only reason I'm in this thread is to get you to admit that you, specifically, do not know what you think you know. That you've been brought up on propaganda by osmosis, and that what you think are foundational facts are not.

If Stalin was so intent on seizing power, why’d he try to resign so much?

You specifically did not answer me, and did not answer the question.

If Stalin was so intent on seizing power, why’d he try to resign so much?

It's ok to say you do not know (because you do not), but you will need to admit that you do not know what you are talking about.

Do you mean a source for Stalin having a quiet, academic, writing voice?

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/introduction.htm

Regardless I have answered your question, even if you dislike my answer.

I just said that I don't agree that you have.

I don't agree that you have.

I've seen you make unsupported speculations as to what caused him to resign, and why those resignations were refused.

It's ok to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

You quoted part of a sentence. That was part of a question. Questions and claims are not the same things.

It was not a question. This is the full quote of your original claim:

Figure out a way to implement communism without creating a Stalin that takes advantage of the situation to seize power, and we can talk.

Your implications are:

• that Stalin was bad.
• that Stalin wrongly "seized power".
• that Stalin wrongly held onto power.

I asked: "If Stalin was so intent on seizing power, why’d he try to resign so much?". I think that neutralizes all three of your implied claims.

You have not answered.

There are hundreds of cited sources in there, those will also need to be updated. Thanks!

Which primary sources support your claims?

What claim did I make that I now need to back?

a Stalin that takes advantage of the situation to seize power.

You don't get to duck my question by asking a question.

You made the claim, you should back it.

Or you should acknowledge that you don't know what you're talking about.

Either way works for me. ♥️

Fucking lol. He was up there till he died. He was a monster that killed millions of people.

Is this impression based on any primary sources, or just a general vibe?

Figure out a way to implement communism without creating a Stalin

According to the accounts you describe, did the people beg him to stay or something? What prevented his resignation?

Is there a reason that you're confident in your knowledge of Stalin, yet unaware of the facts? What is your confidence based on?

Also, you didn't answer the question. Is it because you don't actually know anything about Stalin?

If Stalin was so intent on seizing power, why'd he try to resign so much?

Actions speak louder than words. Words aren't just cheap, they're free.

🧐

It's hilarious hearing people like you talk up Stalin as a bloodthirsty monster, and finally reading what he wrote and seeing a quiet academic.

If Stalin was so intent on seizing power, why'd he try to resign so much?

I'll try to remember, thx

Please remember this in 10 months when everybody's beating the "get out and vote" drums.

And they forgot that we've already seen both sides go through a winter in this conflict