That is true, but I still like it as a retort to lib criticism of Stalin that almost always involves something that didn’t really happen anyway. As far as Stalin being homophobic, I don’t know anything about it, but I do know that he knew that the false scarcity and false precariousness created by his capitalist and feudal enemies is what causes reactionary thought to flourish.
I still like it as a retort to lib criticism of Stalin that almost always involves something that didn’t really happen anyway
I don’t know anything about it,
do you reckon that waving criticisms off as ‘almost always involving something that didn’t really happen anyway’ while not knowing anything about whats being criticised is a winning strategy, or that exclusively learning about the wholesome, sanitary parts of a persons actions, statements, ideals and beliefs is a healthy way to approach historical figures
That is true, but I still like it as a retort to lib criticism of Stalin that almost always involves something that didn’t really happen anyway. As far as Stalin being homophobic, I don’t know anything about it, but I do know that he knew that the false scarcity and false precariousness created by his capitalist and feudal enemies is what causes reactionary thought to flourish.
do you reckon that waving criticisms off as ‘almost always involving something that didn’t really happen anyway’ while not knowing anything about whats being criticised is a winning strategy, or that exclusively learning about the wholesome, sanitary parts of a persons actions, statements, ideals and beliefs is a healthy way to approach historical figures
heres some reading if youre interested, from a source youll probably actually appreciate