Stalin More Popular Than Putin in Russia These Days

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-cou...a-survey-shows

They emphasize the victory in WWII and downplay the terrors where over 700,000 Russians lost their lives under his rule.

Russia's observance of Victory Day on Thursday comes amid the rehabilitation of an unlikely figure: Joseph Stalin.

A record 70% of Russian respondents say the late dictator of the former Soviet Union played a positive role for Russia, according to a recent poll by the independent Moscow-based Levada Center. Stalin's previous high mark for approval was 54% in 2016, The Moscow Times reported.

A further 51% of respondents said they viewed Stalin as a person in a favorable light, the highest percentage since 2001, Levada said on its website. Stalin's approval ratings were consistent across all age groups except among the 18-24 group, who were indifferent about the former Soviet leader.

The survey of 1,600 people who were at least 18 years of age was conducted across the country March 21-27 and released in mid-April. It had a margin of error of no greater than 3.4%.

Stalin led the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953, a period that witnessed wide-scale trauma inflicted on the country's citizens. The nation experienced rapid industrialization and collectivization of its agriculture sector, which in turn led to food shortages and the 1932-33 famine that claimed millions of lives. The famine, seen as being instigated by Stalin and which hit Ukraine especially hard to quash independence movements, is seen by many today as an act of genocide.

Stalin also implemented "The Great Purge" in the mid-1930s to eliminate dissenting members of the Soviet Communist Party. An estimated 750,000 people died and at least 1 million others were sent to forced labor camps.

Today's views of Stalin are largely tied to him leading the country through World War II, when an estimated 22 million to 28 million Russians died. Victory Day is Russia's annual observance marking the former Soviet Union's defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II.

The day has grown into a major celebration of patriotism under the presidency of Vladimir Putin, who has seen his own popularity reportedly dip as Russians face increasing economic hardship. Every year parades are held across the country, highlighted by the massive procession held in the capital of Moscow, complete with tanks, military planes and thousands of soldiers.

The rosier views of Stalin in today's Russia come amid dropping popularity ratings for Putin. The president's approval ratings are high compared to Western nations' leaders, at 66%, but down significantly from 90% in 2014. Russians have had five consecutive years of declining incomes, and the government's move last year to increase the retirement age for pensions has been unpopular.

[donnay]

I bet you are a big Stalin fan Zip.

[Danke]

I bet you are a big Stalin fan Zip.

duuuuh....

[ATruepatriot]

Coming to your local theater soon.

[Zippyjuan]

I bet you are a big Stalin fan Zip.

Because of my Gulag camps? When are you coming for a visit? We will be, um, "evicting" some more people very soon.

[Brian4Liberty]

Gotta know your communists people. Trotskyites hate Stalin. Russia evil! Stalin wasn’t globalist enough for them.

Must be a talking point this week at Marxist central command. Trots on TV were attacking Stalin yesterday.

[oyarde]

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-cou...a-survey-shows

They emphasize the victory in WWII and downplay the terrors where over 700,000 Russians lost their lives under his rule.

Mao is pretty popular in china too , probably both of them here as well .

[r3volution 3.0]

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-cou...a-survey-shows

They emphasize the victory in WWII

Yea, from what I've seen, Stalin in modern Russia is more a symbol of nationalism than communism.

Stalin himself very self-consciously promoted Russian nationalism, since enthusiasm for the workers' paradise was flagging.

...what with all the mass-murder and cannibalism.

and downplay the terrors where over 700,000 Russians lost their lives under his rule.

Speaking of downplaying, that is a preposterous underestimation of the number of Stalin's victims.

[dannno]

Speaking of downplaying, that is a preposterous underestimation of the number of Stalin's victims.

LOL, what did you expect??

Honk honk!!

[r3volution 3.0]

LOL, what did you expect??

Honk honk!!

Yes, everyone knows that Zippy is a leftist.

There's no need for you Trump people to constantly "out" him; it doesn't help distract from the fact that you too are leftists.

Honk Honk!

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, everyone knows that Zippy is a leftist.

There's no need for you Trump people to constantly "out" him; it doesn't help distract from the fact that you too are leftists.

Honk Honk!

You are the leftist.

Honk Honk!

[Brian4Liberty]

Speaking of downplaying, that is a preposterous underestimation of the number of Stalin's victims.

LOL, what did you expect??

In order to count properly, you have to know your purge. You see, the purges are all fun and games until they turn on you. Thus, the millions who died prior to the 700,000 was the “good” purge. The ones who died after Stalin and Trotsky has their falling out was the “terror” purge. That was what made Stalin and Russia so evil to the Trotskyites.

[r3volution 3.0]

You are the leftist.

Honk Honk!

Ah, yes, opposing larger government now makes one a leftist...

What are words, like, anyway...

[Swordsmyth]

Ah, yes, opposing larger government now makes one a leftist...

What are words, like, anyway...

Promoting global government is promoting larger government.

[r3volution 3.0]

Promoting global government is promoting larger government.

I didn't mean "larger government" in the geographical sense...

The US government isn't larger (i.e. more oppressive) than the North Korean because the US occupies more square miles.

[timosman]

[Swordsmyth]

I didn't mean "larger government" in the geographical sense...

The US government isn't larger (i.e. more oppressive) than the North Korean because the US occupies more square miles.

Global government would be much more oppressive.

[r3volution 3.0]

Global government would be much more oppressive.

War, and even the existence of the military in peacetime (given the associated tax burden), is oppressive.

The basic idea behind world government is, of course, to abolish war.

Surely you agree that, all else being equal, that would be preferable.

[Swordsmyth]

War, and even the existence of the military in peacetime (given the associated tax burden), is oppressive.

The basic idea behind world government is, of course, to abolish war.

Surely you agree that, all else being equal, that would be preferable.

That can't be accomplished and even if it could global government would be much more oppressive.

[timosman]

That can't be accomplished and even if it could global government would be much more oppressive.

[r3volution 3.0]

That can't be accomplished and even if it could global government would be much more oppressive.

The modern states themselves emerged from a gaggle of smaller states, and those from a gaggle of yet smaller states, and so on.

There's no reason to suppose that this process can't or won't continue.

[Swordsmyth]

LOL

That's R3v alright.

[Swordsmyth]

The modern states themselves emerged from a gaggle of smaller states, and those from a gaggle of yet smaller states, and so on.

There's no reason to suppose that this process can't or won't continue.

Yes there is, there is such a thing as equilibrium, states break down into smaller states for many different reasons.

And even if you created your global state it would have to have a standing army and fight many insurgency wars to keep its grip on the world.

[timosman]

The modern states themselves emerged from a gaggle of smaller states, and those from a gaggle of yet smaller states, and so on.

There's no reason to suppose that this process can't or won't continue.

How about the fact the surface area of planet Earth, unlike your intelligence, is limited?

[r3volution 3.0]

And even if you created your global state it would have to have a standing army and fight many insurgency wars to keep its grip on the world.

Modern states don't generally have this problem, despite having emerged from the union (usually involuntary) of many antagonistic smaller states.

Time solves the problem; people stop caring about old, more local loyalties.

...are you expecting the South to rise again?

I'm not.

[Swordsmyth]

Modern states don't generally have this problem, despite having emerged from the union (usually involuntary) of many antagonistic smaller states.

Time solves the problem; people stop caring about old, more local loyalties.

Tell that to the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia.
In historical terms it takes place rather frequently and the bigger and more centralized the realm the more likely it is to succumb to the forces that cause it.

...are you expecting the South to rise again?

I'm not.

It will unless the political/cultural differences in the US are settled by a civil war so bloody that one side or the other is nearly wiped out.
The US can't go on much longer (in historical terms) as one nation.

[r3volution 3.0]

Tell that to the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia.
In historical terms it takes place rather frequently and the bigger and more centralized the realm the more likely it is to succumb to the forces that cause it.

The newer the union, the more fragile; the older, the more durable. Yugoslavia, for example, only existed for a couple decades before it dissolved. The USSR (most of which was previously the Russian Empire), only existed for a a short time (decades to a few centuries, depending on area) before dissolving. Contrast this with any of the constituent parts of those collapsed states. E.G. Russia proper is quite stable; it's not going to be dissolving into Muscovy, Novgorod, etc.

The centralizing process in geopolitics isn't linear (more like two steps forward, one step back), but it's clearly present. A look through an historical atlas makes this plain. What does this mean? It means both that world government is likely and, eventually, would be stable (i.e. not break up in civil war, etc), and that final, stable state would then be advantageous (no inter-state war, and no civil war).

Despite you looking at me like I'm a talking dog for saying I favor world government, it's perfectly natural for people who (a) hate war, and (b) have no time for nationalism, to look forward to such a development. Mises was of the same view, as have been many other liberals over the last several centuries. This is a part of the liberal tradition which has been forgotten (or intentionally buried by persons who benefit from war and nationalism), not a new one.

[Swordsmyth]

The newer the union, the more fragile; the older, the more durable. Yugoslavia, for example, only existed for a couple decades before it dissolved. The USSR (most of which was previously the Russian Empire), only existed for a a short time (decades to a few centuries, depending on area) before dissolving. Contrast this with any of the constituent parts of those collapsed states. E.G. Russia proper is quite stable; it's not going to be dissolving into Muscovy, Novgorod, etc.

The centralizing process in geopolitics isn't linear (more like two steps forward, one step back), but it's clearly present. A look through an historical atlas makes this plain. What does this mean? It means both that world government is likely and, eventually, would be stable (i.e. not break up in civil war, etc), and that final, stable state would then be advantageous (no inter-state war, and no civil war).

Despite you looking at me like I'm a talking dog for saying I favor world government, it's perfectly natural for people who (a) hate war, and (b) have no time for nationalism, to look forward to such a development. Mises was of the same view, as have been many other liberals over the last several centuries. This is a part of the liberal tradition which has been forgotten (or intentionally buried by persons who benefit from war and nationalism), not a new one.

The world is seeking the equilibrium point and so far that has tended to result in larger states but it will not do so forever.

And if a global government ever was achieved it would become tyrannical beyond belief because it would have no competition.
It would also eventually divide because factions within it would attempt to seize control of it and would be able to break off pieces easier than take the whole thing at once.

The Roman empire is a good example of how things would go.

[Brian4Liberty]

And if a global government ever was achieved it would become tyrannical beyond belief because it would have no competition.

Competition is bad comrade. Choice is bad. Thus all dissent must be silenced. Stalin knew this, but he thought too small. Trotsky knew you had to eliminate competition globally.

[dannno]

LOL