There’s no “Great Man Theory” here, Marxists reject Great Man Theory. Great Man Theory is the idea that “great men” or “heroes” are the driving force of history, but rejecting it doesn’t mean rejecting the role heads of state play in history alongside it. As General Secretary, Stalin did have influence over how the USSR was run, even if it was more spread out and democratic than simply everyone doing what Stalin decided. Since we are discussing Stalin and his role, why not look at what he said on the matter?
Ludwig: Marxism denies that the individual plays an outstanding role in history. Do you not see a contradiction between the materialist conception of history and the fact that, after all, you admit the outstanding role played by historical personages?
Stalin: No, there is no contradiction here. Marxism does not at all deny the role played by outstanding individuals, nor the fact that history is made by people. In Marx’s The Poverty of Philosophy and in other works of his you will find it stated that it is people who make history. But of course, people do not make history according to their own fancy or the promptings of their imagination. Every new generation encounters definite conditions already existing, ready-made, when that generation was born. And great people are worth anything at all only to the extent that they are able correctly to understand these conditions, to understand how to change them. If they fail to understand these conditions and try to alter them according to the promptings of their imagination, they will land themselves in the situation of Don Quixote. Thus it is precisely Marx’s view that people must not be counterposed to conditions. It is people who make history, but they do so only to the extent that they correctly understand the conditions that they have found ready-made, and only to the extent that they understand how to change those conditions. That, at least, is how we Russian Bolsheviks understand Marx. And we have been studying Marx for a good many years.
Defeating the Nazis was a pretty big deal, especially considering the Red Army was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths.
Quoting and re-emphasizing myself, here. Stalin absolutely played a major role in how the Red Army was organized and how millitary strategy unfolded. It was of course the Red Army that did the fighting, but they could not have defeated the Nazis without officers, generals, and of course the politburo (Stalin included) all playing their parts at different levels.
Just as a footsoldier has a great grasp of their immediate surroundings but a poor understanding of the battlefield, and the battlefield commander a great underatanding of the battlefield but a poor understanding of the immediate surroundings of the footsoldiers as well as the entire front, the general also plays their role at a further level of abstraction, as did the politburo. Stalin absolutely played a part in the defeat of the Nazis, moreso than Churchill or FDR, as an example, as the Red Army was far more directly responsible (and the US in particular cloaked how much trade they were doing with the Nazis even during WWII for private profits).
It just seems that you’re being permanently bad-faith and are affixed to taking a person’s words at the worst-possible interpretation. I can’t imagine that’s very productive for anyone unless you’re into online debate as bloodsport, in which case you do you but that’s not for me.
I addressed every one of your points, you responded by sharing
A reaction image accusing me of “Great Man Theory”
A retort misrepresenting my point, doubling down on your confusion of “Great Man Theory”
A snide retort, killing discussion
and now 4. Accusing me of “infodumping” for taking you seriously.
If you weren’t so immediately hostile, it would be a lot easier to have a conversation. I’ve been trying to clearly and politely address your rude quips and retorts, and you respond by doubling down. It’s rude.
You’re on lemmy dude, take as much time as you want to respond there isn’t a timer. You can engage with the information provided at your own pace, or not at all, up to you.
There’s no “Great Man Theory” here, Marxists reject Great Man Theory. Great Man Theory is the idea that “great men” or “heroes” are the driving force of history, but rejecting it doesn’t mean rejecting the role heads of state play in history alongside it. As General Secretary, Stalin did have influence over how the USSR was run, even if it was more spread out and democratic than simply everyone doing what Stalin decided. Since we are discussing Stalin and his role, why not look at what he said on the matter?
Removed by mod
Quoting and re-emphasizing myself, here. Stalin absolutely played a major role in how the Red Army was organized and how millitary strategy unfolded. It was of course the Red Army that did the fighting, but they could not have defeated the Nazis without officers, generals, and of course the politburo (Stalin included) all playing their parts at different levels.
Just as a footsoldier has a great grasp of their immediate surroundings but a poor understanding of the battlefield, and the battlefield commander a great underatanding of the battlefield but a poor understanding of the immediate surroundings of the footsoldiers as well as the entire front, the general also plays their role at a further level of abstraction, as did the politburo. Stalin absolutely played a part in the defeat of the Nazis, moreso than Churchill or FDR, as an example, as the Red Army was far more directly responsible (and the US in particular cloaked how much trade they were doing with the Nazis even during WWII for private profits).
So you disagree with the meme too. Cool.
It just seems that you’re being permanently bad-faith and are affixed to taking a person’s words at the worst-possible interpretation. I can’t imagine that’s very productive for anyone unless you’re into online debate as bloodsport, in which case you do you but that’s not for me.
Removed by mod
I addressed every one of your points, you responded by sharing
A reaction image accusing me of “Great Man Theory”
A retort misrepresenting my point, doubling down on your confusion of “Great Man Theory”
A snide retort, killing discussion
and now 4. Accusing me of “infodumping” for taking you seriously.
If you weren’t so immediately hostile, it would be a lot easier to have a conversation. I’ve been trying to clearly and politely address your rude quips and retorts, and you respond by doubling down. It’s rude.
I call your infodumps without actually engaging in what I write rude. That’s why I’m so sassy, comrade.
How did I not engage? Does disagreeing with you mean I’m not engaging?
You’re on lemmy dude, take as much time as you want to respond there isn’t a timer. You can engage with the information provided at your own pace, or not at all, up to you.
You’re bad at this