Because libs, even though you could have all the evidence in hand, would just let their programming override if you tried to confront them on it. They have to have some sort of revolutionary ideals begin radicalizing them, or just find a time when they’ve broken the most through their programming, like finding out about specific events or realizing how shitty some things are, and try to inform them as much as you can during then. Stalin’s rehabilitation should not be a forefront or main agenda of any western ML movement, because it will naturally happen without provocation.
He is important, but more work could be done organizing and things like that. Relying on communism, fighting neoliberals when they are wrong about current events, or near current events would be enough for them to at least take a look backward and redefine such things. As awesome as it would be to just show them that stalin isn’t a tyrannical demon that is equal to hitler, show them that the west lies about such people and movements (never do it in a way that can hint to stalin, they must try to at least be warm to the idea before de-mythologizing stalin can happen).
Many other points could radicalizing people, stalin needs more of a higher tier of communist radicalization to accept.
The user you asked already replied with a good answer, essentially:
It’s not necessary or particularly useful to talk about specific leaders
It requires a lot of context to justify or refute the atrocities that most western people attribute to him. To many, it’s comparable to someone trying to justify Hitler to you. They’re both accused of being genocidal undemocratic repressive invasive dictators, compared to the (alleged) democratic free benevolent USA. Like AmericanCommunist22 said, it requires some priming for someone to be warm to the idea and not just shut you out entirely.
So really, for anyone casual, it’s unhelpful to bring up unless they have specific concerns about him.
Why not talk about Stalin? Because people would be demotivated from radicalization?
Because libs, even though you could have all the evidence in hand, would just let their programming override if you tried to confront them on it. They have to have some sort of revolutionary ideals begin radicalizing them, or just find a time when they’ve broken the most through their programming, like finding out about specific events or realizing how shitty some things are, and try to inform them as much as you can during then. Stalin’s rehabilitation should not be a forefront or main agenda of any western ML movement, because it will naturally happen without provocation.
He is important, but more work could be done organizing and things like that. Relying on communism, fighting neoliberals when they are wrong about current events, or near current events would be enough for them to at least take a look backward and redefine such things. As awesome as it would be to just show them that stalin isn’t a tyrannical demon that is equal to hitler, show them that the west lies about such people and movements (never do it in a way that can hint to stalin, they must try to at least be warm to the idea before de-mythologizing stalin can happen).
Many other points could radicalizing people, stalin needs more of a higher tier of communist radicalization to accept.
The user you asked already replied with a good answer, essentially:
It’s not necessary or particularly useful to talk about specific leaders
It requires a lot of context to justify or refute the atrocities that most western people attribute to him. To many, it’s comparable to someone trying to justify Hitler to you. They’re both accused of being genocidal undemocratic repressive invasive dictators, compared to the (alleged) democratic free benevolent USA. Like AmericanCommunist22 said, it requires some priming for someone to be warm to the idea and not just shut you out entirely.
So really, for anyone casual, it’s unhelpful to bring up unless they have specific concerns about him.