• PugJesus@piefed.socialOPMEnglish
    43·
    2 days ago

    Explanation: Karl Marx was a foundational writer in socialist theory, and effectively the father of modern sociology as well. His work is… not always riveting, as anyone who has attempted to tackle Das Kapital can tell you… but was extremely innovative and remains cutting and insightful (if imperfect) as to the nature of capitalism and its problems even today.

    Lenin was the leader of the Soviet Union, the first lasting success of revolutionary socialism - though how successful (or socialist) one really wishes to count it is up for debate. His interpretation of Marxism - even when it contradicted Marx - became dominant largely because he controlled the country-sized megaphone that was the USSR - a single-party state which largely followed Lenin’s dictates.

    Stalin was the effective autocrat of the Soviet Union after Lenin’s death. His interpretation of Marx and Lenin - even when it contradicted them - became the standard for the next ~70 years of capitalist-socialist conflict, largely because he fucking shot every socialist who disagreed with him in the Soviet Union, and attempted to sabotage every socialist who disagreed with him outside of the Soviet Union.

    • trolololol@lemmy.world
      18·
      2 days ago

      And also shot a bunch of people who were not socialists, and another bunch that agreed with him but had potential to replace him, or agreed with him but not strongly enough, or agreed with him but had the wrong ethnicity, or agreed with him but lived in an area where everybody agreed with him and there was a quota of being shot that wouldn’t fulfil itself.

      The quota thing was quite real. Central state dictated how many traitors should be shot in each area. Occasionally quotas would increase just because.

      • PugJesus@piefed.socialOPMEnglish
        2·
        20 hours ago

        Just ignoring that whole WW2 thing eh?

        You mean the conflict that was kicked off by the joint Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland?

        No, I don’t think I’m ignoring it.

      • Bazell@lemmy.zip
        1·
        1 day ago

        WW2 was basically a conflict between 2 dictators about occupying more lands. The only thing is that Hitler started invading first, thus receiving the backlash from everyone. If only Hitler waited a bit and let the USSR strike first, then the tables could be turned backwards.

          • Bazell@lemmy.zip
            2·
            23 hours ago

            Do not tell me that you didn’t know that Stalin planned to invade the Europe too. And that he and Hitler made a deal to split the territories of the continent.

      • rustyfish@piefed.worldEnglish
        11·
        19 hours ago

        You mean the war in which the West did the heavy lifting? Yeah, we remember Russia doing jack shit half the time.

    • chaogomu@lemmy.worldEnglish
      51·
      2 days ago

      Lenin had quite a few socialists shot as well.

      He’s the one who betrayed the revolution.

      If Lenin had lived long enough, he would have likely put Stalin’s death count to shame.

      • PugJesus@piefed.socialOPMEnglish
        5·
        2 days ago

        Yes to the first two, I think no to the last one.

        Stalin was… quite a character. I think Lenin’s brutality would be remembered clearer if it wasn’t for Stalin… but I also think Lenin wouldn’t have reached Stalin’s death toll.

        • chaogomu@lemmy.worldEnglish
          31·
          1 day ago

          Stalin was certainly two pints of crazy in a one pint glass. And he could drink his generals and high ranked ministers under the table. And did, every single night for decades, forcing them to attend, and get blackout drunk, or be suspected of plotting treason.

          But Lenin, he was just getting started when he started stroking out.

    • zikzak025@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 days ago

      The guy who told a joke to a dead body as though they could hear it.

      Alternatively, the guy who laughs at his own joke as he’s telling it.