You must log in or register to comment.
Because he was unshakeably principled as a communist and anti-imperialist, and during his leadership the USSR posed the biggest threat to the global system of capitalism that the world has ever seen. He could not be reclaimed for the purposes of anti-communist propaganda like Trotsky nor relegated to the status of a mere theorist like Marx or an idealist revolutionary like Lenin is sometimes (erroneously) portrayed. Stalin achieved too much in practice for the building of socialism, while the victory of the USSR in WW2 under his leadership gave socialism an immense prestige boost around the world.
In short, he scared the bejeezus out of the bourgeoisie for what he represented and what he could have inspired in people across the world had he not been smeared with the lies of Khrushchev and the anti-communist propaganda of the West (frequently borrowed directly from Nazi anti-Soviet propaganda), so they vowed to forever destroy his image and make sure no one like him would ever arise again.
Sadly, this ploy worked. Thanks to Khrushchev’s speech of lies you even had other principled communists (at one point even Che Guevara believed some of the accusations leveled at Stalin) around the world start to doubt what they thought they knew about Stalin and the USSR which caused a worldwide crisis of confidence among communists and a massive split between those parties who accepted the Khrushchevite lies and those who didn’t.
Meanwhile in capitalist societies anti-communist indoctrination raised entire generations to internalize the belief that Stalin was equivalent to Hitler and the USSR another Nazi Germany, which destroyed their communist parties as effective political forces and made sure that most remaining communists and socialists would have an almost instinctual aversion to the Marxist-Leninist line and practical revolutionary politics.
This led to Western communists retreating into the realm of purely academic Marxism as an economic and not a revolutionary theory, or into all sorts of schools of pseudo-Marxist radical liberalism (like the “Frankfurt School”), anarchism, ultra-left deviations, or just straight up defect to social democracy.
But i will end this on an optimistic note and remind everyone of what Stalin himself said:
“I know that after my death a pile of rubbish will be heaped on my grave, but the wind of History will sooner or later sweep it away without mercy.”
Very well put. It’s almost as if he knew he was going to be a scapegoat.
Another point i would like to add on is that Stalin was used as a scapegoat for all the contradictions that were resolved, many times harshly, during the early development of the USSR, the transition from a semi-feudal society to socialist society was not without it’s contradictions.
In a similar fashion to how crimes done by imperialist interests are pinned on “corrupt individuals” and not the nature of the system.
unshakeably principled
He made it illegal to be gay.
It were fucking 30’s, in the west gays were still murdered for that in 70’s and US decriminalised homosexuality from 1961 (first state) to 2003 (!)
great article, comrade.
So the argument in that link is “everyone else was homophobic too so it’s okay”, and I need to stress that that is not unshakeably principled behaviour. That is an example of shaken principles. If your defence of Stalin is “he was only as bad as the capitalists”, he’s still shit.
“Unshakeably principled as a communist and anti-imperialist”, nowhere was it mentioned he was a perfect human, especially on social issues. What is your point exactly? No-one on this instance is saying that Stalin was jesus, and even Jesus was a homophobe
Considering it’s Easter, I’m just going to jump in and say Jesus didn’t say anything homophobic. You’re thinking of Paul in Letters to the Romans, and even then it’s disputed.
Fair enough. There’s no account of Jesus being homophobic in the Gospels, but the Church, excluding a minority of LGBTQ+ affirming denominations, is very much a homophobic institution. I’ve heard Christians justify or condemn practically every act known to man using Jesus’ words, so depending on who you listen to, he very well might have been a homophobe.
That’s fair and undeniably true!
You are missing the point. Also, bringing up gay rights in the USSR is a non-sequitur, it has nothing to do with what my original comment was about. I was doing you a favor providing you with a source that explains the historical context behind the unrelated topic that you brought up, it’s up to you if you prefer to ignore it.
You said he was unshakeably principled. If you don’t want people to challenge your claims, don’t make them. It’s not changing the subject to call you out on the bullshit you didn’t want people to call you out on, it’s just life. Get used to it.
It is changing the subject (and derailing the conversation) because it has nothing to do with my original comment. Where in the principles of communism (as they were understood in the 1930s and 40s) does it say which position one should take on homosexuality? As far as i am aware Marx for example never wrote a single word on the subject.
There are many good communists around the world even today who hold conservative views on sex. It’s regrettable but the majority of the world outside of the West is more conservative on these issues. Are you going to dismiss them all as well? They may be wrong to hold these views but this does not make them unprincipled as communists. Their principles, which are influenced by their own specific material and cultural conditions, are just slightly different than ours.
Marxism-Leninism is a science, not a dogma. Science can get things wrong but science also progresses. The Soviets acted according to the understanding of these issues that was available to them at the time. Communists are not omniscient, we are all a product of our cultures and societies. You are mistakenly extrapolating our contemporary western understanding now in the 21st century to the 1930s and 40s Soviet Union.
You said he was unshakeably principled.
Yes, he was a principled marxist. Marx didn’t really write about gay people. LGBT rights weren’t on the radar of the average marxist (or much of anybody really) in the early 20th century.
LGBT rights weren’t on the radar of the average marxist
Plenty of German leftists, Marxist or otherwise signed a petition, in the 1890s, opposing Paragraph 175 of the German Legal code that criminalized homosexuality, including Albert Einstein, August Bebel, and Karl Kautsky.
Queer activists, like Karl Heinrich Ulrichs and Magnus Hirschfeld, actively sought out far left politicians in their attempt to repeal the law.
Bebel, who was the one to sponsor the bill to repeal paragraph 175, continued to be an advocate of women’s and queer rights throughout his life and career.
Alexandra Kollontai was Bisexual and opposed the criminalization of homosexuality under Stalin’s administration.
Harry Hay, who would found The Mattachine Society, one of the first gay rights groups in the US, was organizing farm workers for the Communist Party as far back as the 1930s.
Queer issues were definitely on the radar of plenty of Socialists in the early 20th century.
This argument gives the same vibes as “but everyone was racist back then!” arguments that American liberals give to hand wave away past injustices.
If we’re to be thoughtful dialectical materialists about this: while queerness has always existed, and cultures throughout history have had queer subcultures, such as the Kathoey in Thailand or Molly Houses in England, the development of Capitalism brought with it a trend towards a more systematized, wider reaching regimentation of reproductive labor, then what had been seen under previous forms of class society.
On the one hand, this brought about the categorization and subsequent oppression of queer people. But on the other hand, industrialization brought people into urban areas, socialized labor, and allowed queer people to form larger communities, who could start organizing politically on a large scale.
Since the Soviet Union had not industrialized, that pressure on queer people in the Soviet Union, to organize at a large scale, didn’t exist. And the prevalence of queer organizing in the more industrialized west, brought Stalin’s administration to make the idealist error that queerness was an outgrowth of “bourgeois decadence”, rather than material conditions.
So the argument in that link is “everyone else was homophobic too so it’s okay”
No, the point is you’re not applying the same standard for him and for western politicians. Gay sex was illegal in the US until like the 70s, don’t see anybody mentioning that often.
You vegan?
going very boldly i see
Yep. While we can all agree that communism is stateless and that we all want communism to happen, there are some people who don’t have very much trust in an immediate transition to communism. Those people want to preserve the state, and transition it towards communism through a series of slow reforms. They don’t trust the idea of just doing communism outright, they don’t believe in communism’s ability to fend for itself at the beginning. These careful moderates are called Stalinists, though they also like to call themselves marxist-leninists. And those of us who actually believe in the power of communism and want to do a communist revolution right away are called anarchists.
I swear it’s like Terminally Online Anarchists are in a competition to see who could say the dumbest shit possible and get downvoted the fastest. You ever heard of a transitionary state? You ever heard of scientific Marxism? You ever heard of the process? You ever thought about the fact that the USSR may have skipped quite a few steps? Right? Because you’re supposed to go from capitalism to socialism to communism. Right? Right. This is like basic shit. This is very obvious shit. Well they went from peasant class, industrialized, into communism. Right? They weren’t even industrialized when communism took place. That’s on top of western sabatage, economic pressures and beat the fucking Nazis.
The irony is that you think that a real communist, right, who wants to go from a state to a stateless society all overnight, essentially, is what you’re saying. That’s a real communist. Maybe we call them anarchists. Well, you know, the irony here is that there are anarchist derivative movements that are happening right now. You have Rojova, you have the Zapatistas. Both of these ideologies acknowledge that a state system not only is compatible with them, although (democratic confederalism would prefer there not to be a state), they even go as far as to understand that the necessity of a state, or a state-like entity, within the framework of our current global material conditions, because everything else is defined by the nation-state system. Look, I’m drunk. But I had to get on ya ass.
I keep telling people the needle has already been threaded, that anarchism and communism should no longer be opposed, modern thinkers have threaded the needle, but then I see a dumbass motherfucker like you posting and I go, well, maybe not.
Good luck abolishing the state with the West breathing down your neck. I’m sure the people you deposed will also never try and regain that power. Think ffs
And those of us who actually believe in the power of communism and want to do a communist revolution right away are called anarchists.
You misspelled “liberal”
People who want to do communist revolutions are liberals and people who don’t are the real communists. You heard it here first, folks.
Dialectical materialism, things as a process, is the foundation of communist theory.
You can’t call yourself a communist while completely disregarding the foundation, youre obviously just an idealist. Your “immediate revolution” will only be succesful in fiction.
You’re a fucking idiot. Walking into a room filled with people who know the material you’re too lazy to look at once and explaining their own ideology to them.
I can’t begin to understand what delusions you tell about yourself that you can just intuit an entire ideology and the scientific attempts to understand history and political economy without suborning yourself to learn from the century and a half of people who came before you. Infantile.
Please, stop talking nonsense. You have no right to speak without having investigated for yourself the topic you want to speak on.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXUFLW8t2sntNn5jQO8vF7ai9x0fna3PV
If you can’t make yourself sit down and read, make yourself listen while driving or w/e. Just stop talking nonsense you radlib wrecker.
You’re right, but please be nice.
How do you define “state”?
that entire comment could’ve been fixed by reading like 5 pages of state and revolution.
They don’t trust the idea of just doing communism outright, they don’t believe in communism’s ability to fend for itself at the beginning. These careful moderates are called Stalinists
Genuine questions.
Do you think that if Soviet Union instead immediately dissolved the state apparatus and had smaller communes (for lack of a better word) that it would have been able to defend itself from its civil wars and the imperialist nations, and moreover Nazi Germany’s war machine?
Also, what do you believe ‘Communism’ is? Or, how do you get there? Do you really think a stateless, mostly agrarian and unindustrialized land the size of a continent could just do “communism outright”?
Still curious if you could please answer my questions now that things cooled down?
judging a character by today’s standards is not only bad faith but a terrible argument.
While I’m not entire sure whether such claim is true or not (or even if Stalin had any say in that), you have to understand that material conditions back then were much different from today’s.
Does this “redeem” the CPSU in this regard? Not really, no, they should be criticized, but to claim Stalin was a terrible man because of this one policy (that he either had no say in or had no real power to change if he wanted to) is just bad faith. Stalin was not the king or god emperor of the USSR.
He wasn’t perfect, sure. But he wasn’t anywhere near as bad as over half a century of imperialist propaganda would have you believe.
he was too based
Because he was the most successful politician of the era. The successors to Stalin in the USSR were not nearly as competent and needed to undermine the figure of Stalin to legitimatize their incompetence, instead of rising up to the challenge they chose to smear Stalin through the secret speech.
The west also needed to undermine Stalin because he was very popular worldwide because of his success during WW2 against Nazi Germany and the development of the USSR, so they did their part in the smearing by reducing Stalin to Hitler through encouraging scholars to write about it, the reducto ad hitlerum, a strategy that would be so effective that would be used on every single enemy of the west moving forward.
The book to read on this is Domenico Losurdo’s “Stalin, history and critique of a black legend”.
The book to read on this is Domenico Losurdo’s “Stalin, history and critique of a black legend”.
An excellent recommendation and essential reading imo. So much red scare propaganda is based on the Stalin bad narrative and this book dismantles that narrative with actual, material evidence. Something that Khrushchev and the anti-communist propagandists never offered.
It’s a very special book, it also only uses contradictions among anti-communist sources to debunk the narratives. Sources like Arendt, Conquest, even Hitler and Goebbels.
I’m almost halfway through that book and I can’t recommend it enough for anyone who wants to understand Stalin’s actions during his life as well as his image after his death.
I came here just to recommend it.
The economic growth and societal transformation under Stalin (in particular under his Five Year Plans from 1929-1955) registered the fastest growth in the history of humanity that has never been surpassed.
Not even China with all its achievements came close to what transformed the USSR from a poor feudal backwater of Europe into a space-faring nation within a single generation. And the USSR achieved all this while being isolated and without relying on cheap labor (workers rights were on par with Western European standards) and influx of foreign capital.
If you’re a Western capitalist, you’d be worried too. A country full of illiterate peasants and barely electrified, is now threatening to overtake us because of communism?
Khrushchev reversed much of Stalin’s policies that worked and marked the beginning of an end to the greatest socialist project of the 20th century.
https:// www. cia . gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf
Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by a lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist party structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.
Most Americans have no idea how the Soviet Union operated and if they knew it would seem like a much better system than US representative democracy. A generic feature of Orientalist racism is the idea that Asiatic cultures are inherently drones being controlled by despots, something we see with every other negatively-stereotyped Asian country and portrayed in every sphere of life from their workplace to their families and politics. Russia is regarded as more Asian than European by the white supremacists pushing that propaganda. The west reinforced it because it can’t forgive Stalin for ending the holocaust or building a rival superpower out of the country everyone else was trying to destroy, nor could they compete with a society that invests in its citizens and says the poor can become scientists. It purely exists to rob the basic idea of autonomy from anyone who isn’t white.
now, talking seriously, orientalism doesn’t apply only to asians, it is for everyone in the third world, because it works with only two categories, the west and “the rest”.
when the cuba revolution happened, fidel appeared on forbes as the most wealthy person in the world, following the orientalist script that leaders have a ridiculously ostentatious lifestyle they simply put cuba gdp as fidel’s net worth.
cia stands for communism in america, thus invalid tankie source. /s
WTF I love the CIA now
His writing is clearer than almost any other Marxist, which imo is another factor. Marx is a genius, but Stalin is such a genius he distilled these concepts in a way the masses can easily understand. That’s dangerous
E: why is it just one sad little liberal always downvoting? It’s never two, three downvotes, just one.
E2: just cus you got on your alts to further downvote me doesn’t not make you a sad little solitary lib
You can tell when they have alt accounts because there’ll be 2-4 downvotes in quick succession, within 5 minutes of each other.
I remember this phenomenon from when we had downvotes. I’m glad I haven’t had to worry about it in years.
His writing is clearer than almost any other Marxist, which imo is another factor
Hot take: I think Stalin is an incredibly mid writer, and Mao is far more clear and easy to understand.
Stalin’s Marxism and the National Question (~1913) was probably his best work.
Lenin loved it so much that he proclaimed it to be “the Bolshevik Party’s definitive declaration on the national question”.
Even Trotsky, his arch-nemesis, considered it a great work and had to throw in the jabs “hmm… why has Stalin never published another work of such quality before and after this? very suspicious… don’t you think… was it really written by Stalin himself??” lol.
Stalin’s Marxism and the National Question also became the theoretical foundation of the People’s Republic of China’s classification of its 56 ethnic nationalities, based on the criteria that Stalin had laid out.
Having said that, the Comintern did make a lot of mistakes when it comes to advising anti-colonial struggle in the third world. Mao’s theses were far more applicable to poorly developed colonies in this regard.
Marxism and the National Question is up there for one of my favorite pieces of Marxist literature. I’m also a big fan of Dialectical and Historical Materialism. Stalin was quite good at breaking down Marxist concepts into language that is more accessible and easier to understand. I had a hard grasping dialectical materialism until I read Stalin’s work on it.
completely agree, i even advocate for recommending Dialectical and Historical Materialism to beginners. It is an essential read for anyone serious about reading theory.
Mao is great too but Stalin writing style is literally “marxism for dummies”. His sequential and structured style of writing can’t be easier to read.
hence
Hence
thus
thus
hence
hence
As as result
Hithertoforth
I always thought Mao didn’t translate well tbh. He relies a lot on Chinese metaphors but sometimes they just don’t work and you’re left going “Jesse wtf is this.”
Stalin is a bit dry but he the information per page is probably the best of the Marxist writers.
Communism in China is such a failure they even need to hold up the sky from falling. Smh
how the hell do you get downvoted here, this isn’t reddit, I don’t even have a button for that
Our beloved authoritarian Communist dictators (Admins) at Hexbear wisely censored downvotes as bourgeois decadence.
That is a hexbear specific thing, lemmy has downvotes, so e.g. here on lemmygrad we can downvote.
I get that too, occasionally I’ll get random downvotes from nowhere only for them to disappear a few days later. Presumably some troll is going around downvoting random people until the admins catch them and remove their platform manipulation.
They don’t want another one to ever emerge.
touches comment scores, looks wistfully into the distance
“Trots passed through here…”
same reason as explained here with regards to Lenin https://archive.ph/z2Cyj
Happy Marie Antoinette day!
🥳
Warning, I went a bit off topic, also went over the character limit (TLDR at the bottom)
His time was one of changes who scared the bourgeoisie, that in turn smeared him to this day. He did positive and negative things (IMO more positive than negative). The first scare them, and they use the second to smear him.
Industrializing at a breakneck pace, in a country that lagged way behind western Europe and North America. Eventually creating a real alternative to the western pole.
Ending pseudo-feudalism in the countryside by establishing collective and state farms and expropriaring the landowners (oh no poor kulaks, they must actually work now!)
Developing a strong army worthy of the great powers of the time, one strong enough to be crucial in the defeat of fascism in WW2 and good enough to rival the world hegemon in the cold war, all without sacrificing the welfare of his people in the maintaining of that army, unlike the USA today. A strong and indipendent country with a mighty army who doesn’t follow orders from the US is bad enough for the unipolar alliance, if we add socialism to the mix… You get the idea.
Making the USSR an indipendent country, getting rid of foreign influence, a big one. If you read Lenin’s imperialism, he illustrates how Russia at that time was yes a huge empire, but also victim of financial imperialism by foreign superpowers, expecially France. the western capitalist league didn’t like that, they couldn’t make easy money from the Soviet people anymore.
Ending famines and misery once and for all. The 1933 famine (itself a hugely propagandized about fact) was (with the exception of WW2 and the shock therapy of the 90s) the last time Soviet people witnessed such misery, famines were a regular occurrence before Socialism. No more desperate workers who will accept any wage or peasants to toil all their life in the field.
When you have a leader who managed to get a country that was barely in the 20th century in the cities, and still pseudo-feudal in the countryside, and turn it into a modern, independent, strong and egalitarian nation in the span of ~30 years, people start having thoughts about emulating his actions and start believing in his ideals, and some of them succeeded too, thing that scares the burghers even more. And his ideology (and the practical applications of such ideology) are very cumbersome to the capitalist class, the class who, by means of their capital control: Newspapers, Radio stations, TV stations and more recently online publications, social medias, fake universities on YouTube and “independent thinkers” (the irony). And can influence the government by many means if they need.
When you analyze what capitalists do in order to keep their wealth and the derived power and privilege, I think it’s useful to imagine yourself as one of them. They’re just people who, by various, 99% of the times immoral, means acquired wealth, invested it into wealth-generating assets (our beloved means of production, or even more predatory investments like rent or interest, things rightfully criticized even by classical and modern economists), and aren’t really interested in giving them up along with all their newfound (99% of the times inherited) capital, who consents them to live a very comfortable life. It’s the most logical thing to do if you’re a rich asshole and I think it’s important to understand their thinking.
Imagine you own a newspaper in an imperialized country in the 40s-50s, you obviously don’t want to just give away your house, money, business etc. You live comfortably while others work on your assets and make you money, so what do you do to keep the toiling masses in line? We are still not in a full-blown ancap society so you can’t just hire a paramilitary squad and kill everybody who dissents (not on the open market. You can do it and it has been done tons of times, most notably in Indonesia, but it would be bad press if you’re caught!) so what do you do? Well you have your newspaper, you could look for somebody who’s an expert in influencing people, and who’s political views align with the ones more useful for you to keep your wealth at the time (in pre-1990s Europe was social-democratic corporatism, today it might be neoliberalism and tomorrow who knows) you might hire and pay them a fraction of your wealth, even not turning a profit on their work in order to spread their ideology to the masses through your media. And in due time convince people your way is just “the way it is” and that leftist alternatives are “too far”, “murderous”, “inefficient” or “barbaric” (in our example, the USSR hasn’t “failed” yet)
If people believe in something, then (for this example) Stalin wants to attack, abolish or kill that. Are you religious? Well, the USSR abolished religion and turned everybody into r/atheism redditors. Do you like to travel? Enjoy your state-sanctioned travel to bumfuck nowhere, 2000km from where you live, oh you wanted to go to another place? Too bad. Do you like literature and the arts? I hope you like censored and pre-approved “art” by state-sponosred propagandists. Do you own the small store down the street? Believe it or not, gulag for you! Oh you also recieved a grant from the CIA, as long as you talk bad about that Stalin guy (and other US adversaries) they’re going to give you millions, and you can keep the difference.
You still think Stalin is a good president? What are you, a commie? Don’t you know Stalin killed x million people? You are clearly an extremist who shouldn’t be taken into account, in fact, let’s just ban/censor in some way your party and maybe arrest your lead figures. If we think we could get away with it we’ll also beat you up, put you in jail or worse. Your movement will become irrelevant and soon enough nobody will be there to hear what you have to say. And of those few who would be ready to hear, many will just be scared, and join our controlled opposition instead.
Maybe it won’t work at first, but these guys are playing the long game. There were magnitudinally more people who viewed Stalin in a good light during his time than today (and he wasn’t portrayed as a saint in his times too, not even in WW2 when they had to not smear him in the same amount of shit as before, or after the war) over time people bought into the hegemonical proganada and now Stalin, who’s not seen as a recent figure, but as a distant, dark and “historical” figure, transcending time, is much easier to smear. And we are seeing it. The majority of people living in ex-Soviet countries who lived under him or knew people who did still appreciate his job, while the younger generations, grown up with hegemonical propaganda (expecially western, but also domestic) don’t see him as favorably.
After a while you don’t even need to blast anti-Stalin propaganda 24/7, after you have a majority of people believing you, they will just spread the rumors themselves, free of charge and with infinitely more manpower and reach than even the best of CIA propaganda operations could ever hope to achieve.
TLDR He was the leader of a country who witnessed the fastest economic, industrial, social, military and political development in history, along with Mao’s China (and we know Mao is loved in the west) When you have a country who manages to get it’s indipendence from imperialists, develop their democracy and their industry and to feed everybody, all of this while under embargo, western slander and two enormous wars, people (expecially in poor, imperialised countries, who can compare their conditions with the ones of Russia) start to get ideas. And people can get organized and lead revolutions to change the current ststr of things. Add to this that some of those movements succeeded and the bourgeoise is in a tough spot, they have 3 choices:
Making temporary concessions. Thing they do when they deem fit, like in the west during the cold War or to a milder extent in 2020.
Or they suppress the radical movement in cold blood, another thing they did and do. But they must be careful not to overdo it, else the damage to their reputation will be too great.
Or they smear their opposition to try to make the masses sleep, either by making the socialist alternative seem undesirable, by making the status quo (or a controlled opposition) seem palatable or both. They mainly use two tactics:
Exaggerating mistakes. Stalin had reactionary views on progressive policies such as Gay marriages, abortion and the like, and that sometimes reflected in Soviet policy. That’s a fair criticism. But it is foolish to think the USSR was sole in opposing those progressive policies. No country except Germany for a couple years had legalised same-sex marriage and abortion. His position was wrong, but at least understandable.
Straight up inventing things, or mixing things that happened with fiction. Think about the western version of the Holodomor: a genocide perpetrated by Stalin on the Ukrainian people by mean of starvation. Yes there was starvation and Ukrainians died, but no qualified person in good faith would claim Stalin had a specific quest to erase the Ukrainian people, these half-thruths are so insidious because pulling up actual academic sources gets you associated with holocaust deniers and the like. All while they sometimes literally cite nazis
They know if they don’t make every alternative look demonic, and the status quo comparably “tolerable” people will flock to socialism and they will lose their status. People aren’t stupid, just propagandized.
Sorry for the very long rambling rant, just felt like exorcising some brainworms.
stalin shouldn’t have stopped at berlin
To make a long story short: The USSR was a massive threat to Western hegemony so they had to go.
Well we are talking about a guy who called himself the Man of Steel.
He killed Hitler. Really, that’s it.
He was too good, and people can’t be allowed to see that socialism is good.
