Small question on Historical materialism

[Coggeh]

Following reading the "Stalin:Hero or villain" thread

That fact that someone made a comment that said Stalin lead the charge to defeat the 3 reich what ever and another user said that goes against historical materialism .

I don't have a problem with that point as i agree it does go against it .
But i find it confusing when i think of the bad things stalin done and does my opinion that "stalin was a pr*ck and it was his fault(blah blah Trotskyite jargon)" go against it . Im confused :confused:

Don't just use the example of stalin because i don't want to get into that debate but focus on the topic of Historical materialism please .:)

Thoughts ?

[Q]

Could you rephrase the question? I don't get it :confused:

[Oneironaut]

Following reading the "Stalin:Hero or villain" thread

That fact that someone made a comment that said Stalin lead the charge to defeat the 3 reich what ever and another user said that goes against historical materialism .

I don't have a problem with that point as i agree it does go against it .
But i find it confusing when i think of the bad things stalin done and does my opinion that "stalin was a pr*ck and it was his fault(blah blah Trotskyite jargon)" go against it . Im confused :confused:

Don't just use the example of stalin because i don't want to get into that debate but focus on the topic of Historical materialism please .:)

Thoughts ?

Are you asking if your opinion of Stalin goes against a historical materialist's perspective? If that is the case, Stalin is going to be the primary example used in your HM analysis. Ultimately, you'll have to answer some big questions for yourself; the primary question will probably be if you feel like the material conditions in the USSR while Stalin was in power justify Stalin's continuation of socialism.

[BobKKKindle$]

Identifying Stalin as solely responsible for all the problems and disasters which occurred in the Soviet Union when he was in power is not consistent with historical materialism, which locates the driving force of history not in the actions of individuals but in struggle between classes and the development of the productive forces. Stalin was merely a symbolic leader of a bureaucratic stratum which was able to gain power due to a set of material conditions, and occupied the position of the former ruling class. This is also true of the successes which occurred during Stalin's period of leadership - these successes cannot be attributed solely to Stalin as an individual because historical achievements, especially in the sphere of productive development, only occur through the efforts and struggle of ordinary people, not the bureaucratic orders of individuals. The same can be said of Mao and any other socialist leader.

[Coggeh]

Identifying Stalin as solely responsible for all the problems and disasters which occurred in the Soviet Union when he was in power is not consistent with historical materialism, which locates the driving force of history not in the actions of individuals but in struggle between classes and the development of the productive forces. Stalin was merely a symbolic leader of a bureaucratic stratum which was able to gain power due to a set of material conditions, and occupied the position of the former ruling class. This is also true of the successes which occurred during Stalin's period of leadership - these successes cannot be attributed solely to Stalin as an individual because historical achievements, especially in the sphere of productive development, only occur through the efforts and struggle of ordinary people, not the bureaucratic orders of individuals. The same can be said of Mao and any other socialist leader.
Exact answer I was looking for .Cheers:)

Sorry for confusing ya Q :(