W.E.B. Du Bois was a Stalin stan

southpawstyle

Superstar
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
3,867
Reputation
1,230
Daps
14,152
Reppin
California
On Stalin

Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature. He was simple, calm and courageous. He seldom lost his poise; pondered his problems slowly, made his decisions clearly and firmly; never yielded to ostentation nor coyly refrained from holding his rightful place with dignity. He was the son of a serf but stood calmly before the great without hesitation or nerves. But also—and this was the highest proof of his greatness—he knew the common man, felt his problems, followed his fate.

Stalin was not a man of conventional learning; he was much more than that: he was a man who thought deeply, read understandingly and listened to wisdom, no matter whence it came. He was attacked and slandered as few men of power have been; yet he seldom lost his courtesy and balance; nor did he let attack drive him from his convictions nor induce him to surrender positions which he knew were correct. As one of the despised minorities of man, he first set Russia on the road to conquer race prejudice and make one nation out of its 140 groups without destroying their individuality.

His judgment of men was profound. He early saw through the flamboyance and exhibitionism of Trotsky, who fooled the world, and especially America. The whole ill-bred and insulting attitude of Liberals in the U.S. today began with our naive acceptance of Trotsky’s magnificent lying propaganda, which he carried around the world. (:whoo:) Against it, Stalin stood like a rock and moved neither right nor left, as he continued to advance toward a real socialism instead of the sham Trotsky offered.

Three great decisions faced Stalin in power and he met them magnificently: first, the problem of the peasants, then the West European attack, and last the Second World War. The poor Russian peasant was the lowest victim of tsarism, capitalism and the Orthodox Church. He surrendered the Little White Father easily; he turned less readily but perceptibly from his ikons; but his kulaks clung tenaciously to capitalism and were near wrecking the revolution when Stalin risked a second revolution and drove out the rural bloodsuckers.

Then came intervention, the continuing threat of attack by all nations, halted by the Depression, only to be re-opened by Hitlerism. It was Stalin who steered the Soviet Union between Scylla and Charybdis: Western Europe and the U.S. were willing to betray her to fascism, and then had to beg her aid in the Second World War. A lesser man than Stalin would have demanded vengeance for Munich, but he had the wisdom to ask only justice for his fatherland. This Roosevelt granted but Churchill held back. The British Empire proposed first to save itself in Africa and southern Europe, while Hitler smashed the Soviets.

The Second Front dawdled, but Stalin pressed unfalteringly ahead. He risked the utter ruin of socialism in order to smash the dictatorship of Hitler and Mussolini. After Stalingrad the Western World did not know whether to weep or applaud. The cost of victory to the Soviet Union was frightful. To this day the outside world has no dream of the hurt, the loss and the sacrifices. For his calm, stern leadership here, if nowhere else, arises the deep worship of Stalin by the people of all the Russias.

Then came the problem of Peace. Hard as this was to Europe and America, it was far harder to Stalin and the Soviets. The conventional rulers of the world hated and feared them and would have been only too willing to see the utter failure of this attempt at socialism. At the same time the fear of Japan and Asia was also real. Diplomacy therefore took hold and Stalin was picked as the victim. He was called in conference with British imperialism represented by its trained and well-fed aristocracy; and with the vast wealth and potential power of America represented by its most liberal leader in half a century.

Here Stalin showed his real greatness. He neither cringed nor strutted. He never presumed, he never surrendered. He gained the friendship of Roosevelt and the respect of Churchill. He asked neither adulation nor vengeance. He was reasonable and conciliatory. But on what he deemed essential, he was inflexible. He was willing to resurrect the League of Nations, which had insulted the Soviets. He was willing to fight Japan, even though Japan was then no menace to the Soviet Union, and might be death to the British Empire and to American trade. But on two points Stalin was adamant: Clemenceau’s “Cordon Sanitaire” must be returned to the Soviets, whence it had been stolen as a threat. The Balkans were not to be left helpless before Western exploitation for the benefit of land monopoly. The workers and peasants there must have their say.

Such was the man who lies dead, still the butt of noisy jackals and of the ill-bred men of some parts of the distempered West. In life he suffered under continuous and studied insult; he was forced to make bitter decisions on his own lone responsibility. His reward comes as the common man stands in solemn acclaim.



Originally Published: National Guardian, March 16, 1953
 

southpawstyle

Superstar
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
3,867
Reputation
1,230
Daps
14,152
Reppin
California
I've been thinking a lot about the Du Bois and Booker T. Washington differences lately and think that right now Du Bois would be disgusted by modern schooling, and might actually agree with Washington, Garvey and them who believed economic independence was more important than (white) academic advancement. I'm also high as hell and don't know if that makes any sense.
 

Self_Born7

SUN OF MAN
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
7,959
Reputation
877
Daps
18,227
Reppin
all 23 million miles of useful land
I've been thinking a lot about the Du Bois and Booker T. Washington differences lately and think that right now Du Bois would be disgusted by modern schooling, and might actually agree with Washington, Garvey and them who believed economic independence was more important than (white) academic advancement. I'm also high as hell and don't know if that makes any sense.

yeah he was the one of the few main blacks, .labeling our righteous brother Marcus Mosiah Garvey as crazy, and shytted on his Pan Africanism..... and Du Bois Talented Tenth was the frame work for the Boule today...
 

Red Shield

Global Domination
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
21,192
Reputation
2,427
Daps
47,140
Reppin
.0001%
I've been thinking a lot about the Du Bois and Booker T. Washington differences lately and think that right now Du Bois would be disgusted by modern schooling, and might actually agree with Washington, Garvey and them who believed economic independence was more important than (white) academic advancement. I'm also high as hell and don't know if that makes any sense.

Dude changed as he got older. So yeah he probably would agree with Booker and Garvey's view
 

KingSlime

All Star
Joined
May 14, 2015
Messages
601
Reputation
240
Daps
3,009
There's actually a very interesting book I read a while back that detailed the black community's from intelligentsia to the common mans collective fascination with powerful authoritarian leaders from the 1920's-1940s. Fascist ideology was really widespread in black communities back then, and a lot of prominent black leaders became successful by tapping into that frustration like Marcus Garvey
Black Fascisms: African-American Literature and Culture between the Wars | English | Johns Hopkins University
Thompson-Black-Fascisms-200x300.jpg
 

Starman

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
15,083
Reputation
-3,010
Daps
32,194
DuBois went out of his way to attack Booker T Washington and Garvey, how he is revered and praised I do not understand.

I think DuBois is revered because his side "won" which means he has more intellectual descendants. The the Washington/bootstraps or Garvey/back to Africa factions lost so their intellectual descendants exist only on the fringes.
 

Booker T Garvey

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
29,736
Reputation
3,970
Daps
124,104
Reppin
TN
I think DuBois is revered because his side "won" which means he has more intellectual descendants. The the Washington/bootstraps or Garvey/back to Africa factions lost so their intellectual descendants exist only on the fringes.

the only school of black intellectual thought that was openly calling for allegiance with the "good" whites won out.

how shocking. :coffee:
 

Starman

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
15,083
Reputation
-3,010
Daps
32,194
the only school of black intellectual thought that was openly calling for allegiance with the "good" whites won out.

how shocking. :coffee:

I wouldn't describe DuBois that way. He was down with agitating Whites for equality.
 

Booker T Garvey

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
29,736
Reputation
3,970
Daps
124,104
Reppin
TN
I wouldn't describe DuBois that way. He was down with agitating Whites for equality.

dubois is the architect for the modern black liberal thought. he advocated that white society pay it's debt for slavery and jim crowe with reparations - things most black leftists advocate for now

:whoa: not saying i disagree with that

but clearly his counterparts Washington and Garvey were arguing we be more self sufficient and not rely on white people for anything. period.

there's solid arguments and truth in all schools of thought (liberal, conservative, nationalist), but there should be a balance...that balance is gone but that's for another discussion/thread.
 
Top