It seems like basic logic would suggest the opposite, right?
Why shouldn't we dismiss your comment as some weak Wuddaboutism?
Because that implies they are equally bad when that's very unlikely. It is giving undue weight to the less bad which makes the more bad side look better than it is.
The article doesn’t advance substantive values to take fault with. It doesn’t levy much criticism against Stalin, allowing existing American culture to do the heavy lifting. The climax of the article is the man confiding to his son that he believes Stalin’s deeds are justified. Robeson is dead and not quite the “towering social figure” the author says he was; at least not anymore, and likely not to most people reading the article. The intended communication must be the paradox of a man committed to social justice who supported a mass-killing cult figure. This is a claim of hypocrisy very comparable to claims that people levy against the US daily. However, in attempting to critique Kissinger or Abrams, I hope to critique the imperialist nature of American culture and particularly our sense of nation that is blindingly obvious since the wall fell, my entire life.
Meanwhile the USSR is long gone; what is the end the authors hope for? If we applied the same standard to the kinds of people American politicians openly associate with at public social functions, half of congress would be “canceled” for idly chatting over champagne with war criminals, let alone confiding their support in private to a child. Hell, most Americans are complicit in American crimes by the logic illustrated in the article. I’m fine with a high standard, but that’s not what they were trying to imply.
This is an attempt to frame contemporary political movements on the left that are ostensibly domestic and material as national security concerns, even if only in the back of your head. I’m open to other interpretations.