When he starts his analysis it falls apart pretty bad. When you hear how he says "A STALINIST party" about the Spanish communist party, the bias is clear: Stalin is bad and anything he touches is bad because communism is slavery.

"To them, war was not the time for revolution." Oh really? When did the Russian revolution happen again? Wasn't the slogan then "Turn the imperialist war into a civil war"?

"The goal was to defeat Franco, not capitalism." If communists defeat fascism, they come to power and have therefore defeated capitalism. His line doesn't make any sense on its face.

"[complaints about Stalin not funding anarchist groups]" Anarchism is incompatible with Marxist-Leninism, so no wonder Stalin wouldn't pour money into Anarchist camps -- it would be throwing money away in his estimation because they reject the dictatorship of the proletariat, which according to Leninism is the only bulwark against the reemergence of bourgeois, capitalist, and counter-revolutionary interests. Since the USSR in its Leninist party form was able to survive their revolution and their brutal civil war, no wonder Stalin would think that the Leninist line is the correct line to confront fascism, capitalism and build a lasting workers' power.

He complains about "workers losing enthusiasm," maybe he should evaluate why that wasn't a problem during the Russian revolution and the civil war that followed. Maybe it was because of the mass support including from the peasants, good class analysis, iron discipline, democratic centralism, and strong leadership of the Leninist party form -- all of which he rejects out of hand as authoritarianism.