Stalin was such an utter retard and so incapable of convincingly arguing on behalf of his distortions that it makes the obsequious Soviet yesmen who surrounded him look a hundred times more pathetic.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1934/07/19.htm(Rule 14f - low-quality sectarian bait)>>2197850>le Stalin was a tsarFunny how westoid lefties parroting literal russian glowing shitlib, butthurt belt nazoids and populist nationalists talking points about Stalin one to one.
Can you point what exactly wrong with Stalins takes?
>>2197963The constitution itself was written democratically even tribes that had been hunter gatherers only a few decades before participated in its drafting.
Stalin himself didn't get much of a say in the contents. In fact according to
The Economic Problems of the USSR he directly states that this constitution granting the peasants title to land in perpetuity was a major issue as it meant commodity exchange between countryside and city.
Let us take a step back from this however, because the subtext in all this is of course the current political battle over the creation of a local lgbt board.
Two key points.
1. Historically the somewhat perverted asbiyah between working class days (called rough trade for a reason) and hauteur and aristocratic Queer people causes suspicion for people who have been around the block a few times making discussion of current events difficult.
2. In my humble opinion, this perverted solidarity is breaking down as the contradictions in class become more salient. (Concretely speaking this means that working class lgbt are going to be going their own way instead of echoing the hauteur lgbt in an attempt at respectability politics.)
Questions?
>>2197962>He had to follow the masseslol ok. and then leftoids whine when communists correctly point out democracy is at odds with the proletariat
>>2197974>The constitution itself was written democraticallythats not a good thing for communists. all stalin did was pander to the peasantry lol
>>2197950>1922— Lenin leaves out ban of homosexuality from constitutional rewrite, thus legalizing itHomosexual relationships were decriminalised during February Revolution of 1917, along with the cancellation of most of Russian Empire laws, Criminal code of 1903 in particular. Bolsheviks simply inhereted this position since it was a common ground - deconstruction of tsarist institutions. You can say they leaves out ban on rape and incest as well, because they just throw out the legal framework, which doesnt mean it was not prosecuted at the time in reality.
Criminal Code of RSFSR in 1922 didn't mentioned homosexuality at all (if it was a rape, it falls under general rape), BUT Criminal Codes for some Caucasus and Central Asian republics (Azerbaijani, Uzbek, Georgian, Tajik ones) have the ban on it, to punish the local tribal bs, such as sexual abuse practises of Bacha bazi.
Only in 1933 willing homosexual acts between adults were criminalized (as amendment to the criminal law of 1926), with sentences from 3 to 5 years.
>reactionary glowo- yap yap yapIf you want to play idpol game with history i suggest you to look up anti-homosexual laws around the refined modern bourgeoisie nations of the period, to see the context. 1930s Soviet republic was still a majorly traditional (in a collective psyche sense), religious (even under institutional supression), largely devided by ethnic traditions, still turbulent and young state. Even despite Stalins government of 1932-37 doubled down on the prosecution of official religious organisations (which current russian christcucks calling "godless five year plan"). 20 years prior to that absolute majority of the soviet people would name themselves as ortodox, cmon they were mostly poor peasants from largely still feudal structure, illiterate. Society inertion is a thing. For example out of all 147mil USSR people in 1955 - 42% considered themselves as orthodox and 8% as muslims. Go figure. Why religion and traditions refused to go is another topic which must consider all named internal and external (intervention, blockade and isolation, then war after war, and another isolation) factors. I personally think lgbt problem is irrelevant to context of soviet state until very late of 20 century, there were bigger and more important things to build. But sure is very hot topic on anti-soviet camp from any wing.
>>2198001Its all so tiresome.
Just stop idpol baiting, no one should care about idpol and lgbt now (since we know it doesnt matter whos better left - homo John or hetero Henry). it didn't matter back then because it was irrelevant to the historical context.
>>2197994NEP was extremely slow in building industry and mechanize peasantry, same applies for today's PRC as well. Initial five year plans resulted in an unprecended breakthrough in overall industrial output, USSR industrial output roughly tripled per plan.
From wikipedia:
(PRC)
>As of 2023, approximately 40% of China's workforce is engaged in farming, primarily at small scale.(Russia)
>The agricultural sector accounted for 6.71% of total employment in 2015As you see, both countries require different rates of workforce to sustain themselves, Russia has 7% :>
>>2198020Why exactly Leon here?
Read his Two Conceptions. Trot despite being salty bitch about not having a seat instead of Stalin still gives insights on ussr economics policy.
>>2197994>Removing the NEP was a mistake. Nazi Germany was going to be defeated be cause they were r*tards no matter the economic policy.By the 1930s, it was clear that it would inevitably come to war with the fascists. The USSR needed an industrialized economy that could stand against the might of the fascist war economy and win. The market economy was simply incapable of waging that war, as demonstrated by even the US and UK adopting state-planning during WWII.
>>2197996>If you want to play idpol game with history i suggest you to look up anti-homosexual laws around the refined modern bourgeoisie nations of the period, to see the context.Historical Context is far too hard for radlibs and Gorky-posters alike. Wish both retards would murder-suicide themselves.
>>2197850You are much worse at arguing since you haven't presented an argument at all, unlike Stalin in this letter. You have simply gestured at an emotion that is common among you liberals, quite like misogynists gesture at their hatred of women with "arguments" of the same quality.
His argument seems to be quite reasonable, and, if anything, he pulls many punches.
>It is impossible not to observe that in this characterisation of the situation in Europe, and summary of the causes leading towards world war, Engels omits one important factor, which later on played the most decisive part, namely, the factor of imperialist struggle for colonies, for markets, for sources of raw materials. This had very serious importance already at that time. He omits the role of Great Britain as a factor in the coming world war, the factor of the contradictions between Germany and Great Britain, contradictions which were already of serious importance and which later on played almost the determining part in the beginning and development of the world war.
>I think that this omission constitutes the principal weakness in Engels' article. From this weakness there ensue the remaining weaknesses of the article, of which the following are noteworthy
>(a). Overestimation of the role of Tsarist Russia's striving towards Constantinople in connection with the maturing of the world war. True, Engels mentions first as a war factor, the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by Germany, but thereafter, he removes this factor into the background and brings to the forefront the predatory strivings of Russian Tsardom, asserting that "all the danger of general war will disappear on the day when a change of things in Russia will allow the Russian people to blot out, at a stroke, the traditional policy of conquest of its Tsars."
>This is certainly an exaggeration.
>(b). Overestimation of the role of the bourgeois revolution in Russia, the role of the "Russian National Assembly" (bourgeois Parliament), in relation to averting the approaching world war. Engels asserts that the downfall of Russian Tsarism is the only means of averting world war. This is plain exaggeration.
>A new bourgeois order in Russia, with its "national assembly", could not avert war, if only because the principal sources of war lay in the increasing intensity of imperialist struggle between the main imperialist powers. The fact is, that from the time of Russia's defeat in the Crimea in the 'fifties of the last century, the independent role of Tsarism in the sphere of European foreign policy, began to wane to a significant extent, and that, as a factor in the imperialist world conflict, Tsarist Russia served essentially as an auxiliary reserve for the principal powers of Europe.
>(c). Overestimation of the role of the Tsarist power as the "last stronghold of the whole European reaction." That the Tsarist power in Russia, was a mighty stronghold of all European (and also Asiatic) reaction, there can be no doubt. But that it was the last stronghold of this reaction, one can legitimately doubt.
>It is necessary to note that these weaknesses of Engels' article are not only of "historical value."
>They have, or can have, a most serious practical importance. Truly, if imperialist struggle for colonies and spheres of influence is lost sight of, as a factor in the approaching world war; if the imperialist contradictions between England and Germany are forgotten; if the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by Germany is withdrawn from the foreground as a war factor in favour of Russian Tsardom's striving towards Constantinople, considered as the more serious and determining factor; if, finally, Russian Tsardom represents the last rampart of all European reaction, - then, is it not clear that a war, let us say, of bourgeois Germany against Tsarist Russia is not an imperialist war, not a robber war, not an anti-popular war, but a war of liberation, or almost of liberation?
>One can hardly doubt that this way of thinking facilitated the sin of the German Social-Democrats on August 4th, 1914, when they decided to vote for war credits, and proclaimed the slogan of defence of the bourgeois Fatherland against Tsarist Russia and against "Russian barbarism" and so on.
>It is characteristic that, in his letters to Bebel written in 1891, a year after the publication of this article, when he deals with the prospects of the coming war, Engels says directly that "the victory of Germany is, therefore, the victory of the revolution", and that "if Russia starts a war, then - forward against the Russians and their allies, whoever they may be!"
>It is obvious that such a way of thinking allows no place for revolutionary war into civil war.
>That is how matters stand as regards the weaknesses in Engels' article.The article itself also contains a wealth of historical inaccuracies and oversights, his idea of Russian diplomats as being "Jesuits" that do more to protect the country than all armies combined is both historically wrong and clearly upholds all kinds of reactionary and white supremacist thinking. But I will drop that to focus on the last words of Engels' article:
>These are the points why Western Europe in general, and especially its working class, is interested, very deeply interested, in the triumph of the Russian Revolutionary Party, and in the overthrow of the Tsar’s absolutism. Europe is gliding down an inclined plane with increasing swiftness towards the abyss of a general war, a war of hitherto unheard-of extent and ferocity. Only one thing can stop it — a change of system in Russia. That this must come about in a few years there can be no doubt. May it come to pass in good time before the otherwise inevitable occurs.This was proven wrong conclusively by the whole course of history after 1917. A peaceful, socialist USSR did nothing to prevent war in Europe. It is, in fact, Germany, France, Britain that create conflict, or rather their bourgeois and governments. In just 5 years, Germany attacked all of Europe with open intent to exterminate all Slavs, and Britain and France refused to cooperate to deal with it before they were invaded themselves.
To publish this article for general consumption in 1934 would be downright idiotic. You would be blaming Russia for war 7 years before fucking WWII.
More than that, the course of history after 1990 has proven it even more wrong. European bourgeois have only grown more warmongering, even genocidal as "Russia focused on internal matters" and they were allowed to create neocolonial regimes in Eastern Europe. The breakdown of diplomacy not just with Russia, but with China and several other countries is current proof that Engels was entirely wrong in that article.
Yes, I know Engels is talking about WWI, but if this is your defense, then you say that what this article says can't be generalized and as such would be useless to people in 1934 or today, for that matter.
>>2197994>Nazi Germany was going to be defeated be cause they were r*tards no matter the economic policy.For a "supporter of materialism", this is a insane idealistic nonsense, also the NEP and the people defending it (bukharin, kamenev) were plotting to murder stalin, if collectivization and the five year plans never happened, the german reactionaries and counterrevolutionaries which were armed as hell could surpass the soviet industry easily and crushing the revolution.
You is nothing but a crypto capitalist kautskyite
>>2198149Nazi Germanoid would eventually crumble because of its extremely antiscientific and contradictory nature BUT, it would have crumbled after at least a few decades of existence, in which they would have genocided and enslaved literally gazillions.
So it’s not just whether they would fall (ofc they would) but HOW EARLY OR LATE. And for this, we thank Comrade Stalin for his service to humanity for ever and ever.
>>2198299>Nazi Germanoid would eventually crumble because of its extremely antiscientific and contradictory nature BUT,capitalism is also antiscientific and contradictory yet because it's global size it can maintain itself indefinately, Nazism is capitalist in every sense so it would only fall after a long time, no diferent than the colonial era of the US for example.
as alway stalin is a hero.
>>2197994And the China that you defend so passionately pisses on Bukharin and respects Stalin.
Stalin’s policies do not defer much from the ‘old bolsheviks’ he got rid of, he just knew when and in what order to implement them. For example, for Stalin it was not a matter of NEP vs dekulakisation/mass industrialisation. It was how long to keep the NEP, and when to stop it in order to dekulakise, and use its fruits to start the rapid industrialisation.
Unique IPs: 41