[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Not reporting is bourgeois


 

>Undid Cornman's retardation
>Stopped counter-revolution cold in Czechoslovakia
>Aided Vietnam in its war against American imperialism
>Still lives rent-free in the heads of Maoists, pro-Hoxha "Anti-Revisionists" and pro-NATO liberals despite being dead for 43 years
Discuss one of the most under-rated socialists.

he turned every socialist republic into a tinpot crony-state run by local corrupt party members

>>2366243
>Aided Vietnam in its war against American imperialism
The Soviets wanted to preserve the Geneva Accord borders and didn't think the WPV could win until it was undeniable lol.


>>2367139
the ussr helped Vietnam from the very beginning

>>2367206
Yes but in a limited way and with the goal of securing the Geneva status quo

File: 1751505702840.jpg (96.72 KB, 828x1026, brezchad.jpg)

Brezhnev's Doctrine was keeping the Warsaw pact safe from NATO and CIA-backed nationalists
Brezhnev's nukes were keeping the Middle East safe from Zionism
Brezhnev's guns were keeping neocolonialists out of Africa
Brezhnev's nukes were keeping India safe from Pakistan
Brezhnev's Afghan support was keeping CIA out of Afghanistan and Central Asia safe from Jihadi ultrareactionaries

He did what someone in his power should have done. And he just wanted to be remembered as a peacemaker. When Gorby backed down, US aggression intensified 10 times and we saw the catastrophic consequences of not standing up to Washington . Today we see it even more. History absolved him

>>2366243
soyfacing over revisionism thread

<undid cornman's retardation

like what?
De-stalinization stayed in place. Only the most vocal liberals were shunned

The relationship with PRC? Got even worse to the point of having armed border conflicts

<Stopped counter-revolution cold in Czechoslovakia

Just needed to keep soviet soldiers in the country (there weren't any permanent soviet military bases in the ČSSR before 1968, but Warsaw Pact soldiers were already present in the country because of the Šumava military excersises)

Initially, the soviet leadership was benevolent as far as the reforms were concerned, the reforms only started because they were "allowed" from Moscow. Plus good ol' Lyonya wanted his man in Prague, not Khrushchev's protégé Novotný.

The "counterrevolution" itself wasn't that bad and could have been stopped easily by "healthy forces" in the Czechoslovak communist party. And even the majority of "reformists" and other libs were neither leaving the paradigm of Czechoslovakia staying a socialist state led by the communists nor they were demanding leaving the Warsaw Pact and destroying the alliance with the USSR.

Literally nothing happening in 1968 Czechoslovakia could be used as an excuse for a military intervention.
Because everything that was happening in ČSSR at that time was happening in the USSR as well, just in smaller scale

File: 1751573323408.png (21.06 KB, 1036x155, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2368271
>The "counterrevolution" itself wasn't that bad
It was bad. The reforms would have failed. Ota Šik the guy in charge of the economic reforms was a rightist deviationist, who latter became a full blown ordoliberal. These reformers needed to be stopped for the good of socialism.

People only hate Brezh because that autist Mao had a fit from the sensory overload of his eyebrows.

Social fascist scum

he was ok

>>2367371
>keeping India safe from Pakistan
ghay

>>2368271
>The "counterrevolution" itself wasn't that bad
t.

>>2366243
Why do you care about this shit? Get a grip.

liberal did what? why did he piss off those other liberals?

>>2366243
Soviet Trump

>>2368627
>Ota Šik the guy in charge of the economic reforms was a rightist deviationist
I mean yes, but the things he managed to implement when he was still in office weren't that much different from Kosygin-Lieberman reforms, I think

>latter became a full blown ordoliberal.

That is true. but only happened after he emigrated to Switzerland. What is also strange that he called himself socialist and supported socdem/keynesian policies up until 1990 when he declared that "socialism is incompatible with democracy"

>>2369900
yah mum


>>2366243
>Undid Cornman's retardation
Nikita was infinitely better.
>Stopped counter-revolution cold in Czechoslovakia
This was a socialist reformation. Completely unnecessary and destroyed communist unity in Europe.
>Aided Vietnam in its war against American imperialism
This is based.
>Still lives rent-free in the heads of Maoists, pro-Hoxha "Anti-Revisionists" and pro-NATO liberals despite being dead for 43 years
Nope hes just the face of stagnation and that led to dissolution of USSR.

>>2370024
He wasnt that retarded. More like a deepstate bureaucrat stabbing Nikita in the back and taking power.

>>2366250
Thats because he was himself a corrupt bureaucrat.

He signed the union’s death warrant with the Afghanistan venture. It’s literally the one time where aid to an allied government or movement was the wrong choice

File: 1751659294625.jpg (243.4 KB, 1920x1299, 1.jpg)

>>2370143
Disagree. US and reactionaries in Afghanistan were attempting to spread an insurgency into the Soviet Union itself. Mujahideen were crossing into Central Asia to wage guerilla war and terrorism. Let that sink in, this was a war on Soviet borders for the first time since WW2. And the CIA was spending more money than ever into making it happen, and had the additional benefit of facilitating the spread of opium in Soviet territory.

What alternative do you see here? I think the response by the soviet government was totally justified.

Also was a close ally of Khruschev during his early years and is still, not even from an "anti-revisionist" perspective, a revisionist that failed to stop the decline that led to the USSR's collapse.
Still mad respect for my uygha LEGO Brezhnev tho

>>2370133
>muh stagnation meme
Anti-Brezh slanderers swallowing Gorbachoid propaganda I see. Sorry, but the Soviet people WILL live normal lives. Actual proletarians don't want to wage revolution their whole lifespan. They want stability and a consistent way of life.

File: 1751740378775-0.jpg (124.32 KB, 1280x720, celluloid-shot0039.jpg)

File: 1751740378775-1.jpg (165.13 KB, 1280x720, celluloid-shot0040.jpg)

File: 1751740378775-2.png (16.63 KB, 704x78, Cosmos_peaked.png)

>>2367371
>Brezhnev's Doctrine was keeping the Warsaw pact safe from NATO and CIA-backed nationalists
>Brezhnev's nukes were keeping the Middle East safe from Zionism
>Brezhnev's guns were keeping neocolonialists out of Africa
>Brezhnev's nukes were keeping India safe from Pakistan
>Brezhnev's Afghan support was keeping CIA out of Afghanistan and Central Asia safe from Jihadi ultrareactionaries
I remember about 20 years ago when Iraq was the big thing and people talked about how the USSR would never have allowed the Iraq War to happen. Would Brezhnev have allowed Libya and Syria to be taken over by Wahabbi "revolutionaries"? For that matter, would the US/Israel Clean Break project have even been a thing if the USSR were still around? Would the Soviet people have been fighting bloody wars in the Ukraine, Georgia, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Chechnya? Would fascists be in power in those countries. Would the break-up of Yugoslavia have been allowed to happen? I think we all know that answer to that question. Sure, he never lead a revolution or defeated Hitler but I believe he has secured his place among the greats. For that matter, I hope the "Dissidents" enjoy the blood money they got by destroying this.
>>2368627
>These reformers needed to be stopped for the good of socialism.
It's worth noting that Mikhail Gorbachev said that the policies he persued as leader of the USSR were based on those of the Prague Spring.
>>2369994
This is really fucking rich from you "anti-campist" types considering that your takes are almost identical to that of liberal anti-communists. BTW, how your "Syrian Revolution" that you ultras simped for going? Is "Abu Mohammad al-Jolani"/"Ahmed al-Sharaa"/whatever the fuck his real name is going to lead Syria to Real Socialism any time soon? I understand if you want forget about it like how you forgot about how the "Libyan Revolution" you and yours also simped for back in 2011 turned out.
>>2370758
>US and reactionaries in Afghanistan were attempting to spread an insurgency into the Soviet Union itself. Mujahideen were crossing into Central Asia to wage guerilla war and terrorism.
This. The USSR literally had no choice when this threat is at their borders. This was a knife pointed at their throats and this has been very much vindicated as recently as the "ISIS-K" massacre in Crocus City Hall.
>Let that sink in, this was a war on Soviet borders for the first time since WW2.
Of course, that isn't really true but watch the Real Socialists use this as a gotcha and nitpick this and claim that they win the Internet Debate because of a technicality.

>Exported the revolution by arming militant communists across the Global South while providing stability comfort to those living within the Soviet Union itself.
Truth antimatter warhead. Funny eyebrow man was the closest thing to a Stalin-Trotsky synthesis. Unfortunately the outlook on this period was marred by the subsequent fall of the Republic of Soviets and the following Era of Blackest Reaction.

>>2368627
yeah they needed to be. funnily enough, brezhnev was best friends with dubcek, he didn't want to get involved but all the warsaw pact leaders were asking him to send the tanks.

>>2378971
stalins absolute rape of the left opposition killed trotskyism until after the soviet union fell
like the left opposition after stalins death were just anti-revisionists from the 50's to the 90's.

File: 1752216264076.png (380.06 KB, 800x530, USSRBrezhnevInUSA1973.png)

Explain this

>>2367342
I don't like Brezhnev but that is wrong. Cornman greatly shat up relations with Vietnam and keeping the status quo was his idea. Hell in Vietnam there was an anti geneva detente wave of purges that was dressed up as anti-revisionism. With the inteligensia being exiled to labor camps for being neutral to taking back the south or being too pro khrushchev. Khrushchev in his idiocy mistakenly believed that Vietnam was pro China when we refused to attack china with them or denounce stalin (Ho, Chinh and Duan only wanted the 2 superpowers to play nice with Chinh being the only overtly pro Mao element, Chinh was pushed into early retirement due to stupidly copying chinese land reforms purging). Brezhnev increased support even after the meeting with Nixon, mostly to spite china and Gromiko vouching for us.

File: 1752223737450.jpg (9.99 KB, 372x315, flypaint.JPG)

>>2383087
You mean having a normal talk on nuclear deterrence? Meanwhile Mao with Nixon:
>President Nixon: When the Chairman says he voted for me, he voted for the lesser of two evils.

>Chairman Mao: I like rightists. People say you are rightists, that the Republican Party is to the right, that Prime Minister Heath is also to the right.


>President Nixon: And General DeGaulle.


>Chairman Mao: DeGaulle is a different question. They also say the Christian Democratic Party of West Germany is also to the right. I am comparatively happy when these people on the right come into power.

https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/memorandum-conversation-between-chairman-mao-zedong-and-president-richard-nixon

>>2367371
trvke
only imperialists, zionists and jihadis will disagree with you
Brezhnev had them seething and coping for decades

>>2383182
Mao was a master opportunist
I respect him and learn from him in the arts of opportunism
And I do not blame him, his opportunism put China on solid foundations and today we can see the results


Chernenko was better


File: 1752270519314.png (286.35 KB, 735x488, Gvm5h3GWwAEhIuA.png)


He's simultaneously one of the best Soviet leaders for his staunch opposition to imperialism and his elevation of the lives of the Soviet people, but also foolish for failing to recognize the signs of decay and address them when the USSR was probably in the strongest position to do so at any time in its history. Also he left a lot of socialists in the third world (especially in Latin America) out to dry under the delusional belief that by not interfering in America's "back yard" the West would reciprocate and not meddle in Eastern Europe.

>>2384013
the 60's showed the most rapid up climb and the 70s showed the most rapid decline

>Discuss one of the most under-rated socialists.
>socialists
Why must you lie? It only aids the capitalists why you lie about socialist history. The guy was a social imperialist pig.

>>2383216
He lived for a few months dude. Get real.

>>2369898
Are you an Islamist or are you just unaware that Pakistan was a US ally that committed a genocide that India stopped despite the US telling them not to?

>>2385867
Wrong. There was no genocide. 1971 was anti-imperialist war against social fascism. You are social fascist revisionist.

>>2385869
of course you're also a bangladesh genocide denialist

>>2385871
CPUSA-flag is a Islamist retard who insists that The Quran is the Truth on a leftist imageboard lmao
Ignore him

>>2385877
that's not CPUSA anon he can't find the ACP symbol so he uses that instead

>>2385878
I know
that's why I called him 'CPUSA flag' instead of CPUSA anon

>>2385869
India was on the side of anti-imperialism at that time because Bangladesh was fighting for independence. The USSR backed India and told the US not to interfere, which allowed India to bring the Bangladeshi side to victory and stop the genocide.

I hope you're trolling and not an unironic Islamist genocide supporter.

>>2385864
>He lived for a few months dude. Get real.

Comrade, the dismissal of Konstantin Ustinovich Chernenko with the tired refrain of “He lived for a few months dude. Get real” is the kind of ahistorical liberal cope that only benefits revisionists and apologists of capitalist rot. Yes, Chernenko's time in office was short — but so was Lenin's after the revolution, and no one with even a fraction of class consciousness would dare minimize his impact. The temporal length of a leadership does not determine its historical weight. Chernenko inherited a Soviet Union already under assault from internal liberalizers and Western subversion — yet he held the line. And more than that, he quietly but firmly reversed many of Andropov’s market flirtations and reasserted socialist orthodoxy. That matters.

Chernenko’s policies represented a dignified reaffirmation of Brezhnev-era stability — a bulwark against the neoliberal flood that would later drown the USSR under the disastrous reforms of Gorbachev. He restored certain social guarantees, strengthened ties with the Eastern Bloc, and refused to allow capitalist elements to take root within the Party. His leadership style was not flashy or performative like Gorbachev's — it was deliberate, cautious, and rooted in the basic Marxist-Leninist understanding that socialism is not a laboratory for liberal experimentation. Where Gorbachev opened the floodgates of glasnost and perestroika, laying the groundwork for the economic rape of the 1990s, Chernenko sought to hold the system together with class discipline and continuity.

The notion that Chernenko was a mere placeholder is itself a myth perpetuated by both Western propagandists and Gorbachev-sympathizing liberals inside the Party. But look at the results. Under Chernenko, there was no catastrophic decline, no privatization, no open demoralization of the working class. He presided over one of the last moments of relative calm before the storm. If his health had allowed him a few more years, perhaps the course of Soviet history would have been different — not marked by collapse and betrayal, but by resilience and ideological clarity. Chernenko represented not stagnation, but stability. And stability, comrades, is not a weakness — it is a precondition for building socialism.

Contrast that with Gorbachev, the poster boy for counterrevolution. He handed over the Party apparatus to market forces, gutted the planned economy, and turned glasnost into an ideological sledgehammer against socialist institutions. If Chernenko was a brief breath of collective strength, Gorbachev was a prolonged sigh of bourgeois defeatism. To write off Chernenko’s legacy with a meme-tier retort about the brevity of his rule is to reveal a total misunderstanding of dialectical materialism and historical causality. Time is not measured in months alone — but in class struggle, in policy direction, and in the will to uphold socialism against the coming tide. And on that front, Chernenko stood tall, even if only for a short while.

*BUMP*


Unique IPs: 37

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]