>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.
>>2366243soyfacing over revisionism thread
<undid cornman's retardationlike 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 CzechoslovakiaJust 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 >>2368627>Ota Šik the guy in charge of the economic reforms was a rightist deviationistI 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"
>>2369900yah mum
>>2366243>Undid Cornman's retardationNikita was infinitely better.
>Stopped counter-revolution cold in CzechoslovakiaThis was a socialist reformation. Completely unnecessary and destroyed communist unity in Europe.
>Aided Vietnam in its war against American imperialismThis is based.
>Still lives rent-free in the heads of Maoists, pro-Hoxha "Anti-Revisionists" and pro-NATO liberals despite being dead for 43 yearsNope hes just the face of stagnation and that led to dissolution of USSR.
>>2370143Disagree. 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.
>>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 ultrareactionariesI 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.
>>2369994This 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.
>>2378971stalins 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.
>>2367371trvkeonly imperialists, zionists and jihadis will disagree with you
Brezhnev had them seething and coping for decades
>>2383182Mao 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
>>2385871CPUSA-flag is a Islamist retard who insists that The Quran is the Truth on a leftist imageboard lmao
Ignore him
>>2385878I know
that's why I called him 'CPUSA flag' instead of CPUSA anon
>>2385869India 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.
Unique IPs: 37