Adulthood is realizing that Stalin was right about basically everything (except maybe pissing his pants when the Nazis invaded and giving bad military orders, but in the end the Fash chuds were defeated and you can't fault the man for not being both a political and military genius)
/leftypol/, suggest to me good reading material for red pilling people about /ourguy/ Stalin
Kulaks/Uyghas/Zionists fuck off
>>2416802Growing up is indeed realizing national socialism is the only viable socialism, thanks again Uncle Joe!
- This has been a certified Hitler classic
>>2417732Early Israel was more socialist (kibbutz)
Modern Israel is a chud abomination.
>>2417747MLs don't bring up the Stalin israel connection, for obvious reasons. You are obsessed
>"inherently fascist"Who are you quoting? The words are in quotations so you're quoting somebody, but it can't be Stalin cuz he never said that shit
>>2417750>and that stuff allowed for other capitalist nations to justify mass deportationsYeh brah, they would have never justified mass deportations if it wasn't for that dastardly Stalin
>was the mass deportation of germans and various other ethnic groups "justified"? It wasn't
>i'd say no matter what it wasn't, since it served no purpose except for a nationalist project, which communists should care little forRetard
>>2417763>Yeh brah, they would have never justified mass deportations if it wasn't for that dastardly Stalin sure they would have done it anyway, but stalin made it far easier for them to justify
>>i'd say no matter what it wasn't, since it served no purpose except for a nationalist project, which communists should care little for>Retardwhat exactly is "retarded" about that? such mass deportations had been unprecedented and enabled other capitalist nations to commit the same atrocities
>>2417773>sure they would have done it anyway, but stalin made it far easier for them to justify No, that's just you being an idealist. Nobody needs to "justify" anything. Literally no capitalist politician has justified their ethnic deportations by claiming well uncle joe did it too. Nor would that justification matter at all even if they did.
>what exactly is "retarded" about that? such mass deportations had been unprecedented and enabled other capitalist nations to commit the same atrocitiesCompletely incorrect on all accounts. Such deportations had happened before many times even much more violent and genocidal than the soviet example, it did not "enable" capitalist countries (like they would need the soviet example to enable such a thing lmao) and the USSR was not a capitalist nation.
You are a retard
>>2417828Stalin underestimated the speed of the German timeline in attacking the USSR but no one expected how fast France and western Europe gave up. His biggest mistake was not realizing the Nazis were suicidal invested in genociding the Slavs.
However, considering how he listened to his generals as the war went and changed how he did things on that shows he was a good leader, just not some military genius. Compare that to Hitler who tightened his grip on the military even as he kept losing more and more.
>>2417824They simply did not and many other countries practiced and still so practice deportations and ethnic cleansings with or without the Soviet union "paving the way" lmao.
>Le UNShow me the list of UN resolutions on deportations that the USSR voted disfavourably in. You're literally just pulling this out of your ass
>and denying the capitalist nature of the USSR just proves you are an ignorant bastard at best, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was not "capitalist in nature" sorry pal, don't know what else to tell you. To me socialism is a real historical movement, to you it's some idealistic fantasy play pretend
>there is hardly anything "retarded" about acknowledging the fact that in part the ussr paved way for mass ethnic cleansings like the nakba, Yeah bro if it wasn't for dastardly uncle joe, the zionists with their ethno supremacist colonial ideology, that literally can only exist on the basis of genocide and ethnic cleansing, would have never even conceived of cleansing the Palestinians from the territory. You're such an idealist, it's painful
>since if the UN had been created had been created in a more neutral way, there could (and would have) been decisive action against the nakba and similarYou are retarded. Neutral as compared to what? The UN was already hugely disproportionately favored towards the west, capitalism and imperialist countries. For god's sake the PRC was only recognized in 1971. But here you are, saying that the USSR should have had even less influence lmao, cuz then people would have been more resistant to the nakba (as if anyone other than the arabs gave a fuck about that in 1950) or something. You're just an anticommunist at this point dude
>>2417919This article is written in 1914 and not about national socialists, as that was not a movement that existed at the time.
Perhaps you're thinking of this speech from 1941?
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1941/11/06.htm
<Can the Hitlerites be regarded as nationalists? No, they cannot. Actually, the Hitlerites are now not nationalists but imperialists. As long as the Hitlerites were engaged in assembling the German lands and reuniting the Rhine district, Austria, etc., it was possible with a certain amount of foundation to call them nationalists. But after they seized foreign territories and enslaved European nations-the Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians, French, Serbs, Greeks, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, the inhabitants of the Baltic countries, etc.—and began to reach out for world domination, the Hitlerite party ceased to be a nationalist party, because from that moment it became an imperialist party, a party of annexation and oppression.
<The Hitlerite party is a party of imperialists, and the most rapacious and predatory imperialists among all the imperialists of the world.
<Can the Hitlerites be regarded as socialists? No, they cannot. Actually, the Hitlerites are the sworn enemies of socialism, arrant reactionaries and Black-Hundreds who have robbed the working class and the peoples of Europe of the most elementary democratic liberties. In order to cover up their reactionary, Black-Hundred essence, the Hitlerites denounce the internal regimes of Britain and America as plutocratic regimes. But in Britain and the United States there are elementary democratic liberties, there exist trade unions of workers and employees, there exist workers’ parties, there exist parliaments; whereas in Germany, under the Hitler regime, all these institutions have been destroyed. One only needs to compare these two sets of facts to perceive the reactionary nature of the Hitler regime and the utter hypocrisy of the German-fascist pratings about a plutocratic regime in Britain and in America. In point of fact the Hitler regime is a copy of that reactionary regime which existed in Russia under tsardom. It is well known that the Hitlerites suppress the rights of the workers, the rights of the intellectuals and the rights of nations as readily as the tsarist regime suppressed them, and that they organize mediæval Jewish pogroms as readily as the tsarist regime organized them.
<The Hitlerite party is a party of enemies of democratic liberties, a party of mediæval reaction and Black-Hundred pogroms. >>2418052But your posting that article was in response to the question "is that the one where he says national socialist are neither nationalists or socialists ?", which it was not, so how is that accurate or conductive to your point at all?
Also I'd like to know why you think Stalin's 1914 article contradicts Lenin. I skimmed through it, but I didn't really see anything too controversial, so I'd like to know what you meant by that
>>2418157*was.
fixed for you trotfriend.
Like it or not, on most of the problems that Stalin faced, in the choices he made and in the concrete circumstances where they took place, at the time he acted, he was right. And his contemporaries agreed with him, including his opponents, who were well aware that they would have done the same as he did if they had been placed in his position and who did not believe a word of the fabrications of their own media, unlike today.
It also means that most of the things that are told, peddled, and believed to be known about Stalin are false. He is probably the most demonized historical figure in history. Not that he was an altar boy, no, but who would want an altar boy in this position? And not even a saint, and we know what happens when a saint is in power, with our national St. Louis, the destroyer of heretics.
This means that Stalin was a great political leader, like Lenin before him, but more representative of the pure political leader than Lenin, who had an intellectual authority as an outstanding theoretician and a direct influence of his voice on the masses, comparable to that of Fidel.
Stalin is in the thankless role of the one who has to consolidate the acquired positions when the enthusiasm falls and the frustrations fester, the one of a Maduro who succeeds a Chavez. And this is not a role that can be played on one's knees.
We who see our charismatic leaders deflate and backslide as they approach power, today's Sanders, Mélenchon, Corbyn, or betray them in the middle of a campaign like Tsipras, should think a bit about what a competent political leader for the proletariat really is, and what role he or she is made to play and what portrayal he or she is given in the bourgeois media as soon as he or she has been spotted.
There was no alternative! An uchronic Trotsky who came to power instead of Stalin, assuming he was sincerely committed to the revolution, would have acted like a Stalin, his actions would have been interpreted and distorted as Stalin's, and he would have earned the same reputation in the bourgeois media as Stalin. And he was indeed portrayed as the devil incarnate in the world press, when he led the Red Army.
Popular leaders who are not puppets or a marketing product find themselves in an ideological region of rarefied atmosphere where the usual moral criteria no longer apply. There is simply no point in asking about their "goodness". Their goodness or badness are only signs sent to their supporters and enemies.
This is also the case with all the important leaders of the other classes who play in a game without rules, where all the moves are allowed - or, more exactly, where the rules are constantly changing, and what is allowed too. What characterizes political power is that it is the place of transgression. Miserable transgression of the underlings and opportunists: corruption, sexual harassment, abuse and tyranny, founding transgression for the great characters "who make the spirit ride" as Hegel said of Bonaparte.
Stalin is one of the only leaders of the proletariat in history who has risen to that height, to the capacity of action, and to the freedom of initiative that are natural and usual for any great man of the bourgeoisie, for any feudal leader of great size or any skilful and courageous court man of the Modern Times, who have placed themselves by their functions above good and evil. He is one of the very few representatives of the oppressed "who plays in the big league".
He is one of the only ones who would have held his own in circumstances such as those of the Roman civil wars of the First Century B.C., the Wars of Religion (1562 to 1598), the Fronde (1648 to 1653) as recounted by the Cardinal de Retz, or who could have faced the Prussian king Frederick the Great on the European battlefields in the middle of the 18th century, not to mention the Napoleon of the Russian campaign of 1812, a comparison which is necessary for the commander-in-chief of the Soviet army which repelled the invasion of the Wehrmacht, then crushed the Third Reich from June 1941 to May 1945.
Stalin is neither more nor less terrible than Caesar, Augustus, Henry IV, Maria Theresa of Austria, William Pitt, Cavour, Bismarck, Disraeli, Clemenceau, or his allies and rivals Roosevelt and Churchill. He is more terrible than Léon Blum, yes! And than De Gaulle, who was quite mean.
There is a difference between acting at the individual and local level, and acting in the vacuum of altitude where everything is possible and where the danger comes from all directions, in the positions of great responsibility and strategic management, and for us who do not know directly the experience of these responsibilities, we can only understand indirectly their functioning and the mentality that it requires. We can only judge by the results.
The anti-communists who still set the tone in culture, and I suspect for a short time now, tell us that Stalin was more terrible than Hitler. Well, thats fortunate!
The history of the exploited classes and oppressed peoples abounds in martyrs and rebels, romanticized but defeated - and also in traitors. The October Revolution in the Soviet Union and the founding of the People's Republic of China broke this fate. If Stalin was in accordance with the horrific representation we have been taught, he would be a Pugachev or a Spartacus in power to bring justice to the masses, and that would be something. But he is obviously not that. If he resembles anyone, it would be Luther, energetic and crude creator of a new world, even in the fear provoked in contemporary intellectuals to see the spirit put into practice.
But of course, we were not taught all this at school or on television. We have been lied to and led around all our lives about Stalin and the USSR! The treatment of Venezuela in our media gives us the key to deciphering the delirious discourses accumulated about the USSR and its leaders.
Stalin's real crime is to have been at the head of a proletarian movement that was for the first time extended to the whole world and that temporarily, in the space of two or three generations, defeated the bourgeoisie in a large part of the planet, and to have sown the seeds of its forthcoming and total ruin.
>>2418619it is a translation of the text of a french communist, Gilles Questiaux, who have a good blog
https://www.reveilcommuniste.fr/2020/04/de-qui-staline-est-il-le-nom.htmlhere have another one
Revolutionaries of the 21st century would do well to free themselves from the bourgeois discourse on Stalin, a discourse on an essential element of their history, whether they like it or not, a discourse that is false but hegemonic, even within their own ranks. And to realize that had Stalin been an angel, the bourgeois discourse on him would have been exactly the same. In fact, they would do well to realize that they themselves should have to earn some of Stalin's bad reputation among the world's bourgeoisie.
All over the world, the exploiters and hypocrites who work for them pronounce the name of Stalin, who died on March 5, 1953, with hatred, terror and horror. As a precaution, this is a rather good sign. Perhaps it's a sign that he must not have been so bad, if they're still afraid of him after all this time.
Stalin as the evil monster denounced by liberal-democratic ideology haunts the world at the end of history. He is wrongly equated with Hitler by the Cold War theory of “totalitarianism”. The German counter-revolutionary racist criminal leader is rejected in words by the same bourgeoisie that used him, as if it had nothing to do with him. Stalin, the victorious leader of the Soviet Union and the world revolution who fought and defeated Hitler's Nazism, is equated with him, in defiance of historical reality, to “exorcise communism”, as the newspaper “Le Monde” once wrote without quotation marks, to make a new revolution like that of October 1917 in Russia forever impossible.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the historical Stalin was not the monstrous figure that his enemies, both inside and out, sought to make him out to be. The objective history of his power over the USSR and the Communist movement is beginning to be written with the scientific distance necessary to reveal the truth. It's a terrible story, full of excess and brutality. But the Stalinist terror we denounce was not introduced into history by the malice of one man or a small ruling group. It was the result of a specific context and set of circumstances. When these circumstances calmed down, the gentrified ruling groups in the USSR and in the Communist parties of other countries, in search of respectability, no longer dared to take responsibility for their history, and thought they could get away with making Stalin the scapegoat for all their excesses and mistakes. And the scapegoat was particularly ill-chosen.
He was a politician of popular origin, highly intelligent, skilful, convinced, incorruptible and rather cautious, who was undoubtedly, like Mao after him, a victim of the illusions produced by overextended political power.
It's not so easy to dissociate him from the political tradition he applied and prolonged. Stalin embodied the dictatorship of the proletariat. If there's something wrong with Stalin, it's in the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, faithfully applied as envisaged by Karl Marx and Lenin.
And of course, it's not for nothing that Gramsci (who always supported Stalin, contrary to popular belief) took it up again at the same time, not to do away with it, but to bring it up to date.
The Stalinist attempt to put Marxism into practice was finally defeated. But it's astonishing to see the world's intelligentsia, brought up on the cult of Nietzsche, bewildered to see what it's like to act “out of good and evil”. To see what they interpret as a flesh-and-blood superman implementing the dictatorship of the proletariat at their expense.
The fact is that Stalin, whose self-chosen name meant “Man of Steel”, was the rational leader at the helm of the Revolution in the iron-clad circumstances in which it took place, in the world of limitless violence opened up by the butchery of the Great Imperialist War of 1914-1918, which had totally depreciated the value of human existence, and in the face of the equally limitless counter-revolution of Fascism and Nazism, which had it in for the very concept of being human. The analysis which seeks to propose a “communism without Stalin”, whether that of Trotsky, the anarchists, or “Socialism or Barbarism”, makes no sense. Moreover, their analysis runs counter to the facts:
Stalin did not exercise terror on behalf of the bureaucracy against the proletariat, he exercised terror on the bureaucracy, in the name of the proletariat.He, and the leading group around him, were convinced that a significant part of the Soviet bureaucracy was ready to betray the Revolution, “Lenin's work” to which they attached so much value, and to surrender to Nazi Germany, and then to the imperialist United States. Which is exactly what happened, two generations later.
The use of the Terror was intended to cope with the emergency situation created by the external Nazi and/or imperialist threat. The ruling group produced an inconsistent legal front for the Terror during the great Moscow trials of 1936 to 1938. This Terror, in itself, is infinitely tragic and demoralizing. But no one will ever know whether, without it, the USSR would not have collapsed at the first shock, like France in 1940, eaten away from within by the betrayal of its military, intellectual, political and economic elites.
The less revolutionaries will be tempted to repudiate the historical Stalin, the less they will be tempted to consign Stalin to the dustbin of history, the less they will be Stalinists, in the trivial sense of the word that characterizes the opportunist or post-communist bureaucrat: authoritarian, liar, dissembler, corrupt, brutal, uneducated, spineless, opposed to revolutionary spontaneity and democracy. For those who are spontaneously labelled as such, with all the justifiable opprobrium that entails, are not Stalinists, but Khrushchevians, Gorbachevians, Yeltsinians. Or, to put it in the terms of the French Revolution, they are the rotten, cynical people of Thermidor and the Directoire, who cannot judge the Terror, in which they participated without virtue.
There are still the merits of the historical figure Stalin, to whom we must do justice: he knew how to make concrete the experience of socialism in a single country (the alternative being, not the “permanent revolution” advocated by Trotsky, but “socialism in no country”), an experience that twentieth-century humanity had to make. He led the Soviet people to defeat Nazism. Without Stalin, the Soviet Communist Party and the Russian people, the Third Reich would have triumphed. It accelerated the decomposition of the colonial world and racism, and made exploitation and misery illegitimate throughout the world.
The only way to defeat socialism was to temporarily do better than it on its own terrain, the social terrain, and we can see what happens now this powerful stimulus has disappeared.
It's true that Stalin, along with all the other Soviet leaders (including those who fell victim to the Terror in their turn), took the terrible toll of the Terror, perhaps reaching (according to a very high estimate) a million condemned prisoners executed or killed in deportation, in thirty years, once we disregard the delirious assessments disseminated by professional anti-communist historians.
As the recently deceased Domenico Losurdo has shown, the revolutionary state founded by the Bolsheviks was never able to enjoy peace and emerge from the state of exception; it failed to found a new legality, so as to enter into a peaceful and prosaic development, Paradoxically, the Italian philosopher even thought that the anarchistic component of the communist project, which included the objective of rapidly eradicating the state, prevented socialism from stabilizing and returning to respect for legality. And indeed, the first beneficiaries of such pacification were to be the cadres, the “bureaucrats”, and their smiling cousins, the more or less dissident intellectuals and artists. Stalin, as the promoter of the democratic constitution of 1936, represented the search for the never-before-found balance between legality and revolution, between “experts” and “reds”.
But all this didn't happen in an era and in peaceful countries, where, as the Partisan song says, “people in the hollows of beds have dreams”, and in condemning Stalin and his leading group without qualification, we act as if there had never been a war waged against socialism, as if the Soviet Union and the proletarian revolution had never had an enemy, and above all as if this enemy had not taken the initiative of violence and terror even before October 1917. Basically, the real criticism of the USSR led by Lenin and Stalin is that it was not defeated in the same way as the Spanish Republic, over which so many crocodile tears have been shed.
In what sense should we use this history in our century? In any case, Marx shows us the path not to follow: to act like the revolutionaries of 1848, fascinated by the Montagne of 1793, who sought to re-enact the great revolution, and who often disguised themselves as revolutionaries rather than taking action. Reassessing Stalin's revolutionary role does not mean advocating the use of his language and methods of action here and now, still less using him as a hollow symbol designed to shock the bourgeois. But it does mean that overthrowing capitalism will require iron determination, like his.
We must recognize the indisputable fact that almost all determined proletarian revolutionaries worldwide sided with Stalin when he ruled the USSR. And so did many of the national liberation movements in the colonies and the Third World.
The revolutionary movement of the proletariat has mismanaged its ideological withdrawal since Stalin's death (1953), and its self-criticism must be taken up again at the beginning.
Anti-communist critics are right on three assumptions:
1) Stalin was an authentic Communist, and those who still call themselves Communists must assume this heritage and explain why they do so.
This challenge is very easy to take up, and without provocation or extremism! You just have to know what you want: respectability or revolution. For what is lost in obstruction, slander and conspiracy of silence can be regained and far outweighed by the unintended publicity generated by the outrage of the scandalized bourgeoisie and its intellectuals and journalists.
2) The USSR was an attempt to realize an economic-political utopia that failed in the confrontation with imperialism.
But for us, it's not the utopia itself that condemns it - on the contrary! And more and more clearly, it's the capitalist economic project as a whole that seems a deadly utopia. It has failed, of course, but not in some sort of fair sporting competition, or Darwinian selection of the fittest. It engaged, sustained and then lost a great and long battle. But the war is not over.
3) And the Nazi-fascist historical phenomenon can be explained as a reaction to the communist threat.
The appalling picture of the murderous effects of this by no means mysterious phenomenon demands no fearful silence, no astonishment from posterity. The Whites of the Civil War in Russia and the Ukraine foreshadowed the actions of the Nazis, right down to the most repugnant crimes. It is therefore perfectly possible, and necessary, to continue thinking “after Auschwitz”, contrary to the admonitions of the repentant Marxists of the Frankfurt School. Nazi horror is nothing other than the disproportionate fruit of a panic reaction by the bourgeoisie to what it called “Bolshevism”, an emotional signifier whose meaning then was much the same as that of “Stalin” today, and the plea for an implicit rehabilitation of Nazism, coherently presented by Ernst Nolte in Germany, is in fact a confession by the bourgeoisie, which places the genocide without mystery at the end of the criminal escalation of the counter-revolution of the 1920s/30s.
4) On the other hand, almost all the allegations made by anti-Stalinist historiography are fantastical, false or exaggerated.
Solzhenitsyn, Conquest, Trotsky, Shalamov, the Medvedev brothers etc. are not reliable sources, but partisan authors, most often directly linked to organized counter-revolutionary forces, often heavy-handed and crude authors who wouldn't be taken seriously if they wrote about any other issue.
5) In the confrontation between world revolution and world counter-revolution since 1914, the capitalist camp has been responsible for countless crimes and has no moral lessons to teach.
6) In the future, we will avoid anti-democratic drifts, errors and violent excesses by studying the real history of our movement, and not by reproducing our adversary's criticisms and version of events.
7) Criticism from movements or men who claim to be revolutionaries, but who haven't actually made a revolution, has no value. Like those of George Orwell, for example, prototype of all conservatives disguised as leftists. Nor are those issued by actors in the history of Communism who tried to cover up their responsibilities, such as Trotsky and Khrushchev.
The application of these principles, inspired in particular by the critical concepts developed in Gramsci's Prison Notebooks, should lead to a nuanced critique, as the critique of Maoism in China does, and not to the demonization of the history of the revolution.
>>2418812 (me)
wait was that the only thing losurdo said? Is there more. Or am I just operating on the flawed assumption that the quote was taken out of a bigger paragraph
>>2416802>Zionists I think you forgot another mistake of his.
But I mostly agree and I would really like more Trotskyists and Leftcoms to specify what the Bolsheviks actually could've done by the late 20s besides what Stalin did.
>the revolution is supposed to be internationalOkay but it wasn't. The international revolutionary wave had passed and failed by the early 20s so what was the USSR supposed to do, hand power back to the Mensheviks? Do the NEP forever while sitting on its ass until Germany invades?
>muh bureaucracyAnd what was Trotsky's solution to that? He also wanted a party state, just one with more factions allowed since he was in the minority. That wouldn't have led to a bureaucracy?
A lot of it just seems like great man theory in reverse.
>>2418811>>2418838ok, im an idiot because losurdo was not even a professional historian whereas obviously furr is, losurdo was a philosopher.
and heres the explanation for the blurb context
>>2418725 >>2418814 >>2418812 is asking for, from furr's blog commemorating losurdos death:
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/losurdo_furr070118.html
>In 2012 Losurdo engaged French anticommunist scholar Nicolas Werth in a debate over Stalin.[2] I noticed something that Losurdo could not: that Werth was citing recent publications about collectivization of agriculture and the Soviet famine of 1932-33 in a dishonest manner. I wrote about this to Losurdo, who thanked me and put my remarks on his blog.[3]
>In 2014 I was on a panel at the Left Forum in Manhattan, New York City. At the end of the panel a gentleman approached and introduced himself to me as Domenico Losurdo. Delighted, I introduced him to the still-full room as the renowned communist philosopher. In town to present a new book of his own, Losurdo had come to hear my talk!
>An updated English version of my book on Khrushchev’s Secret Speech, Khrushchev Lied, had been published in 2011. Losurdo offered to introduce me to an Italian publisher, Città del Sole, and to write an introduction to the Italian translation. With his permission, Losurdo’s introduction appears in the Italian, German, and French editions. Losurdo graciously agreed to write a back-cover comment for my book The Murder of Sergei Kirov (2013) and a longer introduction to that book which remains unpublished. >>2418874how do you think training in an academic field works? you just get your own specialization beamed into your brain and none of the skills, methods, resources, resources and practice are applicable otherwise?
anyway my point was to neither praise furr for being a professional historian or to denigrate losurdo for not being one, or to suggest anything about the quality of their work based on that. i said im an idiot because i said losurdo writes like a historian and furr writes like hes stalins lawyer, which was half a joke anyway but im saying its ironic because losurdo isnt even trained as a historian
>>2419062I think someone who studies Soviet history professionally is more academically credible on the topic than someone who studies literature from a thousand years prior. That is how academic qualifications work and Furr is accordingly not taken seriously within Soviet history departments even by the most revisionist of revisionist historians.
I'm not even one of the anti-Stalin posters either. It's just embarrassing to see people turning to an obvious crank who churns out print on demand apologia explaining how Stalin literally didn't do anything wrong even once and everyone else is lying. If you're approaching the history of any socialist experiment in that way then you are not taking it seriously and not trying to look at it critically and draw lessons for today from it. You're just playing historiological games at best or gathering material for internet debates at worst.
>>2419070>killed the old bolsheviksMoralism
>class collaborator Less of one than Lenin
>continued capitalism ruining the Soviet Union by commodity production Less than Lenin.
If you guys were consistent you'd call Lenin an anti-communist too.
>>2419037Stalin killed Tukhachevsky who told him to continue the revolution and he stayed in his little nazi nation with this idiotic idea of "revolution in one nation" which goes against everything Marx and Lenin stood for that to this day only his lapdogs (fanboys) buy unwittingly and support retarded lesser evilisms of national liberation, most of which are absolutely reactionary religious fanatic bourgeois nations and literal nazis, deflecting that their critics "didn't win against nazis" when they could never win against nazis cause they are bourgeois and support capitalism and fascism comes from it, so they prop up these bourgeois nations and can't even understand what capitalism is about cause they're market liberal retarded as fuck sucking the cock of China right now deluded that its a "planned economy".
Like yourself, dumbfuck, capitalism does't even when "the means of production are commonly owned", when you continue with commodities, you dumbfuck.
>>2419073>MoralismNo no moralism, he was a traitor anti-communist and a national socialist (nazi) who Lenin wrote against in his last letters to have him kicked out of the party and removed as gensec cause he was a nazi traitor gravedigger going against the party and usurping it for his own selfish interests, because on top of being a nazi national socialist succdem traitor he was actually an opportunist all along.
>Less of one than LeninNo, wrong, Lenin only worked with peasants for the time being, they're now all scum and not needed, its just the workers now.
>Less than Lenin.NEP was needed, Stalin wasn't. It's called industrializing, its done.
>If you guys were consistent you'd call Lenin an anti-communist too.No Lenin was ok. Stalin was nazi.
>>2419083>No no moralismTell me how crying about the purges is different than crying about Tambov or Kronstadt. There is no actual critique contained in saying the purges were bad, you're just saying they're bad because they killed people you're treating as sacred somehow. If you want to argue that the purges were counterproductive do it but that's a different thing than kvetching about koba why must I die 24/7.
>Lenin only worked with peasants for the time beingFor his entire leadership of the party while in power and then if you look past rhetoric and at what was actually done, the alliance was broken under Stalin. Bukharin who you guys never stop crying about was the one with the pro-peasant program (Lenin's).
>NEP was needed, Stalin wasn't. It's called industrializingThe rate of industrial growth was far slower under the NEP than under collectivization, this is literally one of the main arguments people had against continuing the NEP. Surplus that otherwise could've gone to industrial buildup was being left with the peasantry.
>>2419071While I largely agree with you on Furr in particular sometimes an academic topic is foundational flawed. When that happens an academic who is not directly inside the flawed field will have a better chance of cutting thought the bullshit because they don't have the same brainworms baked into their assumptions.
>>2419078>this idiotic idea of "revolution in one nation" Bro, you are retarded. That's just saying the entire world wont go through a revolution all at once and that is can happen country by country. USSR was composed of several countries and the eastern block was many more countries. The revolution was keep expanding under Stalin's leadership it just wasn't all at once.
>capitalism does't even when "the means of production are commonly owned", when you continue with commoditiesSocialism isn't communism it's just the transitionary stage after capitalism.You are just whining they didn't press the magic communist revolution button that doesn't exist.
>>2419103>Tell me how crying about the purges is different than crying about Tambov or KronstadtNo I'm not crying you traitor bastards, he killed his own men who had no problems and were completely in line with Marx and Lenin cause he was a paranoid cunt who was scared of getting backstabbed cause he was a glutton for power and only cared about staying in power and being feared and being adored by fucking idiots like you. You fucking retarded cocksuckers lol.
There is not just critique in the purges being bad, we have the biggest baddest craziest party that is gonna kill you fucking vermin one day for what you did and you keep doing it you fucking cunts lol, the ICP has it all documented, you're all fucked, and the trotskyists who are mostly liberals have a thing or two to say about you and the rest of the great men who don't like your anti communist social democrat national socialist opportunist.
He killed TUKHACHEVSKY FOR NO REASON, TUKHACHEVSKY WAS GOOD.
NO REASON. FORCED CONFESSIONS. NAZI.
You are worshipping a nazi dictator who took over the party LOL. And KOBA DIDN'T DESERVE IT, HE DID NOTHING WRONG. THERE ARE BILLIONS OF NON-CIA NON-WEST TRUTH SOURCES OF COMMUNISTS WHO SAY YOU SUCK. YOU SUCK SO MUCH.
But whatever, its already been done, next time we kill you nazi scum.
>Bukharin who you guys never stop crying about was the one with the pro-peasant program (Lenin's).He was a NEPson or so, its like whatever, no need to MURDER HIM???
>The rate of industrial growth was far slower under the NEP than under collectivizationOne was inevitable after the other.
>>2419113>. The revolution was keep expanding under Stalin's leadership it just wasn't all at once.It was bourgeois national liberation with fake ass parties like Cuba's who only picked up the labels so they'd receive financial support from the USSR they didn't give a shit and they couldin't be taught anyway, what reminds of their dogshit parties is what we see now, they've either liberalized and kept the branding or thrown it all away as faggot Stalin's death marked the switch for commodity production and reintroduced market reforms.
>Socialism isn't communism it's just the transitionary stage after capitalism.MoP being commonly owned is not enough to call it "socialism", you can have them owned yet still have economic inequality from a lack of planning.
>>2416802>pissing his pantsThis was a slander by Khrushevites, as well as a fake memory of him giving orders "on the globe". The security journal of all people entering and leaving Stalin's residency was published, and memoirs such as this did not pass the fact check.
Also, the famous memoirs of Sudoplatov (about special services assassinating the likes of Trotsky and Bandera) didn't pass this check either i.e. Sudoplatov was lying as well
>>2419114>the evil great man killed the good guys because he was paranoidOkay now tell me how that's different than crying about Tambov and Kronstadt. He killed all sorts of people with all sorts of beliefs in the purges btw. The idea that the Old Bolsheviks were all solidly united around Bordiga thought until Stalin killed them all is so funny. Completely obvious you don't read shit besides Italian blog posts.
>traitor bastards>cocksuckers You're on the internet not in the politburo and you are talking to a singular person right now.
>we have the biggest party…the ICPAs always, lapse into irony so you don't have to earnestly defend the utter retardation that is left communism.
>>2419139He wasn't responsible for Katyn or "holodomor" though, ukrainian nazis have been WAAAA WAAA crying for so long WAAA WAA liberal tears WAAA WAA "THEY BE STARVIN US" "WE BE CANNIBALIZING" LOL
they do this, even though they weren't special cause it was mass famines
also the nazi nazis (not the stalin nazis) did katyn
>>2419117>MoP being commonly owned is not enough to call it "socialism"Workers owning the MoP actually is the most commonly used definition.
>yet still have economic inequality from a lack of planning.100% agree. Stalin should have pushed for his anti-market reforms before he died but he died before he could so that's that. Khrushchev made it worse by actively pushing for markets though.
>>2419142>pile of contradictions called StalinismMost people who support Stalin are not "Stalinists" and can acknowledge he wasn't perfect while criticizing his flaws. This isn't contradictory at all. You just believe liberal propaganda about his "personality cult" and think that applies to all supporters.
>>2419190you are a lying shitdrinker
>>2419192or have committed to helping the proletariat of all nations, which he would only do after heavy convincing
>>2419222he did not use his power as the capital of the world revolution to spread itself as far as possible
>>2419209he wouldn't have even needed to do that, had he even committed to launching revolutions in a country like afghanistan, china, etc, he would have been able to consolidate revolutionary control, but he instead committed to nationalism and SIOC
>>2419229>backed the nationalists against the communistsWhen? The Soviets pressured the CPC into a united front with the KMT twice. The first time was in 1924 before Stalin was even in control of the party and the united front policy in China was supported by Lenin btw. And then in the mid 40s Stalin signed agreements with the KMT government about respecting their sovereignty as long as they respected Soviet concessions in Manchuria, which rightly pissed off the CPC. There was no point at which Stalin was arming the KMT against the CPC though and when the postwar peace talks failed to slow down the civil war Stalin did help the CPC take Manchuria.
And again you guys consider the CPC falsifiers after 1927 at best anyway so what was at risk in the case of the second united front or sino-soviet treaty?
>>2419224>he did not use his power as the capital of the world revolution to spread itself as far as possibleSure he was overly cautious and tried playing power politics with the west on their terms, but a betrayal? That just him worrying everything could be lost if they overplayed their hand. I also criticize him for this over caution when dealing with the west but considering they were always in the lesser position compared to capitalist powers it's understandable.
However look at Mao and his Great Leap Forward and people like Pol Pot. Those show clear examples of policies not working and leading to failure when you throw caution to the wind and just try for revolution.
Also considering Khrushchev doubled down on the western appeasement and Gorbachev gave up everything it's strange you don't attack them with as much enthusiasm…
>>2419237>And again you guys consider the CPC falsifiers after 1927 at best anyway so what was at risk in the case of the second united front or sino-soviet treaty?i'm willing to concede it for even a shitty bourgeois national revolution, because i'd rather that infinitely over the alternatives at the time
>>2419245stalin and krushchev are barely different at best, and gorbachev is the result of that cancerous ideology in stalin, all of them were appeasers rather than warriors of an international revolution, which certainly could be wielded
>>2419263>stalin and krushchev are barely different at best,Except for all the differences in policy aka the Khrushchev Thaw
>gorbachev is the result of that cancerous ideology in stalinCome on, we all know Stalin would never enact a glasnost policy like Gorbachev.
>all of them were appeasers rather than warriors of an international revolutionConsidering the entire cold war was because of Stalin and the eastern block he created was funding communists around the world, I would say you are objectively wrong. Seriously you can't complain about them supporting "bourgeois national revolution" when they explicitly claimed to be communist and then say they did nothing to help communism. At most you are saying they kept betting on the wrong horses, not that they did nothing.
>>2419263>>2419277>gorbachev is the result of that cancerous ideology in stalinNo. Gorbachev is the result of Khrushchev's secret speech.
>Come on, we all know Stalin would never enact a glasnost policy like Gorbachev. Yep. Stalin would have never wage a propaganda war against the state's own ideology like Gorbachev and Yakovlev did.
>>2419277>Come on, we all know Stalin would never enact a glasnost policy like Gorbachev. as in due to him creating a bureaucracy he laid the groundwork for someone like gorbachev, you can already see it in krushchev
>Except for all the differences in policy aka the Khrushchev Thawthe differences are far smaller, stalin considered krushchev his greatest follower, and likewise stalin would have made nearly most of the same decisions either way, like in '56, like in the cuban missile crisis, congo crisis, etc
>Considering the entire cold war was because of Stalin and the eastern block he created was funding communists around the world, I would say you are objectively wrong. Seriously you can't complain about them supporting "bourgeois national revolution" when they explicitly claimed to be communist and then say they did nothing to help communism. At most you are saying they kept betting on the wrong horses, not that they did nothing.let's not forget he left the greek communists for dead, told the italian communists to collaborate with the italian bourgeois state, left the spanish to die, left the various middle eastern communists to die, and you name it, the soviet union hardly did as much as it could have, given what it had
>>2419364>due to him creating a bureaucracy he laid the groundwork for someone like gorbachevI have literally never seen a Trot give a coherent answer to the question of how a socialist state is even possible without a bureaucracy. It seems like a critique that should logically lead to anarchism. The best you can do if you support the party form and think there needs to be a transitional state is try to reduce the extent to which the bureaucracy is cut off from the workers.
Which Stalin did do. Part of the function of the purges, intentional or not, is that they cleared out so many old cadres and Tsarist era experts that there were a ton of empty positions to be filled by new cadres from worker and peasant backgrounds. Which is part of what made the purges so severe, it was in the interests of the lower level cadres not just to cooperate but to prolong and intensify the purging. There were some conscious efforts at bringing even more workers into the bureaucracy after the war too, he expanded the Politburo for example. It's not the Cultural Revolution but you can't say he wasn't concerned about it.
>>2419373shitdrinker
>>2419397>>2419397>I have literally never seen a Trot give a coherent answer to the question of how a socialist state is even possible without a bureaucracy.i am not a trotskyist and neither do even trotskyists think this, you're misunderstanding the argument, and it's pretty simple, a bureaucracy of party members form, these party members have no real interest in the emancipation of the proletariat, these bureaucrats are needed in high number to run the state and manage it, therefore a revolutionary project transforms into a party-state rather than something that exists explicitly to abolish class society (and thus the state), like a mass party, and you mentioning that he did bring workers in is sort of a moot point, if there was no real element of the proletariat in that government
>>2419411the UN didn't stop most of the actions you decry, neither can it, but the UN allows for those actions to be legitimized, and by creating the UN in such a way where it's even easier to justify mass slaughter of (mostly) workers, then he did nothing but give them their best tool
>>2419397>I have literally never seen a Trot give a coherent answer to the question of how a socialist state is even possible without a bureaucracy. It seems like a critique that should logically lead to anarchism.Because Trotskyism was only a genuine (albeit opportunist) line in the workers movement in the 1920s.
By the 1930s it was exclusively a tool of foreign intelligence circles and it never stopped being so
Earlier, the bourgeoisie, as the heads of nations, were for the rights and independence of nations and put that "above all." Now there is no trace left of this "national principle." Now the bourgeoisie sell the rights and independence of their nations for dollars. The banner of national independence and national sovereignty has been thrown overboard. Without doubt, you, the representatives of the communist and democratic parties must raise this banner and carry it forward if you want to be patriots of your countries, if you want to be the leading powers of the nations. There is nobody else to raise it. (Stormy applause.)
That is how matters stand at present.
It is understood that all these circumstances must ease the work of the communist and democratic parties that are not yet in power.
Consequently, there is every ground for the success and victory of the fraternal parties in the lands of capitalist rule. (Stormy applause.)
Long live our fraternal parties! (Prolonged applause.)
Long life and health to the leaders of the fraternal parties! (Prolonged applause.)
Long live the peace between the peoples!
(Prolonged applause.)
Down with the arsonists of war! (Everyone stood up. Stormy, prolonged applause that became an ovation. There were shouts of "Long live Comrade Stalin!" "Long live the great leader of the working people of the world, Comrade Stalin!" "The, great Stalin!" "Long live peace between the peoples!")
(Speech at the 19th Party Congress of the C.P.S.U., Dietz Press, Berlin 1952, Pp. 5 - 15)
>>2416802>except maybe pissing his pants when the Nazis invadedGenuinely incredible how so-called "defenders" of Stalin's legacy, when asked about his mistakes, will regurgitate the most liberal "critiques" imaginable. There are very good critiques to be made of Stalin, some of which Stalin himself made. For example, from a meeting in 1948 he self-criticized over bad advice to the Chinese:
>"… when the war with Japan ended, we invited the Chinese comrades to agree on a means of reaching a modus vivendi with Chiang Kai-shek. They agreed with us in word, but in deed they did it their own way when they got home: they mustered their forces and struck. It has been shown that they were right, and we were not."The Chinese revolutionaries, for their part, took great pains in upholding and defending the legacy of Stalin while maintaining principled critiques throughout their revolutionary period (the "criticisms" of revisionist China today are largely liberalism, indistinguishable from their criticisms of Mao). This is the most important and principled approach because, as the Guyanese Comrade Walter Rodney put it in his investigation of the Russian Revolution:
>It is easier to counter the distorted implications of bourgeois writings if one recognizes where major errors were committed in the process of Soviet transformation.Of particular importance was that the USSR under Stalin largely abandoned the mass line and took a top-down approach to industrialization that left much to be desired in the countryside. Dissent was framed one-sidedly as undermining the revolution when much of it stemmed from a bottom-up lack of understanding of certain top-down directives that could have been resolved through mass engagement and dialogue. The abandonment of the mass line is of particular historical importance, as it left the Soviet people ill-equipped to identify and challenge revisionist mis-leadership after Stalin's death. It's telling that when it comes time to critique the Party's relationship with the masses under Stalin's leadership, post-Stalin Soviet historiography is largely self-serving and contradictory. Rodney points out:
>It is impossible to blame Stalin and a few other individuals, while concluding that the Communist Party was all the while correctly leading the Soviet people. This contradiction is blatantly brought out in the pages of A Short History of the USSR. On page 178, the authors explain that socialism had triumphed in Russia by 1938, “ensured by the correct leadership given by the Communist Party, which organized and inspired all the victories of socialism.”… Two pages later, they denounce Stalin for having “flagrantly infringed upon socialist legality” by removing party authority over the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs and “placing it under his own control.”… He continued to do so in spite of the Constitution of 1936. If Stalin could so easily and undemocratically undermine the party’s authority, how could the party have been offering correct leadership from 1934 to 1938?Rodney, consistent with his earlier statement and the criticisms of the Chinese comrades, takes pains to provide principled critique while in the main defending Stalin's legacy. Among other criticisms, he points out that:
>Ideological standards dropped, accelerated by the elimination of the Bolshevik old guard of the pre-1917 era. By 1936, Stalin was the only one left in Russia from that original group. Committed and mature Marxists were replaced by a generation of opportunists and sycophants who often made up for their lack of socialist insights by their zeal in persecuting people whom they defined as enemies of the people. Lenin had warned against such types and had kept them under control. But under Stalin they were appointed to the very highest positions. One such ideological illiterate was Beria, who became the powerful chief of police.But in the very next paragraphs he makes sure to emphasize that:
>While it is true that certain critics were suppressed without regard to their rights, it is equally true that many critics were hostile to the regime and were engaged in undermining the state. The Soviet experience demonstrated the various ways in which counterrevolution could manifest itself in modern socialist society. It was not just the person who aimed at killing a party official who was dangerous, but also the economic saboteur, who tried to undermine economic administration by black market practices or by deliberately slowing down production. To root out such individuals required an extension of the secret police machinery. It was certainly abused, but it was a necessity in a period when the internal enemy had not yet been crushed and was receiving aid from the capitalist powers and external organizations.>Fascism is a product of capitalism in crisis. It was an attempt to rescue the essence of the capitalist exploitative system while pretending to be representative of all interests, such as those of the working class, the bourgeoisie, and the church…. a large number of Germans voluntarily relinquished their own power into the hands of the small clique who were to carry out the enslavement of non-German people. In the process, a dictatorship arose — that is, a government that ruled by no sanction other than the principle of force — such as was never remotely true of the Soviet regime.>A ruler in the final analysis is as good or as bad as the society he represents… From a socialist perspective, much can be said by way of adverse criticism of the political process of building socialism in the Soviet Union. But in the end, the balance is in favor of the positive elements. There was an enlargement of freedom in the Soviet Union after 1917 because real freedom is a function of cultural and economic equality…. Soviet society went a long way toward economic equality guaranteed by education. In this way, it proved itself superior to capitalism and fascism, which are premised on inequality.This demonstrates an overall principled approach to analyzing the legacy of Stalin and the Russian Revolution he helped lead. A far cry from flaccid liberal "criticism" and blatantly revisionist statements like "Stalin did nothing wrong" (in this case both in the same post!). I assume you think of yourself as some kind of Marxist. Whether you actually are one will be determined by how you correct your own bullshit and improve your practice. Do better.
>>2419884Non stalinists aren't communists.
so stalin did nothing wrong, worshipping Pinochet wont change that liberal.
>>2419926Stalinists aren't communists, they're anti-communist liberals.
You're a liberal anti-communist.
>>2419928Stalinists are the only true communists, all other are utopian academicists liberal sympatisers with communism
you are a utopian academicists liberal sympatisers with communism
>>2419975>autodetermination AKA autonomism lmao
go back to CHAZ liberal
>>2420003Islamic """resistance""" only had weaponry because the USSR gave them so, the birth of israel was a given once, USSR support was an mistaken gamble believing non MLs(Liberal utopists) in the government would strive to make it socialist, yet they became the left wing of capital like they do in every corner of earth.
>>2420004all MLism is Stalinist, as pointed by liberal utopists above.
>>2420053>stalin hecking create israel.creating israel was made by voting, Stalin's Vooot was irrelevant, Now eletoralism is real ?, a true believer of bourgeos democracy i see.
>USSR-Israel relations were promoted.only during their support for the Utopian liberals, after that Relations got ruptured and he go branded as a anti-semite hunting jewish doctors by israe.
>>2420086Complete delusions, as show that the praticality of Stalin enabled the USSR to become strong enough to deter a central nation on capital attacking it, influential enough to bring the revolution outside its frontiers and advanced enough that capitalists nations where fearfull for their lives, no capitalist nation fear a correct line made by a bumfuck party on the backwoods, but moved the earth to separate the USSR from the rest of the world through a sanitary cord.
Support for the cause of struggle to the highest stage of capital, imperialism is a given, as show for the support for palestine, an Non-socialis, Non-Communist Natlib movement
You can do empty remarks as an utopian liberal sympatiser but the results are real, not theoretical.
>>2420115Marxism, in the only valid sense of the word, is faced today by three main groups of adversaries. First group: those bourgeois who claim that the mercantile capitalist type of economy is the ultimate one, that its historical overcoming by the socialist mode of production is a false perspective, and who, very consistently, completely reject the entire doctrine of economic determinism and class struggle. Second group: the so-called Stalinist communists, who claim to accept Marxist historical and economic doctrines even though putting forward demands (in the advanced capitalist countries too) which are not revolutionary but identical to, if not worse than, the politics (democracy) and economics (popular progressivism) of the traditional reformists. Third group: the professed followers of the revolutionary doctrine and method who however attribute its present abandonment by the proletarian majority to initial defects and deficiencies in the theory; which needs, therefore, to be corrected and updated.
Negators – falsifiers – modernizers. We fight all three, but today consider the modernizers to be the worst.
>>2420091Dude if you don't have an argument you can just concede.
I just stated the fact that the central committee unanimously rejected stalin's resignation after the testament was dropped. And it's not like you can make the argument that stalin had already garnered complete control of the party at that point either, it's literally right after lenin died lol. You're just coping
>>2420133Nobody cares
You gonna address how trotsky didn't vote to kick stalin out of his position when he had the chance?
>>2420117and this fight is made by being completely revisionist on history for validation of political lines thus not materialist, revisionist on theory for picking and choosing over the totality of marx to Lenin down to deny effective imperialism over the proletariat to make the Party Line idealised and not constructed, and being Revisionist in the complete denial of indentifying proletarians imediate revolutionary needs.
Utopian-Liberal socialism, not even once.
>>2420148<It is said that in that "will" Comrade Lenin suggested to the congress that in view of Stalin's "rudeness" it should consider the question of putting another comrade in Stalin's place as General Secretary. That is quite true. Yes, comrades, I am rude to those who grossly and perfidiously wreck and split the Party. I have never concealed this and do not conceal it now. Perhaps some mildness is needed in the treatment of splitters, but I am a bad hand at that. At the very first meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee after the Thirteenth Congress I asked the plenum of the Central Committee to release me from my duties as General Secretary. The congress itself discussed this question. It was discussed by each delegation separately, and all the delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, obliged Stalin to remain at his post.
<What could I do? Desert my post? That is not in my nature; I have never deserted any post, and I have no right to do so, for that would be desertion. As I have already said before, I am not a free agent, and when the Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey.
<A year later I again put in a request to the plenum to release me, but I was again obliged to remain at my post.
<What else could I do?
<As regards publishing the "will," the congress decided not to publish it, since it was addressed to the congress and was not intended for publication.Keep coping bro :)
>>2420162Incorrect again, he was the only real holder of Lenin.
Still, even if he was, this does not excuse the Revisionism commited by the Utopian-Liberal Sympatisers, being closer to what Kautsky did but with obsession with correctness to the point of revisionism instead of democracy, kinda like Hoxha with Stalin as you show.
>>2420182>the Purge was in open support by the ProletariatIf lead by false consciousness, easy enough with Stalin hogging up the party.
>Being a communist before the revolution isn't a green card for your continuous participation on the vanguard.Yet being a menshevik is according to Stalin.
>>2420186>If lead by false consciousness, easy enough with Stalin hogging up the party.They aren't false for not following your personal desired line, the purges happened under lenin, and happened under stalin, many of the targets were pointed by the working class or by Old bolsheviks themselves, will or nill, denial wonth change that, Old bolsheviks or not.
>Yet being a menshevik is according to Stalin.Like Trotsky and great majority of his line got Purged ?, if that's the case then Lenin in itself was building false counciousness for letting Them in in the first place.
>>2420190>In England, France, and Belgium, where the bourgeoisie rules, the communists still have a common interest with the various democratic parties, an interest which is all the greater the more closely the socialistic measures they champion approach the aims of the communists – that is, the more clearly and definitely they represent the interests of the proletariat and the more they depend on the proletariat for support. In England, for example, the working-class Chartists are infinitely closer to the communists than the democratic petty bourgeoisie or the so-called Radicals.
>In America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the communists must make the common cause with the party which will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in the interests of the proletariat – that is, with the agrarian National Reformers.
>In Switzerland, the Radicals, though a very mixed party, are the only group with which the communists can co-operate, and, among these Radicals, the Vaudois and Genevese are the most advanced.
>In Germany, finally, the decisive struggle now on the order of the day is that between the bourgeoisie and the absolute monarchy. Since the communists cannot enter upon the decisive struggle between themselves and the bourgeoisie until the bourgeoisie is in power, it follows that it is in the interest of the communists to help the bourgeoisie to power as soon as possible in order the sooner to be able to overthrow it. Against the governments, therefore, the communists must continually support the radical liberal party, taking care to avoid the self-deceptions of the bourgeoisie and not fall for the enticing promises of benefits which a victory for the bourgeoisie would allegedly bring to the proletariat.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm#6.1is this included in your "invariant" line?
look at this thread for the past hour and tell me this isnt a raid and mindless attempt at shitflinging with no regard for post quality
it starts here
>>2419884>>2419078>"revolution in one nation"it was called socialism in one country and it was not a goal in and of itself but a policy that arose out of geopolitical necessity after the failure of the german revolution to happen in 1919 and the isolation of the USSR in a capitalist world.
This is what the USSR had to deal with between WW1 and Stalin's death:
<WW1 leaves Russia less developed than it was before WW1<there is 2 revolutions in 1 years<bolsheviks take power<civil war where western powers invade with a coalition of 14 countries<country is now even more fucked<need to do things like "war communism" and "NEP" just to stay afloat<german revolution fails<internal power struggle in the party all through the 20s<rapid industrialization and purges through the 30s<climate-caused famine in ukraine which gets called a man made famine by bourgeois propagandists<purges of military officials just before nazi germany invades<operation barbarossa almost reaches moscow and kills hundreds of thousands<win WW2 but come out of it a lot weaker<Western capitalists put up iron curtain but blame you for it<capitalist ailgned countries get that juicy marshall plan money but you have to refuse it because it comes with strings attached (like privatization) >>2425563Stalin above, are we doing this again?
In scientific socialism, the socialism of the kind you are using as a definitional standard is
known to be theoretically impossible without a one world government and, therefore, is thus an aspirational term when applied to People's Republics and other Proletarian Dictatorships
Like even trots know this one because despite their deviation they are still communists
Why don't you know the basics of the science you are critiquing?
>>2425559>formeri agree, now they are Utopian liberal marxists, their entire theory is anti-ML(Communist)
Stay mad liberal.
>>2425577>Come on in scientific socialism we know by materialist analysis the USSR fundamentally could not fulfill the requirements to achieve a socialist society, therefore we need to call their failure socialism firstly based on the beliefs and desires of its founders, secondly because it makes us feel good, third because we don’t want to hurt the feelings of hypothetical people from other countriesWe’re in agreement aside from the idealism part where states = their ideals
>>2425594No, the highest of idealisms is to look at the actual material life of a society and then determining its nature on the basis of its professed ideals, which is exactly what MLs do
MLs are a perfect example of why Marxism is and must be fundamentally opposed to ideology, since only ideology can lead a person to explain why a society could not achieve socialism to explain why it was an admirable example of socialism to be revered and “followed”
>>2425622Theories are often disproved by applied science so I have high hopes for the People's Republic of China, and their win win, harmonise and drag forward the world economy; this is within wriggle room of possibility of the theory even, high hopes here
Their rapidly increasing technological advantage, and the raising of 700 million out of absolute poverty also proves scientific socialism
Then we can continue on with the high cultural development and active and successful protest culture of the Chinese people, where unlike in bourgeois dictatorships the will of the people is not ignored
What are your hopes, or fears if you have no hope?
Unique IPs: 72