[ 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


File: 1754334351753.jpg (30.26 KB, 250x333, Stalin_in_exile_1915.jpg)

 

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

here ya go anon. much better than furrs slop

Stalin was a liberal, just liberals can still be progressive because dengism, so Stalin was progressive.

>>2416802
Israel

>>2416964
epstein.

>>2416802
Growing up is indeed realizing national socialism is the only viable socialism, thanks again Uncle Joe!

- This has been a certified Hitler classic

>Stalin was right

Right a being a retarded

File: 1754355027287.mp4 (17.9 MB, 854x480, stalin theme.mp4)

>>2416802
>except maybe pissing his pants when the Nazis invaded and giving bad military orders
not even that really, he was pretty competent (and far from alone handling the military), but he didnt have godlike powers (sadly)

>>2416802
Adulthood is growing beyond the need to make father figures of strangers

>>2417245
funny since stalin actually wrote a (very mid & contradicting lenin) article against "nationalist-socialists." i think its called "on nationality" or something but someone please correct me idt thats right

File: 1754377581364.png (1.85 MB, 1124x1364, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2416802
>except maybe pissing his pants when the Nazis invaded

File: 1754377622034.png (399.58 KB, 769x582, ClipboardImage.png)


>>2417586
is that the one where he says national socialist are neither nationalists or socialists ?


I'm personally not too fond of his ethnic deportation policies after WW2, but he was right about most things yes, especially considering the information available to him at the time. There's a good reason he's smeared more than pretty much any historical figure and he's a good benchmark for people's ideologies. Anyone that's still bitching about him is either a lib, an anticommunist, east euroid nationalist, Nazi or all of the above

>>2416802
>Zionists fuck off
Do NOT google Stalin + Israel

File: 1754393765517.jpeg (10.78 KB, 201x251, image.jpeg)

>>2417732
people at the time didn't have a crystal ball. For example, the CIA backed Nasser and his Free Officers, because the british supported the monarchy and the embarrassingly obese and inept king of Egypt, and thought they would be better administrators. They didn't know nasser was going to turn on the imperialists.

>>2417732
Early Israel was more socialist (kibbutz)
Modern Israel is a chud abomination.

>>2417734
>>2417736
Irrelevant. Expelling and mass murdering palestinians to create an ethnostate for european jews was wrong at the time regardless of future outcomes. Doesn't matter if that settler-colony would end up becoming a Soviet sattelite state or not.

>>2416802
Objectively correct take, anyone that disagrees is a revisionist libshit retard or nazi

>>2417742
stalin was THE deporter already, there genuinely can be no restitution under international law partly because of the mass deportation of germans from 1945-50s or so

>>2417742
>Nationalism can be useful to socialism
<Noooo not like that
MLs have no consistency nor spine. Wait until you learn how Stalin moved ethnicities cause they were "inherently fascist". The nation-builder Stalin had no consideration for socialism in Spain, Greece and Palestine. Now we deal with the consequence of communism being asociated with a retard socdem regime.

>>2417747
and that stuff allowed for other capitalist nations to justify mass deportations, was the mass deportation of germans and various other ethnic groups "justified"? 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

>>2417747
MLs 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 deportations
Yeh 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 for

Retard

>>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

>Retard
what 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 atrocities


Completely 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

>>2416874
Mandatory

>>2417794
>Such deportations had happened before many times even much more violent and genocidal than the soviet example
in the recent period? hardly, and yes the soviets paved the way for these sorts of things, do you not know of their influence in the UN? and denying the capitalist nature of the USSR just proves you are an ignorant bastard at best, there is hardly anything "retarded" about acknowledging the fact that in part the ussr paved way for mass ethnic cleansings like the nakba, 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 similar

Stalin is responsible for the death of millions of Soviet citizens, as he supplied the German military for two whole years, allowing them to invade the USSR, all the while self-sabotaging the defense of country.
He is legitimately not a good leader, one only larpers and retards look up to, and act as a scarecrow to anyone who could be interested in Communism. Socialists should learn about him to avoid repeating is many mistakes, as we did with the 1848 revolutions, and the Paris commune.

>>2416874
thanks

>>2417828
Stalin 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.

>>2417824
They 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 UN

Show 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 similar

You 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


>>2417919
This 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.

>>2417763
> MLs don't bring up the Stalin israel connection, for obvious reasons
Because it makes them look like vile retards?

>>2417824
its not often one witness such aggressively retarded post

>>2417984
i do not like stalinism, or mass deportations

>>2417980
Why would you give ammunition to your opps?

File: 1754409764231.png (7.44 KB, 261x193, ClipboardImage.png)

You did not have to do it Koba
We could have taken the revolution from Kamchatka to Lisbon
Why did you send me to the gallows

>>2417953
yes i know thats why i put "nationalist-socialists" in quotations to indicate it was a differentiated from nazis, didnt mean them as scare quotes. i was responding to that other anon to say that even if you could reasonably accuse stalin of tacitly supporting great-russian chauvinism in a few ways, he had an explicitly outlined ideological line & personal attitude towards nationalism that was clearly incomparable to nazis

File: 1754411510119.png (162.62 KB, 542x651, ClipboardImage.png)

If you had listened Koba a million or more soviets would have lived
Why didn't you listen Koba

>>2418052
But 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

Stalin betrayed le communism. Read letters to stalin

>>2418087
how he betrayed le communism if he's le communism biggest and most effective fighter for le communism.

>>2418134
He wasnt

>>2418157
trots mad that stalin was the biggest trotskyist

>>2418157
*was.
fixed for you trotfriend.

>>2417988
nobody cares what you like, what spite my eyes is seeing such pathetically stupid and childish analysis posted seriously here

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.

>>2416874
Lmao this is what Losurdo thinks of Furrs work you cuckfag

>>2418594
excellent post anon

>>2418611
Show me the source of the full quote

>>2417588
I really, really, really like this image.
source? I will be using it


If even right wingers can forgive Stalin, maybe you should too.

>>2418619
it 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.html
here 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.

>>2418611
i didnt say losurdo dislikes furr, i said i dislike furr and prefer losurdo. chill out. with furr its not even necessarily his scholarship its that his style of reasoning is just goofy and unconvincing, he acts like stalins lawyer where losurdo even when he's trying to be persuasive writes like a historian. i dont hate the man i just do not find his work very helpful

>>2418760
this is not the source of the full quote…

>>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

>>2418805
Thank you for sharing anon, a delightful read. Felt very french after you mentioned that

>>2418811
and to be clear i dont even know anything about their relationship with eachother, if one existed. losurdo speaking highly of furr is significant because i think highly of losurdo. i do admire the fact that furr has been so committed to standing up to anticommunists and has devoted his life to it. i just do not find his writings on stalin, which is all i have read, especially helpful for understanding the subject. i do retract calling it slop and that was a goofy exaggeration.

>>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 international
Okay 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 bureaucracy
And 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
>>2418838
ok, 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.

>>2418872
Furr teaches medieval literature.

>>2418874
So? he's still a professional historian

>>2418880
He doesn't have professional historian credentials

>>2418885
but he works professionally as a historian teaching medieval literature

>>2418768
>If the right wing of capital can forgive the left wing of capital, maybe you should too
This is exactly why you're not communists, you're succdem bastards and national socialists.


Unique IPs: 39

[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 ]