Why can't have of this website admit this guy was a hellspawn and had a very negative impact on communism's reputation abroad?
Not even his regressive social policies or endless sectarianism in regards to fragile socialist movements abroad is brought up
73 posts and 9 image replies omitted.>>2555973truth and nothing but truth
Some people just like authoritarian strong man types, and need big powerful figures to regulate life, other, like me, like freedom and be their own master not a bootlicker, but each to their own
>>2554986>muh authoritarian StalinUnserious
It is only Western “leftists” with a negative view of Stalin. And that is for the simple reason they aligned themselves with their national economic interest against the periphery proletariat. And deep down they know Stalin would have rightly purged them for bourgeois nationalism.
Daddy issues.
>>2557018What are you talking about?
>>2557018He is not trot he is bordigger
>>2556708Being “authoritarian” towards communists and the proletariat while you cut deals with the West and the Nazis is apparently worth worshipping to self-hating westoid leftoids
Wish I lived back in that grand era when the average western leftist wasn’t some self-loathing moralizing faggot that unironically wants to be shot for being born in the wrong country
>>2557020i have seen him trotposting
>>2557027You mean bordiggerposting
>>2557030Nah. Drugs are transhumanism. But i guess it dont matter for westoids since all westoids are pharmaceutically augmented transhumanists
>>2557030Here is the manifesto of Ending the WOD:
Fight against the WOD by ANY means necessary, the only principle to be had is that you must seek to organize and expand organization on the basis of being against the WOD. Unite and liberate drug producers and consumers.
Organizing is a process of physically getting a group of people together or coordinating different people from a distance to work together on given goals.
>>2557036Trvke, liberate Phillip Morris and Lygett and Myers. LEAVE THEM ALONE
>>2557033Anyone who is not dedicating their life for transhumanism is a reactionary. Anyone who opposes it is the biggest reactionary. It is a priority of everyone non-reactionary to defend themselves by murdering the biggest reactionaries and convincing the petite reactionaries to surrender.
>>2557038They didn't produce a thing. The producers can only ever be the workers, not the employers.
>>2557039Right, so most cis het moids then. I knew you was a traswahman
>>2557042Social liberty is bound with material liberty, and that freedom is ultimately a matter of expanding our capacity and opportunities to engage with the world around us.
This is why you're free to be a neo-luddite larper on the internet, but unable to do anything to stop technological progress ever. As long as people exist development will persist.
>>2557044You are a accelerationist reactionary who thinks capitalism will continue forever
Greatest man in the history of mankind. His only mistake not killing enough people.
>>2557044>he doesnt understand the causes of luddismYou know what? You are right, i am luddist in a sense
>le imperialist soldier poppin some feel good pills before killing periphery proles
>>2557055China's socialist synthetic drug commodities are not transhumanism though
>>2556264>to like freedom is like to supportcapitalism Only in the mind of a bootlicker that can't comprehend that some leftist aren't pro dictator or authoritariaism in general
>>2557060its called left-wing anti-communism
>>2557068no, it's called not being an opportunist who supports any bourgeois nation state with the title "socialist" in it somewhere
>>2555383>The Sino Soviet split, at least if you take Mao at his word, is actually explicitly over the USSR ditching the orthodox line of Stalin. The later Albanian faction and split from both *also* happened because of perceived divergence from Stalins Orthodoxy by both the USSR and China.I'm not sure, Mao and the Chinese communists would say stuff like that, but Mao privately criticized Stalin to Soviet officials after Stalin died, and then a lot more publicly in speeches and writings. He said Stalin didn't understand dialectics and had a one-sided way of thinking, and that you couldn't criticize or disagree with him. If you did that, you were deemed a counterrevolutionary and executed. If you disagreed with the USSR, you were automatically anti-Soviet. But the Chinese also didn't like how Khrushchev made Stalin out to be so terrible. That's actually an interesting thing to me. You couldn't criticize him when he was alive, and the Soviets built statues of him and names cities after him, and then tore those things down and renamed the cities after he died. It was either one way or the other.
Stalin also refused to believe in the idea that contradictions continue to exist in socialism. In the Stalinist view of things, things are either this way or that. The crux of the matter is that Mao criticized a view that you just need to focus on developing the forces of production (because you've assumed you already have an advanced social system / relations of production / i.e. socialism). This was a "revisionist" idea because in his view the socialist transition is a stage of revolution so you need continued struggle against continuing bourgeois influence in society and in the economic system.
They had other issues with Stalin. Like in "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR," it basically says nothing about the superstructure. It's not concerned with people, only things. Technology decides everything, the cadres decide everything, not the masses. "They speak only of the production relations, not of the superstructure nor politics, nor the role of the people. Communism cannot be reached unless there is a communist movement."
Also, I think a big reason for the Sino-Soviet split is that the Chinese felt the Soviets didn't treat them as equals.
>Nevertheless, despite some changes in views over the years—mostly, it seems, in a considerably more critical direction—there is still a more or less unified general critical evaluation of Stalin that Mao presents in most of these collected comments. These, we feel, are the main themes:
<While Stalin kept to a materialist stance in philosophy, his understanding and application of dialectics was much more uneven. He failed to recognize the centrality of the concept of contradiction in dialectics, and often failed to recognize the existence of important social and class contradictions.
<Specifically, Stalin failed to understand that even after the collectivization of agriculture class contradictions still existed in the countryside, and class struggle would continue there.
<And more generally, Stalin failed to recognize that even after the basic construction of socialism in the USSR, class struggle still continued, and the contradiction between the socialist and capitalist roads still continued—not only in society generally, but also within the Communist Party.
<Because of this lack of appreciation of the continuation of class struggle in socialist society, Stalin tended to reduce the threat of capitalist restoration within the USSR to just the possibility of armed attack by foreign imperialism (though that was indeed a legitimate and serious worry).
<Within the USSR, Stalin had a “paternalistic” approach toward the masses, and sought to change and run society for them, instead of using the mass line method of mobilizing the masses to change and run society for themselves. Stalin did not use the mass line either in politics or in economic work.
<Specific examples: Stalin failed to rely on the masses in suppressing counter-revolutionaries and enemy agents, instead relying almost entirely on the security agencies to do this. Similarly, Stalin failed to rely on the masses to ward off the danger of a general capitalist restoration. Even in economic work he tended in later years to rely more on cadres and technology than on the masses.
<Stalin confused contradictions among the people with the contradictions between the people and the enemy. Specifically, he unjustly imprisoned or executed a great many people.
<Within the Soviet Union, the CPSU and the International Communist Movement, Stalin insisted on complete obedience from everyone, and would brook no criticisms from anyone. He was suspicious and mistrustful of those whose complete obedience and total agreement he questioned.
<In his relations with other countries, including China, Stalin often acted as a “great nation chauvinist”, and even at times like an imperialist might act.
<Stalin promoted the construction of an inappropriate and metaphysical personality cult around himself as an individual. [This criticism is unfortunately somewhat ironic, given that Mao later did this as well!]
<In economics, Stalin seriously neglected agriculture and light industry, and put lopsided emphasis on heavy industry.
<Similarly, Stalin gave insufficient attention to raising the living standards of the masses (especially the peasants).
<Stalin seemed to be at a loss as to how to transform cooperative production in agriculture into state production, and how to transform the peasantry into agricultural workers.
<More generally, after the early transformations of industry and agriculture, Stalin seemed to resign himself to the continuation of the existing relations of production and did not try to further transform them in the direction of communism.
<Stalin did not show sufficient vigilance in the period before the German attack on the Soviet Union, and grossly miscalculated as to when that attack might occur. Nevertheless he did successfully lead the Soviet Union and the world in defeating Hitler.
<On the other hand, Stalin tended to be too frightened of the imperialist powers, way too cautious, and even attempted to prevent revolutions in other countries because he feared they might lead to the involvement of the USSR in a war. At several key points, he even tried to prevent the Chinese Revolution from proceeding.
<Stalin did not do a good job in training and preparing his successors. (This, alas, also turned out to be true of Mao.)
>If Mao had all these (and more) serious criticisms of Stalin, then why did he regularly repeat his “70% good, 30% bad” overall evaluation of the man? There seems to be two reasons: First, Stalin really did have some important positive aspects and really had led the Soviet Union to a number of important advances and victories. Among these were the massive and extremely rapid industrialization of the country; the completion of the socialization of industry; the collectivization of agriculture (though this was done in a very brutal way); and the victory over the horrendous attack by Nazi Germany (despite his lack of vigilance ahead of the German attack).
>Secondly, Mao felt that while Stalin should in fact be criticized for his errors, that it was wrong to “knock him off in one blow”. What exactly was he getting at here? Mao evidently felt that after such a long period of undiluted praise and glorification of Stalin and the Soviet Union while he was in charge, the sudden total denunciation of him and the exposure all at once of the many major problems, mistakes and even crimes during the Stalin period, would all lead to tremendous disorientation on the part of many communists and their supporters around the world. And this is in fact what happened. Many western parties, as Mao later noted, lost huge numbers of members and much of their influence in the aftermath of Khrushchev’s not-really-so-secret total denunciation of Stalin.
>Mao tended to emphasize praise and support for Stalin in his public statements, though he did openly acknowledge that Stalin had made some serious errors. This may have been so that people would have time to reorient themselves about the Stalin era and not lose heart because of Khrushchev's revelations. It was probably also due in part to the growing need to reaffirm Marxist principles and traditions in opposition to Khrushchev's ever-more-evident revisionism. On the other hand, at meetings with leading Party cadres, Mao's remarks tended to focus more on a variety of specific criticisms of Stalin, in philosophy, in political economy, with regard to Stalin's political leadership and his leadership of the international communist movement, and with regard to his attitude and behavior toward the Chinese revolution. While Mao still often repeated that Stalin should be upheld in the main, in these more private meetings most of his comments about Stalin were quite critical, and seem to have become more critical as time went on, partly in light of the unfolding experience of the Chinese revolution.https://massline.org/SingleSpark/Stalin/StalinMaoEval.htm >>2557165Good post and i fully agree. Hence the "if we take mao it his word".
My post was mostly aimed at challanging the vague and outright full rejection of an important historical figure in the movement, which often just indicates intellectual laziness and an increased risk of actually repeating the same mistakes because of refusing to engage in granular criticisms.
>hellspawn <negative impact on reputation liberal ideology Democrats always whine about "messaging" in their realpolitik public relations as the biggest problem facing the working class. "Stalin is a demonic satanist! His art zines are so uncouth!" lmao 😂
>>2557174>repeating the same mistakeseuphoric anti-Stalinist nazi settlers:
>"I'm a post-historical subject, my nu-bourgeois revolution is epic and based, I am beyond history, I'm modern and not like those ignorant people in the past"euphoric anti-Stalinist DSA settlers:
>(same soy redditor PMC ideology from the Elon Musk sci-fi fanclub who uses AI to manage their slaves exactly as IBM did during the holocaust, but now its a Jewish settler surveillance state of transgender drone programmers who insist they are anti-fascist) Unique IPs: 20