/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2772364
>He was also a friend of Stalin.
Bukharin was a fake friend. Humbert Droz memoir confirmed Bukharin was part of a real conspiratorial bloc to kill Stalin.

>>2772364
Don't bother, Bukharin is a topic that is impossible to discuss here. People will just throw retarded memoirs and doctored evidence at you and pretend like they are making an actual argument. Any discussion on Bukharin on leftypol always devolves into circular logic and brandolini's law.

If you would please consult the graph:

>and was admired by Lenin
Why are you lying
>>2772364
>>2772507
Is this a Trot circle-jerk attempt?

>>2772786
>but his theoretical views can be classified as fully Marxist only with great reserve, for there is something scholastic about him (he has never made a study of the dialectics, and, I think, never fully understood it).
>but his theoretical views can be classified as fully Marxist only with great reserve […] (he has never made a study of the dialectics, and, I think, never fully understood it).
Damn that's crazy. Wait 'til he hears about his love for kulaks during the rise of expansionist fascism where the revolution was supposed to secure our gains– oh wait Lenin died and it was Stalin that had to bear that bullshit
No Stalinist centrism, no post-war USSR.
No Stalinist centrism, no red 1/3rd of the globe by the '50s.
You are a capitulationist to petty bourgeois and bureaucrat-monopoly capitalist infiltration. You hate proletarian power.

>>2772813
I don't see how's that enough of a reason to kill a comrade that took part in the October revolution.

>>2772917
Yeah very convenient that every bolshevik somehow turned out to be a traitor in the end after remaning loyal during the october revolution and the civil war

Stalin was less a scheming closet reactionary traitor leftists try to portay him as and more of a retarded ultra on many occasions. Case in point with him ending the NEP.
Also people tend to forgot he mostly applied politburo consensus, he wasnt a mad god king coming up with bullshit just because.

>>2772813
>capitulationist
Lmao Bukharin was pushing for a revolution while Stalin was advocating for a bourgeois provisional government in 1917

Stalin initially voted to send Bukharin into internal exile, but the wider Party had wanted to execute him.

>>2772967
<speaking of late 20s-30s
>W-Whattabout 10s!?
Irrelevant non-sequitur demonstrating incomprehension of diamat; conditions were entirely different in the subsequent historical period. You think like a metaphysics-ridden radlib.

>>2772983
>Irrelevant
Sure bro, nothing important happened in 1917

>>2772985
You baby

>>2772967
pretty sure stalin was publicly agitating against the provisional government

>>2772364
>So why did he kill Bukharin?
You know there was a trial right? Stalin didn't just strangle this capitalist roader to death.

>>2772364

Dude, executed both Nikolai Bukharin and Yevgeni Preobrazhensky, two ends of marxist economics. Why he did that no idea but he was a madlad for sure.

>>2772699
The most exhausting thing to talk about is retarded beliefs of anticommunists into Soviets hiding millions of corpses, forced confessions, and what else insanity they can come up with

>>2772967
Bukharin pushed for a revolution? You mean, when he opposed removing socdems from leadership positions in trade unions and soviets?

>>2773267
As opposed to what? Stalin in the Petrograd trade unions? Tell me what job Stalin had in 1917? That's right he was a lumpenNEET.

>>2773141
Ovr eternal daddy just got bored of stupid marxoid incel shit. On this board we only approve of social democracy with authoritarian characteristics
>Let us now pass to the point that they want to introduce socialism in the countryside forthwith. Introducing socialism means abolishing commodity production, abolishing the money system, razing capitalism to its foundations and socialising all the means of production. The Socialist-Revolutionaries, however, want to leave all this intact and to socialise only the land, which is absolutely impossible. If commodity production remains intact, the land, too, will become a commodity and will come on to the market any day, and the "socialism" of the Socialist-Revolutionaries will be blown sky-high. Clearly, they want to introduce socialism within the framework of capitalism, which, of course, is inconceivable. That is exactly why it is said that the "socialism" of the Socialist-Revolutionaries is bourgeois socialism.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/03/x01.htm

<Certain comrades affirm that the Party acted wrongly in preserving commodity production after it had assumed power and nationalized the means of production in our country. They consider that the Party should have banished commodity production there and then. In this connection they cite Engels, who says:

<"With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer". These comrades are profoundly mistaken.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch03.htm

>>2773267
NTA but I (>>2772983) didn't know this, source?
I was more aware of that he flip-flopped from a ultraleft-communist line in early years of USSR (so immediately post 1917) to then later all the way over to right-wing revisionism before Stalin had to correct for it and repress his corrosive influence (late 20s).
You're saying he too, like Trotsky, had menshevik tactics right before Lenin swept in from Switzerland in the lead-up to October? Please comrade tell me you have a source. This would do wonders for criticism of Marcyism/PSL/WWP/CPI (Maupin) from another angle

One of the big mistakes of the USSR early on was not abolishing the death penalty.
The purges were clownworld shit, I'm as tankie as they come, but even those who asslick Beria and Stalin to the levels many do would have to admit they achieved zero fucking goal, since the moment Stalin kicked it, the USSR was taken over by Liberal non-communist Red Directors anyway and had the run of arguably the worst leadership of any country in history. Where as if Bukharin etc were all still alive, there is a very real chance the USSR would still be a superpower today. (The speech wouldn't even have happened likely)
Bukharin didn't deserve to die, pretty much all Boslehviks didn't, even Trotskytards. The vast majority of old Bolsheviks purged were purged for being true believers, thus outspoken, meanwhile self-interested non-ideological leftists knew how to play the game and not only survived the purges, but rose to the top and Politburo.
Bukharin's crime was basically being a loudmouth smartass. That's it. He literally did not even take his own trial seriously becaue he thought it was so absurd it had to be a joke. Did he deserve to die, absolutely not.

He didn't. The party did.

>>2773309
Absolute trvke bomb.

The hardest trvth for any ML to swallow is that the Left-SRs were correct in foreseeing that the application of the death penalty to political disputes would lead to the eventual destruction of the Soviet state since everyone would start lying to each other to avoid dying and intellectuals would be castrated and unable to solve problems because everyone would be too afraid to deviate from the party line. Notice how China allows even liberals to make an argument in internal party discussions, and is thus the most successful of all socialist states, while the more "hardline" states (Cuba, N. Korea) are stuck in economic stagnation. Also Trots are hypocritical bastards since they complain about being purged by Stalin but were happy purging any other faction back when Trotsky had significant influence. Trotskyist methods are the same as Stalinist methods.

>>2773309
>>2773324
Well it's a fucked up situation because how else do you deter traitors and 5th columnists from doing actual sabotage and then just chilling in prison waiting for the nazis to roll in and free them?

In fact, putting all the saboteurs in one place talking to each other seems like a recipe for another disaster

>>2773272
>Dude has a different opinion at age 73 than he did as a 27 year old
>This is supposed to be a gotcha
Why are ultroids like this?

>>2772936
have you ever looked at the french revolution main actors?
yes, most of them turned out to be super corrupt traitors of the people and killed the few honest ones (and many of each other for power too)

>>2773309
>>2773324
You have marketplace of ideas brain.

Not being a loudmouth under threat of manifest destiny 2.0 isn't cowardice or opportunism, it's just basic party discipline

The defining characteristic of Marxism-Leninism is opportunism, and executing political rivals directly undermines that. "Just follow Stalin's line forever" is not a reasonable political strategy in the long run. It necessarily leads to a Khrushchev-style break which leads to demoralization and passivity.

Imagine if Mao had executed Deng Xiaoping instead of merely purging him. The CPC would have had no political leg to stand on when it was time to open up to the West and adopt Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics. They would have probably collapsed like the USSR did.

>>2773382
>The CPC would have had no political leg to stand on when it was time to open up to the West and adopt Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics. They would have probably collapsed like the USSR did.

The USSR didn't "collapse", it was dissolved.

>>2773377
>Not being a loudmouth
Internal discussions can be kept private. Notice how China constantly has internal discussions which never leak and only put on a show for outsiders and strictly control their media to churn out bland generic talking points that give no indication as to what they truly think.
>Party discipline
The problem was Stalin went above and beyond and didn't just want party discipline, but also didn't want any internal debate at all hence his constant zig-zagging to build coalitions to oust opponents, and removal of anyone who questioned him until the very end when he died surrounded by complete sycophants incapable of leading the USSR to greatness since their daddy was gone.

>>2773360
If you're not a Marxist at 27, you are a bastard. If you're not a Lassallean at 73, you're an idiot.

>>2773391
I get your point wrt bukharin (stalin voted against his execution btw), but by that metric trotsky 100% deserved to die

Besides, he did actually plot an overthrow, no? That goes a bit beyond "internal critique".
But the fact that he did is kinda based ngl, compare to late soviet "hardliners" who did nothing.

If he thought internal struggle was impossible by that point, then fair enough. Then he knew what he signed up for, because he was a Communist and a Revolutionary.

Always ironic how the dude that did nothing important during 1917 ended up killing almost everyone who actually did something

The problem is that successful revolutions are extremely, unbelievably precious in how rarely they come about. Disagreements are always framed as the “other side is going to squander this once in a lifetime opportunity with their incorrect opinions, something has to be done before it’s too late!”, whether that’s killing the opposition or letting the enemy of your enemy become your friend.

The only real conundrum we have is that people tend to sympathise with the losing side who gets executed as being cynically silence for speaking some kind of truth, when the truth is that Stalin can’t order people who don’t agree with him to kill the opposition figures they do agree with. When people try to claim that Stalin could do this, we’re supposed to believe that one man can scare an entire political party into treachery and betrayal of themselves.

>>2773412
>invading poland
>dick around and do nothing

and this guy took power somehow, they should had hung him from the testicles for that

>>2773491
That was in 1919-1921 and his most notable contribution to the war effort was disobeying direct orders to march to Warsaw, instead deciding to dick around Lvov, which massively contributed to the RA losing the battle of Vistula, thereby cementing Poland as a reactionary stronghold

>>2773382
There were quite a few like Deng in China, and it's a really big country. Kind of hard to find no one when you have a billion people to choose from.
The crucial opening up happened between Mao and Nixon. That was when the "Cold War" was won, and Mao switched his loyalty (or rather could reveal what he wanted to do in the first place). You could have had anyone but the hardcore ultraleftists in charge and they'd do mostly as Deng did, and unlike Russia which had difficulty filling its ranks due to a bitter reproductive climate and losing a shit ton of people to the Germans, China has a billion people and didn't have a chronic Germanic cultural problem. I don't think any Chinese leader could be as feckless as Yeltsin.

>>2773273
i believe hes talking about the post-revolution dispute between Tomsky advocating independence for the unions and Lenin/Trotsky wanting them integrated into the state. though i dont remember what side Bukharin took in that dispute

>>2773393
what a weird strawman

>>2773397
yeah trotsky is a different issue entirely imo. not because the ridiculous narrative he ended up being accused of but because of his actual antics which were wildly reckless. he regularly broke demcent in the party by appealing to the public directly when he didnt get his way, he set up power structures answerable only to him in the rail unions, he slandered and antagonized others on the central committee for doing their job of disputing when they disagreed and keeping it within the CC

trotsky was genuinely a loose cannon

>>2773681
Lenin advocated for the autonomy of unions from the state while maintaining government control over their ideological character insofar as the spread of propaganda to the workers and the communist factions of the unions, intending to use them as schools of communism and thought that they would evolve to become state institutions over time as their tasks spread. At the same time, keeping them voluntary and nondiscriminatory on the basis of political opinion. Trotsky instead advocated for the militarization of labour and the total integration of unions into the state. I don't think Bukharin weighed in much except by somewhat supporting Trotsky's view, which I think he turned away from as the debate progressed.

>>2772364
>>2772936
>>2773309
Sentimentalist speech by a revisionist wanting to reconcile classes and deny the supremacy of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its right to spread revolutionary terror.

Let's look at the so-called myth of the ”Old Bolsheviks” and Stalin.

1. Who were the so-called ”Old Bolsheviks”?
   
   

According to the groups mentioned above, i.e. left-communists, Trotskyists, Anarchists and Right-Wingers the term ”Old Bolshevik” typically refers to people such as Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rykov etc.

They allege that these people represented ”real Bolshevism” and that Stalin killed them to implement his ”Stalinist distortion of Bolshevism”.

But what makes these people ”Old Bolsheviks”? Sure enough some of them such as Zinoviev were long standing members of the Bolshevik party, but is that all that we’re talking about? Zinoviev, Kamenev & co. had numerous disagreements with Lenin, the founder and leader of Bolshevism so can they truly be called Bolsheviks at all? Second of all, there are many people who were also longtime members of the Bolshevik Party yet they don’t get the same status of being called ”Old Bolsheviks”.

We can only conclude that the Right-Winger, Trotskyist and their ilk define ”Old Bolsheviks” merely as people who were killed by Stalin. That is their only qualification.

1. The Real Old Bolsheviks
   
   

Interestingly Right and ”Left” critics of Stalin don’t seem to consider the following group of people Old Bolsheviks despite the fact that they obviously were – or at least ignore them when arguing that ”Stalin killed the Old Bolsheviks”.

Note: The Bolshevik faction ”RSDLP(B)” emerged in 1903-1907. The RSDLP itself was founded in 1898.

Stalin (joined the RSDLP in 1899. Bolshevik as early as 1903)
Kalinin (joined the party in 1898. Bolshevik at least as early as 1905)
Voroshilov (joined the RSDLP(B) in 1903)
Orjonikidze (joined the RSDLP(B) in 1903)
Sverdlov (joined the RSDLP in 1902. Bolshevik as early as 1903)
Kuybyshev (joined the RSDLP(B) in 1904)
Kirov (joined the RSDLP(B) in 1905)
Molotov (joined the RSDLP(B) in 1906)
Kaganovich (joined the RSDLP(B) in 1911)

These people were not killed by Stalin, in fact they were his allies and I would argue much better Bolsheviks then Zinoviev & co. However for some reason they do not seem to count.

1. Were Zinoviev, Kamenev & Bukharin really such good Bolsheviks?
   
   

I think it can be demonstrated rather easily that Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Trotsky & co. were not particularly good Bolsheviks and for that reason calling them ”Old Bolsheviks” (that Stalin ’murdered’ to distort bolshevism) seems dubious.

Zinoviev & Kamenev:
Lenin himself wanted Z. & K. expelled from the Bolshevik party altogether due to their treachery on the eve of the October Revolution. Z. & K. opposed the revolution and criticized it in a bourgeois newspaper, thus revealing the Bolsheviks plan to overthrow the government to the class-enemy.

”When the full text of Kamenev’s and Zinoviev’s statement in the non-Party paper Novaya Zhizn was transmitted to me by telephone, I refused to believe it… I no longer consider either of them comrades and that I will fight with all my might, both in the Central Committee and at the Congress, to secure the expulsion of both of them from the Party… Let Mr. Zinoviev and Mr. Kamenev found their own party”
–LENIN, ”Letter to Bolshevik Party Members” (18th Oct. 1917)

Bukharin:
Despite being known as a Right-Winger for his views on economic policy, Bukharinists used to be thought of as a Left-Communist faction in the party. This is in the main due to their adventurism and opposition to the Brest-Litovsk peace-treaty.

Lenin slammed the actions of Bukharin & the ”Left”-communists in ”Peace or War?”

”…he who is against an immediate, even though extremely onerous peace, is endangering Soviet power.”

He also attacked Bukharin on the economic front in 1921 in his work ”Once Again On the Trade Unions: On the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin”.

Trotsky:
Mentioning Trotsky in this context is perhaps superfluous but I will do it for the sake of thoroughness. He joined the party only in 1917 and cannot be called an Old Bolshevik in any case. Initially he was a Menshevik (1903-1905), then a member of the ultra-opportunist August Bloc (1907-1913) which Lenin ridiculed, opponent of the Zimmerwald Left that Lenin supported (1914-1916) and finally the semi-Menshevik Mezhraiontsy which ceased to exist in 1917. His disagreements with Lenin are too numerous to mention.

He was a longtime enemy of Lenin prompting Lenin to refer to him as a ”Judas”, ”Swine”, ”Scoundrel”, “bureaucratic” helper of the liberal bourgeois and calling his theory of Permanent Revolution both ”absurd” and half-menshevik. Instead of providing quotations sources for the claims will be at the end or otherwise this section would be too lengthy.

Lenin also attacked Trotsky for his flip flopping on the Brest peace deal and his ridiculous economic policy & poor handling of the trade unions together with Bukharin.

1. The Bloc of Rights & Trotskyites
   
   

In 1921 at the 10th congress of the RCP Lenin argued for the banning of factional cliques in the Bolshevik party. This was accepted and factions were either expelled or they capitulated. However after his death various factional groups sprung up. In 1927 Trotsky, Zinoviev & Kamenev were expelled from the party for factionalism after organizing an anti-party demonstration, though Z & K. later capitulated to Stalin.

Trotsky was exiled from the USSR, while Zinoviev & Kamenev were marginalized. The Bukharinists also lost the debate against Stalin & the majority. By 1932 Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev & Bukharin had all lost their legitimate political power. Trotsky created a secret conspiratorial anti-soviet group which was joined by Z. & K. and later various Bukharinites. This group became known in the Soviet media as ”The Bloc of Rights & Trotskyites”.

This is the real reason for which these people were later arrested & executed. They wished to carry out destabilization against the Soviet government which was already worried about foreign Fascist invasions. All of this was denied by anti-soviet elements for decades but the discovery of various letters from Trotsky and his associates has proven it without a shadow of a doubt.


”…The proposal for a bloc seems to me to be completely acceptable.”
–Trotsky to Sedov

”The bloc is organised, it includes the Zinovievists, the Sten–Lominadze Group and the Trotskyists…”
–Sedov to Trotsky

” One fights repression by means of anonymity and conspiracy…”
–Trotsky to Sedov

”As far as the illegal organisation of the Bolshevik-Leninists in the USSR is concerned, only the first steps have been taken towards its re-organisation.”
–Trotsky (Dec. 16 1932)

Source: Library of Harvard College 13905c, 1010, 4782 quoted in Pierre Broué’s The “Bloc” of the Oppositions against Stalin

Whether or not you believe the actions of Trotsky & co. to be justified it is dishonest to claim they were framed or unjustly murdered for their so-called Bolshevism. They fought against the Soviet government and lost.

1. Conclusions: Will the Real Old Bolsheviks please Stand up?
   
   

Stalin did not in fact kill the Old Bolsheviks, he killed anti-Soviet renegades whose Bolshevik credentials were questionable at best. The real Old Bolsheviks were people like Kalinin and Voroshilov who supported Lenin since the beginning through thick and thin, not flip-flopping opportunists like Zinoviev who stabbed Lenin in the back when ever it was advantageous.

LENIN QUOTES ON TROTSKY:

”…Trotsky’s (the scoundrel… this swindler … pays lip-service to the Party and behaves worse than any other of the factionalists.”
–LENIN CW 34 p. 400 (1909)

”At the Plenary Meeting Judas Trotsky made a big show of fighting liquidationism…”
–LENIN ”Judas Trotsky’s Blush of Shame” (1911)

Trotsky… proclaiming his absurdly Left ‘permanent revolution’ theory.”
–LENIN ”Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity” (1914)

“Trotsky’s… theory has borrowed… from the Mensheviks…”
–LENIN ”On the Two Lines in the Revolution” (1915)

”The Bolsheviks helped the proletariat consciously to follow the first line… liberal bourgeoisie was the second… Trotsky is in fact helping the liberal-labour politicians in Russia…”
– LENIN, Ibid.

”What a swine this Trotsky is—Left phrases, and a bloc with the Right…”
–LENIN ”Letter to Alexandra Kollontai” (1917)

”It is Trotsky who is in “ideological confusion”… There you have an example of the real bureaucratic approach: Trotsky… Trotsky’s “theses” are politically harmful…”
–LENIN ”The Trade Unions, The Present Situation And Trotsky’s Mistakes” (1920)

”Comrade Trotsky is essentially wrong on all his new points… Trotsky and Bukharin have produced a hodgepodge of political mistakes”
–LENIN ”Once Again On The Trade Unions: The Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Buhkarin” (1921)

>>2774294
>This is the real reason for which these people were later arrested & executed. They wished to carry out destabilization against the Soviet government which was already worried about foreign Fascist invasions. All of this was denied by anti-soviet elements for decades but the discovery of various letters from Trotsky and his associates has proven it without a shadow of a doubt.
Never mind the quotemining, this is the root of the problem. You have to be lobotomized to think that in an already consolidated and peaceful government the presence of political opposition is itself insurrectionary. Secondly, have you thought about the fact that not everyone gives a shit about what the perfect shape of the Bolsheviks looks like and what Lenin thought about particular people? You wouldn't get away with citing any of these arguments outside of a Marxist-Leninist hugbox where quotes may be cited in talmudic debate over a canon of Great Men we are supposed to take for granted were correct about everything. Any political system designed with long term stability and adaptability in mind, nevermind socialism, has to accommodate and allow for disagreement with the mainstream political line and changes in course, as well as introduce checks for politicians, unless you deliberately want the kind of mass purges Stalin carried out.

>>2774172
that was at the height of the debate, but previously Lenin & Trotsky had been fully aligned on the issue and still had closer positions than any of the previous options. basically they won the initial trade union issue but when cracks started to show and Tomsky and the unions wanted to move more carefully, Trotsky doubled down and made a big public stink about the necessity of doubling down, while Lenin moderated his position and provisionally supported Tomskys side of things

>>2774313
Gulag this man.

>>2772364
Why do you care so much? Bukharin was a rightist who wanted to continue the NEP in perpetuity, would that have been better than SIOC? Ultras and Trots for some reason pick the guy Stalin was to the left of to whine about. Or is the point that purges are le bad? Which is just liberal moralism. They were unfortunate in many cases but what are you gonna do, that's revolution for you.

>>2774335
this is what spectrum brain does to your critical thinking skills. bukharin was "to the right" on the NEP at that time but he was still a communist, not a "rightist"

in any case he wasnt killed for wanting to continue the NEP. even if he was wrong about that, it was his job to voice and defend his opinion within the party about what he thought was the best direction. you can say everything about whats obviously correct working in hindsight a century later with no stakes and with a wildly simplified version of the events. they were trying to figure it out as it was happening. there had been far more contentious debates within the party before that and they argued and persuaded and switched sides as there were developments or they changed their mind.

bukharin was killed because he was accused of being part of a deep and extensive fascist plot to overthrow the soviet union. that was his alleged crime, not disagreeing about the NEP. if you think disagreement within the party regarding strategy and action is a crime you are nuts, do you think decisions were just made out of intuitive consensus?

>>2774313
>socialism, has to accommodate and allow for disagreement with the mainstream political line
Lmao fuck no. See what khruschev's, brezhnev's and gotbachev's "disagreements" with marxism-leninism led to

>unless you deliberately want the kind of mass purges Stalin carried out.
Yes.

>>2774335
Purges are le bad. There are no purges in a proper commie party

>>2772819
>you got off easy when they pickled that moose cock
i don't get this reference

>>2773324
>while the more "hardline" states (Cuba, N. Korea) are stuck in economic stagnation
because sanctions and embargoes from the burger reich, not because they were too meant to liberals and revisionists. your premise is unsupported.

LMAO!
Whatever you do, don't look into Bukharin's views on 'Austromarxism'…

>>2773324
>while the more "hardline" states (Cuba, N. Korea) are stuck in economic stagnation
Someone hasn't updated their analysis of the DPRK for the past decade…
Also yeah wonder why Cuba is in the particularly precarious situation it's in. Could only be about its domestic economic policy… Now Haiti, that's a proper regional liberal-republican nationalist example!

>>2774313
t. will be purged first

>>2774776
>>2774334
I love how stalinoids suddenly forget about democratic centralism. You guys just want another degenerate worker state.

>>2774782
Counterargument to what? What argument did he reply to?

>>2774791
Then install a text-to-speech application and use it on this thread, will help with accessibility issues with using text-oriented internet platforms like this

Friendly reminder that Stalin pacted with the nazis. Stalinoids love nazis

>>2774335
bukharin literally came up with sioc lmao

He should have been executed because he disagreed on the question of collectivization

>>2774832
dont be retarded. most of the rest of europe also signed non-aggression pacts with the nazis, and the soviets were the last to do so after trying to establish an anti-fascist pact with the western powers for years at that point

>>2773265
No, but he did have all the best revolutionary thinkers of the Bolshevik Central Committee liquidated. Or do you deny that the purges happened?

>>2775031
reminds me of this quote by kissinger

After the failure of the international revolution, it became increasingly harder for the Soviet Union to survive. So the people in charge of it eventually abandoned communism, and those opposed to such opportunism were killed.

It wasn't just a Stalin thing, the ruling class of USSR executed whatever communists were left.

Old buk. Well He wanted to keep social democrats in power which if in power would have collaborated with he Nazis and would have given hitler total victory . And it’s why you should never hold power because you are soft Hope that helps

>>2772786
Well, after reading that, it's obvious Bukharin had to be shot. It's just common sense.

I'm reading all of these posts and writing down names BTW.

>>2776022
comrade chudayakowsky is looking suspicious today, please kill him

>>2773684
Leftists suck at remaking right-wing memes.

>>2773393
>picrel
LMFAOOOO

>>2774604
Then you have a new problem: lack of new leaders able to take over once the current one dies

>>socialism, has to accommodate and allow for disagreement with the mainstream political line
>Lmao fuck no
Why are stalinoids like this? Truly the traitors of the revolution

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/may/20c.htm

>>2776544
Internal debate (science) =/= vague "disagreement"

By framing it in terms of "disagreement" and "opinion" you're sneaking in bourgeois ideology, where such disagreements are just expressions of particular class interests

>>2777606
jacobinistic drivel

>>2773309
>meanwhile self-interested non-ideological leftists knew how to play the game and not only survived the purges, but rose to the top and Politburo
They hated him because he told them the truth. Purges don't extinguish revisionism, they encourage it. It creates an environment that selects for people with no principles or convictions.

>>2774604
>See what khruschev's, brezhnev's and gotbachev's "disagreements" with marxism-leninism led to
Yeah and they used the repressive apparatus Stalin built to attack anti-revisionists, and used the same arguments about unity and party discipline to justify it.

>>2773309
>Bukharin's crime was basically being a loudmouth smartass. That's it.
Read the trial transcripts.
They were guilty of wrecking, murder, collusion with foreign fascist states, and embezzlement.

>>2774536
I think harping on the death of some people a century later is moralism and that it's very naive to get involved in revolutionary politics without realizing that purges happen and you could wind up on the wrong side of them.

>>2778417
This. If the revolution requires my execution, who am I do deny the verdict? If the people decide that the greatest possible contribution I can give for socialism is my death, then surely it is just.

>>2777973
Come on. Bukharin though the trial was so fucking nonsensical and absurd, he literally believed he was being pranked or it was some bullshit PR show where he would get a slap on the wrist.
Even Molotov of all people knew that Bukharin couldn't believe what he was hearing.
Interesting that the Purges hit everyone that was a threat to Beria, yet absolute utter fucking shitlibs like Beria himself, Khuruschev, Kosygin and the rest of the Libtards that made up the 19th+ Politburo were able to rise to the top.
I mean Kosygin literally dismantled Central Planning working hand in hand with a Zionist Jew and dismantled Soviet cybernetics because it posed a threat to the emerging banker class appearing out of the Ministry of Finance.

>>2778489
>I mean Kosygin literally dismantled Central Planning
He calculated that with their current technology Soviet cybernetics would cost more than the Soviet space program by order of magnitude and Khrushchev and Co. felt it was too costly.

>>2778417
that's why i'll never be a revolutionary. i'll always be an NPC. you really expect me to get a 2nd job that doesn't pay me, survive bourgeois repression, survive a civil war, and survive a purge after the civil war? get real.

>>2778510
You say that as if the transcript has any conclusive evidence, it's all just testimonies

>>2778523
Become a trot, we believe in democracy

>>2778652
Trotsky himself rejected "democratization" before his death, he only intended it as a strategy for the workers to regain control of the "degenerated worker's state" and we saw that "democratization" only lead to what we have today - a bourgeois democracy like always

>>2780995
Whoa.. Stalin killed Sverdlov…

>>2780995
this is the most horrific thing about this. While the image isnt fully accurate, some of these guys died before the purges and civil war, a decent chunk still did die during the purges. Add in gettys numbers where 50 percent of gov parts or even up to 90 percent died during the purges and uh I dont exactly trust mls

I don’t really care what would happened to the Old Bolsheviks. His worst mistake was purging the officer corpsm the mass casualties the Soviet Union suffered were a result of that decision. If he hadn’t done it, the Soviets would have been able to conquer much more of Europe and possibly expand into the Middle East and North Africa.

>>2781073
The scale of what happened was excessive, but the fear behind it wasn’t entirely baseless. With only a few exceptions, most Red Army officers had been Tsarist officers or former members of the White forces, guys who probably kept books like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in their personal libraries. Stalin understood that kind of mindset and it wasn’t unreasonable to suspect that some of them might have been inclined toward a coup. Whether such a coup would have led to the collapse of the Soviet Union or pushed it toward a more openly nationalistic Russian empire, similar to what emerged under Brezhnev, but perhaps even more explicit is hard to say.

>>2778652
trotsky would have purged just as hard as stalin had he won the power struggle.

>>2781078
>pic
fake quote
genocide as a term was coined by raphael lemkin after ww2
tukhachevsky died in 1937

>>2781174
that's beriya, that man was the devil

>>2781175
The point still stands, during that fragile time it wasn’t a baseless conspiracy theory that there could have been a military coup.

>>2781073
>>2781078
But the reason the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union was largely due to the officer purges and the Red Army’s poor performance in the Winter War. Without those purges the Germans would have been more cautious and perhaps even conceded influence over places like Bulgaria to the Soviets. From there it’s anyone’s guess what might have happens next, possibly closer cooperation between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union or even the Soviets joining the Axis.

>>2781652
>But the reason the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union was largely due to the officer purges and the Red Army’s poor performance in the Winter War. Without those purges the Germans would have been more cautious and perhaps even conceded influence over places like Bulgaria to the Soviets.
Sorry but that's completely ridiculous if you know anything about the Nazis. They were not only on an ideological crusade against communism, but the conquest of Eastern Europe and its settlement by Germans had been a dream of German imperialism since the late 19th century, and was only strengthened by Nazi racial theories. From the Nazi perspective the USSR was not only the ultimate ideological evil, but was populated by subhuman savages sitting on vast fertile land who deserved to be displaced and enslaved by superior Germans. The Germans were already pretty convinced that they could easily defeat the Soviets even before the purges, since they had defeated the Russians in WW1 and held the aforementioned ideas about their racial superiority. At most the purges and the Winter War accelerated the German plans, but war between the two was practically inevitable.

>>2781771
Hitler and Himmler were convinced, but pretty much everyone else remained cautious. It was the performance in the Winter War that persuaded them to Invade. The fact that they gradually adjusted their racial policies to allow Slavs and Spaniards to fight alongside them shows that those views were flexible. Even if we dismiss their ideology today despite considering the Soviets as ‘subhuman,’ they still recognized that the Soviets had vast manpower and resource and Soviet military thinkers were highly regarded even by the most devoted Nazi officers. You’re right that something could have led them to war, but it would never be an easy victory and they wouldn’t have risked it.

>Hitler had already issued a secret directive on the eventual attempts to invade the Soviet Union.[87][89] He had not yet abandoned the possibility of other political outcomes and still talked of a "great worldwide coalition that stretched from Yokohama to Spain", but he had resolved to not give up the Balkans.[90]
>Meanwhile, the Soviets immediately summoned the Bulgarian ambassador to the Foreign Ministry and stated that the Soviets needed to do a deal with the Bulgarians before they joined the Axis and that Germany was attempting to make them a puppet state.[90] The Bulgarians turned down the offer and leaked it to Germany.[90] Hitler still hoped to dissuade Stalin from giving guarantees to Bulgaria if the Bosporus issue could be solved, and he pressed the Bulgarian ambassador that the Soviets could be persuaded against resistance if the Bulgarians joined the pact, and he warned about the horrors of Soviet occupation.[90]
>The Soviets had meanwhile produced the biggest surprise. In an unannounced November 25 visit in Sofia, the Soviets told Bulgarian Prime Minister Bogdan Filov that if Bulgaria permitted transfer access to Soviet troops, the Soviets were prepared to drop their objections to Bulgaria's entry into the Axis, and most surprisingly, the Soviets stated that it likely would not be an issue, as it would "very probably, almost certainly" lead to the Soviets' own entry into the Axis.[91] The stunned Filov stated that it required further contemplation.[91] The Soviet negotiators had concluded that the Bulgarian government "is already committed to Germany to the hilt".[91]

>Stalin told the head of the Comintern, the Bulgarian Georgi Dimitrov, that Germany wanted Italy in the Balkans, but in the final analysis, it had no choice but to recognise Soviet interests in maintaining Black Sea access and to assure that the Bosporus would not be used against them.[91]
>Stalin directed Molotov to draft a new pact with a much greater scope, including the division of Europe, Asia and Africa among the four powers.[92] On November 25, the same day as the surprise statement of Soviet nonresistance to Bulgaria's joining the Axis and a potential Soviet joining of the pact,[93] the Soviets offered a counterproposal to Ribbentrop's draft agreement.[87] It began, "The Soviet government is prepared to accept the draft of the Pact of Four Powers on political cooperation and economic mutual assistance".[87] Instead of two secret protocols, Stalin proposed five:
>German troops would depart Finland in exchange for a Soviet guarantee of continued nickel and wood shipments and peace with Finland;
>A mutual assistance pact to be signed with Bulgaria in the next few months that would permit Soviet bases;
>The centre of Soviet territorial domination would be south of Baku and Batumi (ports now in Azerbaijan and Georgia, south of which are Iraq and Iran);
>Japanese renunciation of rights to northern Sakhalin, oil and coal concessions in exchange as a compensation;
>An affirmation that the Soviet-Bulgaria mutual assistance treaty was a political necessity.[9]
>The proposals came concurrently with massively-increased economic offers.[93] The Soviets promised by May 11, 1941, the delivery of 2.5 million tons of grain, 1 million tons above their current obligations.[9] They also promised full compensation for Volksdeutsche property claims.[9]

>>2782127
>Hitler and Himmler were convinced, but pretty much everyone else remained cautious.
The German military staff was entirely unanimous in their agreement to invade the USSR. Remember, the Nazis only started to replace the military leadership with their own guys after the Battle for Moscow, in 1941 these are the same generals of the Weimar government, of the high Prussian aristocracy, in the same military families some going back even to Frederick the Great (both Hitler and Frederick had a Manstein and a Seydlitz for example). These generals were extremely reserved about, say, the invasion of France or especially the invasion of Czechoslovakia, but there was, again, zero opposition amongst them to the Soviet invasion.

>>2778496
yeah man, IT and cybernetics cost more than a fucking vanity project. So costly, just ignore its literally the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FUCKING DEVELOPMENT FOR SOCIALISM TO TAKE FUCKING PLACE AND WHEN THE IT REVOLUTION OCCURED, IT LITERALLY INCREASED GDP 10x OVER.
Stop justifying this stupid fucking bullshit. Destroying Soviet cybernetics was the most utterly retarded shit imaginable and done entirely to keep power within the Ministry of Finance and deligtimize the Central Statistics Bureau.

>>2782205
>Destroying Soviet cybernetics
Gosplan was not cybernetics.
I wonder if the Soviet Economy had any sort of development in its quantity of products between NEP and in the 1960s.

>>2781652
Stalin derangement syndrome

reading all this and now I'm even doubting stalin killed trotsky. we've all seen the evidence: the drawing of stalin in a mexican hat and poncho with a minecraft pickaxe but how can we know the cia didn't draw a picture of a freddy mercury impersonator and kill trotsky themselves.

was there a single good marxist theorist post-stalin?

Pashukani
Bukharin
LL Rubin

all got killed. I don't even read Soviets past the 1930s because the Americans just ended up with better theorists (Mattick) followed by the Japanese (Sekine).

>>2789262
Steven Lukes

>>2789657
>twenty pages
you're lucky if you even get that much

>>2789262
Debord, Baudrillard, Lefebvre.
Stalin didn't really contribute meaningfully to theory, especially concerning developed economies… all he wrote was either debunking Trotsky or re-hashing stuff Lenin wrote.

>>2789697
>Stalin didn't really contribute meaningfully to theory
I disagree; his text on linguistics is interesting (1950):
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1950/jun/20.htm

>>2789699
I haven't seen that one!
I'll give it a read.

>>2789657
>>2789692
WTF trot papers are you reading? Mine dont look like this.

>>2781078
>>2781078
Tukhachevsky used the word genocide before it was coined?

>>2781078
Nothing wrong with a little anti Zion literature. Tukachevsky>>>Stalin

Only reason forced collectivization is fine is because of WW2 but if Tukachevsky takes over, the USSR joins the Axis so the NEP lasts forever and the USSR still exists today.

>>2790781
Even assuming Tukachevsky maintained his earlier antisemitism and Perun worshipping antics (a not unreasonable assumption), the idea that he or any other Russian leader would be able or willing to ally with the Axis powers is just fantasy. The whole of the Third Reich was built towards expanding eastwards and destroying Bolshevism and subhuman Slavs, there could be no alliance between Russia and Germany in any form as long as Germany was controlled by the Nazis. As for economic policies, dude was somewhere in the leftist camp so he definitely wouldn't have continued the NEP

>>2778489
Finally someone that gets it. Bukharin, Bogdanov and Glushkov mog whatever the fuck the rest were doing.
>>2778510
More like Gluskhov's memoirs, try it. He even says all of his opponents later tuck tail and left for the US and Israel… Ran an early life check and mostly checked out

>>2790788
Uh, shitler literally notes that a big chunk of the Wehrmacht were hoping the Red army would overthrow Stalin in the late 30s. And Tukachevsky's famous toast in 1936 to the Germans says it all. Also shitler said in his 2nd book that national communism is good and that if Russia retreats from "capitalist bolshevism"(he's mentally ill I know) to national communism, that they could be good allies.

He was against the retarded forced collectivization. Note also how the main ideologue of the ROA, Zykov, was a pro-Bukharin Marxist. Also the 2 leaders of the Lokot Autonomy were pro Bukharin in the mid 30s and even glazed Bukharin and Tukachevsky in the official occupied areas newspapers.

>>2772364
>Bukharin was one of the best bolsheviks who played a major role during the October revolution and was admired by Lenin
lenin said he had no grasp of marxist theory and politics

>>2790812
Not an argument. Baldie's war communism was a complete failure so he had to turn to Bukharin's NEP. Until the end of his life, he cried about Bukharin being hypnotized by gigachad Bogdanov

>>2790879
peasant worshipers aren't marxists

What about him?

its one thing to recognize the potential in the peasantry and the need to uplift through proletarianization and another to call for their enrichment and continued status in a post revolutionary world

>>2773538
this is exactly the point. Behind the creation of the socialism in one country theoretical line the undoubtedly worst crime stalin ever did was the creation of the polish anti communist, some of the most insufferable specimens

>>2773377
>>2773354
Be real what are they gonna do in prison? it's not like the big dzerzh or trotsky who got released after a while of rotting inside (major fuckup by the whites fr). They can't dig themselves out with spoons or some shit.

>>2790888
>peasant worshippers
Bad cope but even if this is true, it just shows peasant worshipers>marxists

Did Stalin actually contribute on the creation of Israel?