/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2785472
No evidence aside from Khrushchev's hallucinations.

>>2785473
Being the only power on the continent with no formal agreement with germany would have left them even more vulnerable to attack than they already were. Signing the pact gave them time, vital resources like machinery and equipment needed for manufactory and strategic benefits in preparation for the war

>>2785446
>Because without it entirely possible ww2 would've literally never happened as the germans had absolutely no contingency plan as to how they were going to deal with the western allies while having a completely unguarded eastern flank against the soviets.
>They would be at war with the west in this alternate reality where they magically decide to invade the ussr in 1939 had the soviets not signed the molotov ribbentrop pact.
Yes, that sounds nice in theory. The problem is that you're ignoring the allies' willingness to fight and how anticommunism shaped their policy. The west was terrified of international revolution breaking out again and even in wartime many still considered the soviets to be a bigger threat than Hitler.

>>2785476
>even more vulnerable to attack
Germany had neither the intention or the capabilities to attack the soviet union 1939 especially not with the western allies at the same time soviet military planners at the time tought it would take many years for them defeat even the western allies if at all.
The claim the pact was signed because the ussr was desperate and scared of germany is nothing more stalinoid revisinism to cope with the disasterous end consequences of the treaty.
The pact was signed back in august of 1939 before germany had showed its military capabilities in poland and france and before the ussr's military showed its defincies and weakness in finland and poland. The molotov ribbentrop pact was not signed as an act of self-preservation and necessity as stalinoids like portraying it but rather out of pure opportunism to grab land in eastern europe without conflict and to take advantage of its enemies conflict with eachother.
Stalin simply miscalculated with the molotov ribbentrop pact.
And i dont understand why its so hard for stalinoids to just accept that.

>>2785483
>Germany had neither the intention or the capabilities to attack the soviet union 1939
And Stalin was supposed to know this with ultra-giga Marxist Mindreading?
>The claim the pact was signed because the ussr was desperate and scared of germany is nothing more stalinoid revisinism
I didn't know Kotkin was a Stalinist.

>>2785485
he didn't even listen to his best spies in 1941 telling him a pretty accurate time of when the germans were going to attack because he didn't believe they'd do it

>>2785477
>Yes, that sounds nice in theory.
Its not theory its a fact based on historical reality and how events actually shaped out in the real world.
The allies never had any intention of allying with nazi germany against the ussr especially after the invasion of poland. Hitler made plenty of appeals to the allies during the war to fight the ussr with them and they were rejected.

>>2785486
Because M.R. had successfully pushed Germany westward to France and Britain and he thought that would give a good number of years.

>>2785485
>And Stalin was supposed to know this with ultra-giga Marxist Mindreading?
He clearly was aware of and knew it given that he didnt even really think germany was capable of defeating the western allies in the first place at the time of signing the pact.

>>2785483
>Germany had neither the intention or the capabilities to attack the soviet union 1939 especially not with the western allies at the same time soviet military planners at the time tought it would take many years for them defeat even the western allies if at all
This is very easy to say with hindsight, not to mention completely debatable. The situation was far more complicated and should it have been different they might very well have attacked the soviet union some time between 39 and 41. Regardless of if the soviets thought it would take more or less years at the time, the pact was obviously beneficial to their later war effort
>The claim the pact was signed because the ussr was desperate and scared of germany
Where did I make this claim? I just said it was tactically beneficial to them and put them in a better position when the full scale fighting broke out, which it was and did.
>The pact was signed back in august of 1939 before germany had showed its military capabilities in poland and france and before the ussr's military showed its defincies and weakness in finland and poland
They still knew about the military and ideological threat germany posed lol. While the scale of germany's warmachine and its effectiveness in that regard was not predicted, it's not like the soviets were retarded either

>The molotov ribbentrop pact was not signed as an act of self-preservation and necessity as stalinoids like portraying it but rather out of pure opportunism to grab land in eastern europe without conflict and to take advantage of its enemies conflict with eachother.
You'd have preferred they'd cede all of poland to germany or what?

>Stalin simply miscalculated with the molotov ribbentrop pact
Except it only benefitted him and the soviet union, so that's hardly a miscalculation. You've yet to describe how it was a mistake or how it was negative in any way. I guess if you're really attached to the idea of freely giving territory away to nazi germany then yeah it was a mistake

>>2785487
>The allies never had any intention of allying with nazi germany against the ussr especially after the invasion of poland.
Not from the Soviets' perspective. To the Soviets, it looked like the allies were stalling to make a new deal with Germany with the aim of turning the war against the USSR. It looked like they were laying the ground for another Spanish civil war scenario.

>>2785499
>The situation was far more complicated and should it have been different they might very well have attacked the soviet union some time between 39 and 41.
No they wouldnt germany never had the capability to invade the soviet union before 1941 and the stalin thought they wouldnt have been able to build up the capability to invade until 1942-1943
> just said it was tactically beneficial to them and put them in a better position when the full scale fighting broke out, which it was and did.
Then you're completely wrong as germany was the one in a superior tactical and straregic position when the full scale fighting began as a result o
>They still knew about the military and ideological threat germany posed lol. While the scale of germany's warmachine and its effectiveness in that regard was not predicted, it's not like the soviets were retarded either
Ofcourse they did they just werent aware of the german military capabilities and their own shortcomings
>You'd have preferred they'd cede all of poland to germany or what?
Sure its not like the well being of the polish people has ever been the ussr concern lmao.
>Except it only benefitted him and the soviet union
It benefited germany too and it benefited them a heck of a lot more than it did the ussr.
>You've yet to describe how it was a mistake or how it was negative in any way.
It put germany in a stronger strategic position than soviet union at the outbreak of the war.

>>2785510
>No they wouldnt germany never had the capability to invade the soviet union before 1941 and the stalin thought they wouldnt have been able to build up the capability to invade until 1942-1943
So even with everything they knew and how obvious their supposed lack of intention and capabilities were, the SU still underestimated them and got attacked earlier than they expected? Seems like they weren't concerned enough then

>Then you're completely wrong as germany was the one in a superior tactical and straregic position when the full scale fighting began as a result
It would have been much worse had they not done the pact, the territory, equipment and tactical advantage the pact gave them is undeniably better than if they had not had those things.
>Ofcourse they did they just werent aware of the german military capabilities and their own shortcomings
Yeah, they weren't omnipotent obviously. How is this a point?
>Sure [give all of poland to nazi germany]
Is it really that tough to be against the nazis as an antistalinist?
>It benefited germany too and it benefited them a heck of a lot more than it did the ussr.
No it didn't USSR got the far better end of the deal. Germany was kept from taking all of poland, they only got some basic resources in exchange for valuable machinery and technology. In the end they were crushed and hitler killed himself. A devastating day for you im sure
>It put germany in a stronger strategic position than soviet union at the outbreak of the war.
Debatable, they gained basically nothing decisive from it. Some oil, some grain, shit they could easily acquire through other means/deals. While germany might have benefited by having free reign in the west for a while at the beginning, the territorial acquisitions were more beneficial to the USSR in the end

>>2785510
>the well being of the polish people
yeah,they were just being moved away from the war border (le ethnic cleansing) instead of genocided,so sad :(

out of all the things for me to disagree with, I just dont see how the pact wasnt a smart case of realpolitik. The purges were questionable in their excesses and ultimately practicalness. The people that were able to still take over even after the stalin era, some of them coming from stalins inner circle, suggests some bad stuff about the mustache man.
But the pact itself just seems like a smart move to make. Pragmatism is pragmatism

>>2785519
>So even with everything they knew and how obvious their supposed lack of intention and capabilities were, the SU still underestimated them and got attacked earlier than they expected? Seems like they weren't concerned enough then
Yes stalin was a fucking retard.
>It would have been much worse had they not done the pact, the territory, equipment and tactical advantage the pact gave them is undeniably better than if they had not had those things.
Not really the soviet union didnt have any tactical advantage at the start of the conflict and was actually outnumbered at the front by thr axis at the front when the invasion began.
>Yeah, they weren't omnipotent obviously. How is this a point?
So what was your point?
>Is it really that tough to be against the nazis as an antistalinist?
Handing or not handing over eastern poland really doesnt matter that much in the strategic picture.
>No it didn't USSR got the far better end of the deal
In what way? Germany wouldnt have invaded the ussr before 1941 non-agression pact or not.
>Germany was kept from taking all of poland,
Whys that so important? Poland is irrelevant in the grand picture of the war.
>Debatable, they gained basically nothing decisive from it
Nothing decisive? The molotov ribbentrop pact literally gave them free reign to defeat the allies and conquer basically all of europe thanks to their eastern flank being secure.
>some grain, shit they could easily acquire through other means/deals.
What other deals? The germany was blockaded when it came to resources like oil grain and rubber the ussr was a crucial and basically the only supplier of these vital war resources.
>territorial acquisitions were more beneficial to the USSR in the end
The 200km buffer zone established by the ussr really wasnt worth giving fermany the capability and opportunity to invade the ussr in the first place.

>>2785445
even better that he signed it then.
>but he purged the army
of people who might have surrendered to germany

>>2785527
>Yes stalin was a fucking retard.
But you're the one who said they had literally nothing to worry about
>Not really the soviet union didnt have any tactical advantage at the start of the conflict and was actually outnumbered at the front by thr axis at the front when the invasion began.
The pact gave them a bufferzone between them and germany. Not signing the pact wouldn't have magically put more troops on the front lmao
>So what was your point?
That they had reason to worry about an attack from germany, which signing the pact was part of alleviating. You are the one who says that on the one hand they were overestimating germany by signing the pact and that it was not necessary and on the other hand they totally underestimated their enemy, failing to predict an attack that would come many years earlier than initially thought.

>In what way? Germany wouldnt have invaded the ussr before 1941 non-agression pact or not.
They had no way of knowing when Germany was going to attack, only that an attack was inevitable, you keep repeating this thing of they wouldn't invade before 1941 as if it's some ordained fact of the universe lol that anyone should have been able to divine. Stalling for as much time as they could was the logical choice. Besides that the pact also gave them a more beneficial territorial buffer and they got the more important resources and technology from the trade compared to germany. I already went over all this.
>Whys that so important? Poland is irrelevant in the grand picture of the war.
Well from a tactical pov, it would have put nazi germany's territory directly on the border of the ussr, with zero buffer. If you don't understand why that'd be bad we might as well and the discussion here

>Nothing decisive? The molotov ribbentrop pact literally gave them free reign to defeat the allies and conquer basically all of europe thanks to their eastern flank being secure.
Fair enough, it was decisive in the short term. Im not saying they didn't benefit from the pact at all, but to be fair literally nobody thought France would get rolled like it did and the USSR got the better hand in the end as evidenced by the bullet in hitler's brain

>What other deals? The germany was blockaded when it came to resources like oil grain and rubber the ussr was a crucial and basically the only supplier of these vital war resources.
The USSR was not the only recourse they had, get real. It was a nice little deal sure I won't deny it, but they had other options

>The 200km buffer zone established by the ussr really wasnt worth giving fermany the capability and opportunity to invade the ussr in the first place.
So now we're at the "ussr caused germany to invade it by signing a non aggression pact with them" stage? This is getting ridiculous. You are now literally blaming the ussr for its own invasion lol

>>2785334
Albania had regular purges for 40 years straight, rigid enforcement of Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy, and a handpicked successor to Hoxha. It went full Gorbachev immediately after he died. It just doesn't work Anon. It has a success rate of exactly zero.

>>2785543
It just doesnt fucking work. And the only reason why nk is alive is because of china. Which reformed itself away from stalinism

>>2785544
The most instructive success story is probably Cuba, which has maintained its revolution under arguably worse geopolitical conditions than the USSR. It did it through creating an authentic proletarian democracy, and trusting the workers to defend their own state and interests as Marxism instructs.

>>2785556
going to sleep but im not so sure about that since theres signs that could might fall. We will see in the next few years

>>2785556
>going to sleep but im not so sure about that since theres signs that could might fall. We will see in the next few years
that cuba might fall
FUCK I NEED SLEEP NOW

>>2785539
>But you're the one who said they had literally nothing to worry about
I didnt say that they had plenty of things to worry about they thought they didnt at the time which is why they signed the molotov ribbentrop pact.
>The pact gave them a bufferzone between them and germany.
The bufferzone got rapidly taken and everything behind it aswell soviet troops also had retreat from prepared defensive lines to exposed and underprepared lines on the front the buffer areas effect on the war was mixed and definitely not decicive.
>That they had reason to worry about an attack from germany, which signing the pact was part of alleviating. You are the one who says that on the one hand they were overestimating germany by signing the pact and that it was not necessary and on the other hand they totally underestimated their enemy, failing to predict an attack that would come many years earlier than initially thought.

Really so a signed document is what prevented hitler from attacking the ussr earlier and not the fact they would've had to fight a two front war and also lacked the built up military and logistical capabilities to launch an invasion of the ussr at the time?
Are you retarded? Or just extremely naive?
>They had no way of knowing when Germany was going to attack, only that an attack was inevitable, you keep repeating this thing of they wouldn't invade before 1941 as if it's some ordained fact of the universe lol that anyone should have been able to divine.
Alright tell me then what was preventing germany from invading the ussr before 1941? Some words on a paper that they ended up breaking anyway??
>Fair enough, it was decisive in the short term. Im not saying they didn't benefit from the pact at all, but to be fair literally nobody thought France would get rolled like it did and the USSR got the better hand in the end as evidenced by the bullet in hitler's brain
Yes exactly which is why stalin signed the treaty in the first place he thought germany would bleed itself out in a long war with the west though that ofcourse didnt end up happening.
>Now now we're at the "ussr caused germany to invade it by signing a non aggression pact with them" stage? This is getting ridiculous. You are now literally blaming the ussr for its own invasion lol
The ussr did not cause germany to invade them instead they ended up inadvertenly creating the perfect strategic situation for germany to be able to invade the ussr in the first place as a result of the molotov ribbentrop pact.

>>2785543
Ramiz Alia was not Hoxha's handpicked succesor. That was supposed to be Mehmet Shehu who died before Hoxha. Albania fell down because the 1989 unrest and color revolutions were a transnational phenomenom affecting the whole continent and not only Warsaw pact states and Albania was not far away like Cuba or Korea. It would have probably survived otherwise.

>>2785578
>Albania fell down because the 1989 unrest and color revolutions were a transnational phenomenom affecting the whole continent
And the purges failed to stop it. Again, it has a success rate of precisely zero.

>>2785566
>I didnt say that they had plenty of things to worry about they thought they didnt at the time which is why they signed the molotov ribbentrop pact.
But they signed the pact because they were worried, pretty much as a last resort before all out hostilities began
I guess you're just saying they were worried about the wrong things? I think that's a stretch and you are underestimating how serious the soviets took the situation
>The bufferzone got rapidly taken and everything behind it aswell soviet troops also had retreat from prepared defensive lines to exposed and underprepared lines on the front the buffer areas effect on the war was mixed and definitely not decicive.
It definitely was decisive, 200 km of buffer means 200 km of territory the enemy has to expend resources and manpower on before they even get to the border, without that there's more territory to extract from, to prepare for aggression in. Of course, it's not like they had everything prepped to a t, but maximizing their territory in that way was the best course of action
>Really so a signed document is what prevented hitler from attacking the ussr earlier and not the fact they would've had to fight a two front war and also lacked the built up military and logistical capabilities to launch an invasion of the ussr at the time?
It's not the only thing, but it was a way for them to stall, without the pact the USSR would have had to get involved earlier, and start the war with less territory, less productive machinery, a more disorganized and less built up military, etc.
>Alright tell me then what was preventing germany from invading the ussr before 1941? Some words on a paper that they ended up breaking anyway??
There were of course a myriad of factors, germany was underprepared for such an invasion, but so was the ussr. By the time they did get invaded they were still largely unprepared. This is why it's odd that on the one hand you say there's no need for the pact and on the other hand they had plenty to worry about. The pact was one of the ways in which they tried to stall for time and put themselves in a more favorable position when the inevitable hostilities would break out. Despite its shortcomings due to unforseen factors, I think it still largely worked in their favor
>Yes exactly which is why stalin signed the treaty in the first place he thought germany would bleed itself out in a long war with the west though that ofcourse didnt end up happening.
Nobody had any way of knowing that though, so at the time it was the correct decision with the information they had. Not everything goes completely to plan, but it still bought them some time regardless

>he ussr did not cause germany to invade them instead they ended up inadvertenly creating the perfect strategic situation for germany to be able to invade the ussr in the first place as a result of the molotov ribbentrop pact
You are just saying the ussr paved the way for their own invasion, which is another way of saying they are to blame for it. Not to get all armchair general, but realistically what is the alternative? Not signing the treaty? They let Germany take all of poland, probably the baltics ally with them too. I doubt ussr would invade germany, they still blitz france. Lets say it didn't buy them any time at all and germany still invades in 41, except now ussr has less territory, more angles of being attacked from, less equipment and machinery. How is that a better tactical situation.

I guess you could say they would have opened up a second front when france got got? That seems implausible to me though

>>2785581
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/sep/20.htm
Party purges have to happen from time to time. Otherwise what else are you going to do about members who are corrupt, ineffective, irresponsible people, etc. The bolsheviks had 2 major purges under Lenin. Fucking Marx and Engels purged people in the International.

>>2785595
exactly. its the only effective way to deal with corrupt statesmen, revisionists, and power hungry personalities. Marx's purge is literally what let us know not to incorporate anarchists within the movement. political purification has been a pillar of the left-wing since its fucking creation (think back to robespierre's 'republic of virtue')

>>2785595
what if you just hold elections and limit suffrage to proletarians only instead?

>>2785586
>But they signed the pact because they were worried, pretty much as a last resort before all out hostilities began
I guess you're just saying they were worried about the wrong things? I think that's a stretch and you are underestimating how serious the soviets took the situation
They signed the pact because they thought it would be to their benefit free land in the east while germany goes and bleeds itself dry in the west all the while the soviet union builds up its military capabitilies. Obviously it didnt work out.
>It definitely was decisive, 200 km of buffer means 200 km of territory the enemy has to expend resources and manpower on before they even get to the border, without that there's more territory to extract from, to prepare for aggression in. Of course, it's not like they had everything prepped to a t, but maximizing their territory in that way was the best course of action
It really wasnt like i said it only took the germans 5 days in poland to reach the pre-war polish border and asically all of the buffer territorirs had been in taken in under 2 weeks by germany. And like i said a lot of the border was exposed and had poorly prepared defenses leading to numerous encriclements of soviet troops.
>It's not the only thing, but it was a way for them to stall, without the pact the USSR would have had to get involved earlier, and start the war with less territory, less productive machinery, a more disorganized and less built up military, etc.
Germany built up its military capabilites during that time aswell and much more effectively as evidenced by the successes of the early periods of the invasion.
The 22 month lull period was not really time enough for any decive change to be made and like i said before germany was going to invade the ussr as soon as it was ready and capable of doing so molotov ribbentrop pact or not.
>There were of course a myriad of factors, germany was underprepared for such an invasion, but so was the ussr. By the time they did get invaded they were still largely unprepared. This is why it's odd that on the one hand you say there's no need for the pact and on the other hand they had plenty to worry about. The pact was one of the ways in which they tried to stall for time and put themselves in a more favorable position when the inevitable hostilities would break out. Despite its shortcomings due to unforseen factors, I think it still largely worked in their favor
Like i said germany was going to invade the ussr with or without a pact as soon as they were ready and able all the pact ended up accomplishing in the end was give them the strategic opportunity to invade the ussr ive said this many many times already.
>Nobody had any way of knowing that though, so at the time it was the correct decision with the information they had. Not everything goes completely to plan, but it still bought them some time regardless
The deal mightve made sense at the time but it hindsight it didnt work out. And even at the the pact was never something the soviet union had to or needed to do in order to survive it was never a necessary evil as portrayed by its defenders it was purely an opportunistic land grab that ended up backfiring miserably. And about it buying time it didnt see my previous point so i dont have keep repeating myself.
>Not to get all armchair general, but realistically what is the alternative? Not signing the treaty? They let Germany take all of poland, probably the baltics ally with them too. I doubt ussr would invade germany, they still blitz france.
Except all of that changes. the entire war could've possibly been prevented because after germany takes poland they need to transfer all their troops west to defeat the allies but they cant do that with an potentially hostile soviet union on their border.
>Lets say it didn't buy them any time at all and germany still invades in 41, except now ussr has less territory, more angles of being attacked from, less equipment and machinery. How is that a better tactical situation.
Like i said before germany could've never even reached the strategic position it did in 1941 to attack the soviet without their eastern border being secured by the molotov ribbentrop pact. But still lets say they do somehow magically defeat the western allies without leaving their eastern border defensless. again the buffer they received was helpful in some regards but not decisive again same with the machinery again helpful but not decisive
The war will probably go the same way it did historically except now they have a properly manned well prepared defensive line that'll probably buy them around the same amount of time as the buffer zone did historically.
The germans will still get stopped where they were historically due to the weather their logistics being stretched to the breaking point and soviet reinforcments from siberia.

>>2785595
Did Lenin and Marx's purges involve mass executions of longtime party members?

Machines should do the purging, our AI overlords and their massive surveillance structure will identify the people that should be removed

>>2785040
>A problem that exists among so-called "left" communists is pretending to be more revolutionary in their idealism and naiveté, making it easier for the bourgeoisie and imperialists to intervene against the dictatorship of the proletariat and the supremacy of the proletariat.
Hilarious when all of the Marxist-Leninist states collapsed due to bourgeois intervention or corrupted themselves into a bourgeois state

You will never be Lenin you delusional uyghur

>>2785620
They annihilated a lot of fellas on those book pages, heh am I right guys

>>2785294
Based and trvke, Stalin is probably one instance where the Great (or rather, worst) Man Theory makes sense.

>>2785616
I don't disagree with you in the main anon, I don't think it was some master stroke of tactical genius or anything, or some "necessary evil". It was merely one of the multitude of avenues the soviet union had at its disposal in preparation for the inevitable conflict, which they all knew was coming.

I do think the soviets did have in mind that they would be invaded by germany eventually and were working with that in mind. A "landgrab" to take land that will be torn up in defensive warfare in the near future seems illogical to me, it's not like you can do anything with it except prepare for said warfare. The only reason to bother is because of the strategic benefit it grants, which is what I think the soviets were doing.

I really don't think we can assume the war would have been prevented without the pact, you are now in your indignation about it, giving it more importance than I ever have. It would have been suicidal for the soviets to assume war with germany could be prevented by that point.

Again, I don't think the MR pact was some masterful gambit. It was simply a pragmatic choice to make given the information available at the time. That's why it's dumb to get all worked up about it

Stalin should have just prayed instead of signing MR. Us ultras in the ICP would just pray for a spontaneous German revolution and not do anything to try and push Germany westward

>>2785334
cheeky

>>2785334
>if we just kill enough people, surely it'll work just this time!
this method has literally never worked, there's a reason why the soviet union "degenerated" so rapidly, if say even half as many people were purged, i bet the soviet union would still be alive, since you'd still have competent members of government who are not opportunists, falsifiers, and rats, because that's exactly what the purges did

Same way you avoid being purged after a fascist revolution or any other flavor of authoritarianism - blend in with everyone else, always do as you are told, and keep your mouth shut.

>>2785286
>Are you forgetting that the war against opportunists will continue after a revolution is completed, or do you think that the enemy classes of capitalists, landowners, and financial market speculators will remain passive in the face of a threat to the interests of capital accumulation?
Not at all, I'm simply skeptical of the effectiveness of the methods being proposed given their poor track record in preventing both revisionism and capitalist restoration.

>>2785806
MLs are always acting like the only people repressed by the state were landowners, capitalists and fascists even though that's so obviously not true.

>>2785685
no obviously the solution is always more purges and anyone who denies this needs to be purged or secretly wants to be the one to start the purge. i love increasing paranoia and infighting. i love to die by the sword i lived by. what are you some kind of coward who wants life under socialism to actually be enjoyable peaceful and chill?

>>2785814
better to kill 100 innocents than to accidentally miss 1 reactionary

>>2785828
You'll end up killing everyone who isnt a reactionary

>>2785040
You're simply looking for an excuse to kill anyone who might challenge the power of the dictator you've installed. You're not improving anything for the masses, stop pretending you are. If anyone should be purged, it should be you.

>>2785626
I love this image because in "The Final Triumph of Socialism" Stalin literally argues that it hasn't happened and is even impossible without an international revolution. It used to be a meme that leftcoms read too much but apparently they actually can't read a relatively short letter beyond the title.

>>2785826
Tbh I think people should really be drawing more lessons from capitalist states when it comes to finding effective ways to shut out opposition while still allowing free debate within acceptable parameters. People talk about the vanguard as if it's an ML invention, but the fact is that every capitalist country in the world essentially has a kind of bourgeois vanguard in the form of the judiciary. Something like SCOTUS serves a lot of the same functions that the vanguard is meant to serve under Marxism-Leninism, principally to preserve the bourgeois character of the state, prevent the legislature/executive from going beyond the parameters of liberal capitalism, and ensuring that the state remains the defender of the amalgamated interests of the bourgeoisie as a class. It's also operated by highly educated experts in bourgeois-liberal law, philosophy, and politics, and as such serves as an important ideological beacon for bourgeois society and a source of political orthodoxy to which daily politics must conform. It's so successful in this role precisely because it's largely insulated from the day to day whims of legislatures and elections, and is largely immune from any threat coming from within the bourgeois state apparatus (e.g. socialists in the government). However with the party structure as it existed in the USSR, there was no external check to insulate the socialist character of the state from a bourgeois upswing in party politics. Additionally, in such a situation the people meant to offer ideological guidance and a correct Marxist line are inevitably influenced by immediate, short term political interests, and may not even be experts in Marxist economics or philosophy to begin with.

>>2785839
yeah and it was effectively not simply apart of the state, but the state itself (the party that is), and so corruption in that would be at a detriment given if you were a party member you were better off than 95% of the population because the "safeguards" were functionally like that of a high school exam, it did not ensure competency nor did it shut out bad actors from abusing it to their advantage

>>2785842
Something that's important to remember is that the US supreme court ruled Truman's nationalization of US Steel illegal and forced him to abandon it, however somehow the Soviet judiciary wasn't able to do the same thing with Gorbachev's market reforms.