How exactly does one avoid being purged after a communist revolution?
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.
The body was too short or empty.(Don't evade the character limit! But I will let this thread say since it's had a lot of discussion already.)
Cynical political maneuvering an manipulation the same way you would through any feudal house or liberal party
just leave the communist party immediately after the revolution, and dont be a art*st
>>2784827
Tell me 1 left wing revolution that didn't purge itself after coming to power
just don't take any envelopes of cash from the CIA, Mi6 or the mossad
>>2784836But the guys in charge will just fabricate evidence that i did.
>>2784834
well libs also purged themselves when they had their bourgeois revolutions, back when libs were actually "left" wing relative to feudalism
>>2784842Yep
The accusations during the reign of terror in France and the great purge in the ussr are pretty similar
I mean Kollontai was literally a member of the worker's opposition and wasn't purged just for not actively getting involved in party infighting. in the 30s USSR it honestly seems pretty easy to avoid as long as your not involved in CPSU infighting, join a dissident group or get caught for corruption.
>>2784821By being a liberal
Don't make any big waves.
>>2784920The weak should fear the strong
>>2784837>>2784836Even if you accept the official version of events presented by the Soviet government, they were still "misled" into purging a bunch of innocent people, which is why they eventually turned on Yezhov. Such rehabilitation is just another example of things Stalin was already doing which people later seethe at Khruschev about.
git gud
>>2784821Don't construct a system where a purge is even allowed. Vanguardists need to give up on the one-party-state thing, it does nothing but produce more despotism.
Just don't be a fascist-collaborator, organizing murderous sabotage gangs throughout the country in order to weaken the productive forces right before a genocidal invasion. Should be simple enough.
>>2784858Except Danton was indeed a corrupt fuck who accepted bribe after bribe.
>>2784949>Vanguardists need to give up on the one-party-state thing, it does nothing but produce more despotism.Asking Vanguardists to give up their the only proven successful model for seizing power is just as naive as asking the current ruling class to give up their power voluntarily.
>>2785020> organizing murderous sabotage gangs throughout the country in order to weaken the productive forces unless you're in the imperial core. then it's communist to do this
Keep your head down and don't make a fuss. Or be Semyon Budyonny
>>2785031>Keep your head down and don't make a fuss.This is a big ask when you're talking about people who couldn't do that under the previous system LOL.
>>2785021>history isn't written by the victoriousanon, i declare you're corrupt and receive bribes, and if you deny it, it is only proof of your guilty. after you are executed for treason i will right a million histories with fabricated evidence of your malfeasance and everyone will quote it as scripture.
idk why i'm saying any of this other than to be pedantic, i actually have zero opinion of whether danton was actually corrupt or not, and I have since forgotten most of the stuff i once learned about the french revolution because my brain is fucking dog shit >>2784821Purging opportunists is necessary due to the infiltration of liberals, reformists, nationalists, reactionaries, and class conciliators. Furthermore, the more responsibility a worker has in a socialist state, the more severe the punishments to protect the supremacy of the proletarian class. 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. This romanticizes spontaneity and avoids the need to use force against those who impede the socialization of the economy and the use of state capitalism to encourage cooperatives to prepare peasants for the socialization of the economy, especially in a country that is backward with an economy partly based on small-scale, isolated, and underdeveloped peasant production. This can lead to unnecessary conflict, requiring the poorest rural workers to align themselves with the proletariat and avoid being co-opted by prosperous peasants and their apologists who will invent excuses and hide their counter-revolutionary intentions.
If you are concerned about purges, then you are already falling for capitalist propaganda and bourgeois agents who want to prevent the revolutionary terror necessary in a communist revolution. Therefore, you are not acting as a revolutionary socialist because you fear chaos and fail to recognize the necessity of using violence in the revolution to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, socialize the economy, and prevent the actions of imperialists and their agents against the supremacy of the proletarian class until the state withers away with the global victory of socialism and the resolution of the contradictions in society that lead to the state's violent force existing as an entity separate from the population.
>>2784949Wrong. Purging and the use of revolutionary terror are how the dictatorship of the proletariat is maintained. Complacency, apathy, and a lack of revolutionary fervor lead to defeat by exposing weaknesses for the enemy class to exploit. The state is an instrument for one class to oppress another, arising from the irreconcilability of social classes in a class society. Opportunism is expected to appear through infiltration and must be resolved with violence.
<We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable.
<Karl Marx, Final Issue Neue Rheinische Zeitung May 1849, Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitunghttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/05/19c.htm
<While this utopian doctrinaire socialism, which subordinates the total movement to one of its stages, which puts in place of common social production the brainwork of individual pedants and, above all, in fantasy does away with the revolutionary struggle of the classes and its requirements by small conjurers' tricks or great sentimentality, while this doctrinaire socialism, which at bottom only idealizes present society, takes a picture of it without shadows, and wants to achieve its ideal athwart the realities of present society; while the proletariat surrenders this socialism to the petty bourgeoisie; while the struggle of the different socialist leaders among themselves sets forth each of the so-called systems as a pretentious adherence to one of the transit points of the social revolution as against another – the proletariat rallies more and more around revolutionary socialism, around communism, for which the bourgeoisie has itself invented the name of Blanqui. This socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.
<Karl Marx, The Class Struggles in France, (1848 to 1850)https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/ch03.htm >>2785040>Purging opportunists is necessary due to the infiltration of liberals, reformists, nationalists, reactionaries, and class conciliators. Except that it didn't do that and directly to their taking power the minute Stalin was dead.
>>2785040>If you are concerned about purges, then you are already falling for capitalist propaganda "The working class is the best because of their common sense pragmatism and wisdom to struggle according to their material interests…wait no, not like that!!!"
>>2785143Not necessarily. Khrushchev represents an opportunistic tendency that damaged the dictatorship of the proletariat. While Breshnev partially resolved some problems in response, due to a lack of vision and complacency, the revisionism of both opened the door for capitalists, using Gorbachev. The problem of revisionism in maintaining the dictatorship of the proletariat is another matter, but as an experiment in socializing the economy and the situation at the time in the world with sanctions against the Soviet Union, it proved effective. Many people currently show weakness in allowing the infiltration of opportunists, listening to the false narrative that one cannot be authoritarian, which inevitably leads the dictatorship of the proletariat to be exposed to attacks by enemy classes. The restoration of capitalist relations began with Gorbachev, and with current information, it's possible to better prepare against opportunists if there is revolutionary fervor and enthusiasm to use revolutionary terror. Furthermore, capitalism and technology have already spread throughout the world, where the state capitalism of the NEP, which is superior to private capitalism and small-scale peasant production, is not even necessary to prepare for a planned socialist economy. Because of this, expropriation can be carried out by force, and any resistance can be crushed with revolutionary terror and the re-education of counter-revolutionaries.
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? The only lesson to be learned is to be more aggressive with current information about the methods the enemy class infiltrates, to educate the workers with revolutionary fervor and keep them vigilant so as not to lower their guard against the capitalist imperialist threat, with the need to plan the economy and not tolerate market competition or fantasies of decentralization.
>>2785233>"The working class is the best because of their common sense pragmatism and wisdom to struggle according to their material interests…wait no, not like that!!!"I didn't write anything about common sense or pragmatism; socialist principles must be followed for the supremacy of the proletariat. Any proletarian who does not act for the collective supremacy of the proletariat will be punished. Or do you think I fall for talk about popularity or "the will of the majority"? Workers who deny that all workers must act in solidarity to act together as an organized class to plan the economy will be crushed and re-educated. I don't cling to sentimentality.
zamn kinda seems like in order to avoid being disappeared by the regime it was better to keep your head down and not get too much responsibility. don't innovate. don't try hard.
Just don't have a communist revolution.
>>2785143>Except that it didn't do that and [led] directly to their taking power the minute Stalin was dead.that's because they didn't purge enough, not because they purged too many
>>2785294>who pacted with nazi Germanygave him time to move factories east and put the eventual front line in the middle of poland instead of the middle of belarus
>>2785294I understand you dislike Stalin but many of these things aren't true. "giving support to a bourgeois provisional government", he never gave it support he only called for negotiations and pragmatism in the early days of the February revolution, once Lenin arrived he fully supported his position. "didn't do anything important in 1917" Sorry but the idea that he was some nobody is legit trot propaganda.. Stalin pretty much held the reins of the party in Petrograd around the time of February revolution before Lenin returned. He was seen as the biggest organizer the Bolshevik party had along with Sverdlov. Then he was given a seat in the first soviet government. As for isolation and the Comintern, Russia was left isolated because the other revolutions failed obviously. What were they gonna do, start a new war? Comintern was dissolved because it ran its course. Marx and Engels supported the end of the First International on the same grounds but you're not gonna see anyone protesting it. The Comintern was founded when the Russian revolution was seen as a mere prelude to world revolution that had to be directed and coordinated, by WW2 it had fallen into a contradictory position where the CPSU and pro-soviet parties were allied with western governments in the war against fascism and no longer for waging revolution against these states. So you see the awkward situation between having a governing body for the international revolution and the fact that the soviets were now allied to the west. As for the M-R pact, it was the only thing the soviets could do by the time they had exhausted all their options, it was for the best.
>>2785334Thats what you took away from the purges?
All the purges really accomplished in the end was just kill off every single actually competent marxist and leave nothing more than lying opportunists (kruchev, gorbachev) and inept dullards ( brezhnev) in charge.
The political culture that formed as a result of stalin and the purges ended up being one of the big reasons the ussr ended up falling in the end.
>>2785351>As for the M-R pact, it was the only thing the soviets could do by the time they had exhausted all their options, it was for the best.Stalinoids still defending the m-r pact is hilarious what can't you accept your god emperor was still just a man and was capable of and did make plenty of errors.
The pact that was a terrible mistake that almost cost the ussr everything.
>>2785364People who act like this can't explain why it was so bad without relying on hindsight 90 years after the pact.
>The pact that was a terrible mistake that almost cost the ussr everything.in actuality it bought them 2 years of time
>>2785334>meanwhile in enver hoxha bunker land where stalinism was doubled down uponcollapse, and liberal restoration
>>2785386>People who act like this can't explain why it was so bad without relying on hindsight 90 years after the pact. Yes at the time it mightve made a bit more sense than now but in hindsight it was a completely retarded decision which is why defending it now is stupid but then again stalinoids arent known for their critical thinking abilities.
>in actuality it bought them 2 years of timeIt didnt buy them any time at all really. Nazi germany was in no position whatsoever to attempt an invasion of ussr in 1939.
>>2785389>Yes at the time it mightve made a bit more sense than now but in hindsight it was a completely retarded decisionYou still haven't said anything on why it was so terrible
>It didnt buy them any time at all really. Nazi germany was in no position whatsoever to attempt an invasion of ussr in 1939.They weren't ready for a long term war but neither were the soviets. Germany could go to war with the Soviets and ask the west for help as that would've been a natural extension of appeasement, get Japan on it, get a crusade going.. something a lot of anticommunists were banking on.
>>2785335You forget the part where the USSR got stomped for the first year of the war because he purged the army and 25% of Belarus got killed anyway. Not to mention he was basically ambivalent about the Nazis genociding Poland up until Germany invaded the USSR, which he was reportedly surprised by.
>>2785427>You still haven't said anything on why it was so terribleBecause 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.
>Germany could go to war with the Soviets and ask the west for help as that would've been a natural extension of appeasementAre you dumb? 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.
The original plan of the molotov ribbentrop pact was to take over eastern europe without german interference and then watch as germany and the west bleed eachother dry in a another bout similar to ww1 while the ussr builds up its forces until it could steamroll germany with ease.
But that didnt happen as germany knocked out france and began building up and concentrting all their forces in the east while stalin was desperately huffing copium about how they werent actually planning to invade to cope with the ussr enabling and creating the ideal circumstances for an invasion of the ussr to even be possible in the first place.
>People still going on about M-R pact
Only the most retarded anti stalinists are still holding out on this argument. If you're critical of the M-R pact, you're basically a liberal anticommunist trying to equate the two sides. Might as well be quoting the gulag archipelago
>>2785460>If you don't believe my gulag archipelago-ass argument you must be chud, personality cult, authoritarian, falsifier, red fascist okkk??!!You gonna cry about the holodomor next?
>>2785458Only the most retarded stalinist would still defend the molotov ribbentrop pact.
Your replacement father-figure made an error. Its okay everyone does once in their life. You can take his rotten decrepit penis out of your mouth for a moment to see that cant you?
>>2785465cut him some slack he can only repeat these arguments in a hugbox
>>2785465>Only the most retarded stalinist would still defend the molotov ribbentrop pact.There was literally nothing wrong with it, not signing the pact would have put the SU in a worse position. Which is why they signed it
>Your replacement father-figure made an errorWhat's it with anti stalinoids always projecting their father issues onto others?
>You can take his rotten decrepit penis out of your mouth for a moment to see that cant you?More projection of your own obsessions
>>2785469Aren't you guys not hugging me right now? This is such a dumb cope lmao
>>2785470>There was literally nothing wrong with it, not signing the pact would have put the SU in a worse position. Which is why they signed itIn what way?
>>2785472No evidence aside from Khrushchev's hallucinations.
>>2785473Being 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 attackGermany 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.
>>2785485he 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.
>>2785486Because 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 allThis 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 germanyWhere 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 polandThey 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 pactExcept 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 eitherOfcourse 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 unionIt 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 1942-1943So 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 shortcomingsYeah, 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 thenYes 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 dealIn 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 itNothing 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 endThe 200km buffer zone established by the ussr really wasnt worth giving fermany the capability and opportunity to invade the ussr in the first place.
>>2785445even better that he signed it then.
>but he purged the armyof 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
>>2785334Albania 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.
>>2785543It just doesnt fucking work. And the only reason why nk is alive is because of china. Which reformed itself away from stalinism
>>2785544The 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.
>>2785556going 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 yearsthat cuba might fall
FUCK I NEED SLEEP NOW
>>2785539>But you're the one who said they had literally nothing to worry aboutI 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 brainYes 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 lolThe 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.
>>2785543Ramiz 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 continentAnd 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 pactYou 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
>>2785595exactly. 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')
>>2785595what 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 beganI 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 actionIt 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 favorLike 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 regardlessThe 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.
>>2785595Did 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
>>2785620They annihilated a lot of fellas on those book pages, heh am I right guys
>>2785616I 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>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.
>>2785806MLs are always acting like the only people repressed by the state were landowners, capitalists and fascists even though that's so obviously not true.
>>2785685no 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?
>>2785828You'll end up killing everyone who isnt a reactionary
>>2785040You'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.
>>2785626I 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.
>>2785826Tbh 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.
>>2785839yeah 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
>>2785842Something 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.
>>2785828This mindset is precisely why reactionaries are always the only ones spared in purges. That and purges being themselves inherently reactionary and anti-materialist.
- If you merely change the material conditions to no longer be reactionary, the people in those conditions will also cease to be reactionary.
- To see purges as necessary, is to admit that you intend to keep reactionary material conditions, and merely punish the result.
>>2785849Didn't ussr have tons of these government offices thst actually had no power and only existed to give an image.
>>2785849the soviet judiciary was just another part of the party-state, you can't exactly expect a creation of such a system to actually keep it in control, liberal democracies on the other hand don't really need a party state, they will act in the interests of the bourgeois, but they will do so by virtue of how it's set up as they mastered the act of appeasing the proles and also appeasing the bourgeoisie enough to not truly anger either of them
>>2785907also because they were tools rather than agencies in the same sense that a liberal system, an agency does things and generally has power over itself but is mostly a slave to the bourgeois state, whereas the soviet system had them act as consultants held only because it gave an illusion of there being more than the party-state
>>2785607>Marx's purge is literally what let us know not to incorporate anarchists within the movement.I wonder if this is why communist parties are all socdems now
>>2786025I understand by my whole point is that the main functions of the vanguard (daily politics/governance, theoretical development, civil society organizations, and safeguarding the revolution) are arguably better served by splitting them up among various institutions. This way the interests in one area don't become so easily subordinated to another (e.g. compromising the socialist character of the state to advance short term political goals). More importantly, revisionism in one doesn't immediately spread to the rest, and can instead be held in check by them.
>>2785889> To see purges as necessary, is to admit that you intend to keep reactionary material conditions, and merely punish the result.wee woo wee woo kafka trap alert
wee woo wee woo kafka trap alert
>>2785835>You'll end up killing everyone who isnt a reactionarynah, nah, nah. trust me bro. it makes perfect sense. trust me bro. just one more purge bro
Roll the dice
>>2784821Vid related was fun to listen to at the gym tonight…
especially this part:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/11/01.htm
> Everyone knows that the Tenth Congress of our Party adopted a resolution on the anarcho-syndicalist deviation.14 And what is the anarcho-syndicalist deviation? No one will say that the anarcho-syndicalist deviation is “better” than the Social-Democratic deviation. But from the fact that a resolution on the anarcho-syndicalist deviation was adopted, nobody has yet drawn the conclusion that the members of the “Workers’ Opposition” must necessarily be expelled from the Party.
>Trotsky cannot but know that the Thirteenth Congress of our Party proclaimed Trotskyism a “downright petty-bourgeois deviation.” But nobody has so far held that the adoption of that resolution must necessarily lead to the expulsion of the leaders of the Trotskyist opposition from the Party. knowing it was 1 year before Trotsky's expulsion from the party LOL
>>2786057Idk man it's hard to argue with results. No bourgeois state has ever been betrayed and destroyed from within by communist infiltrators. The reverse isn't true.
>>2786085>No bourgeois state has ever been betrayed and destroyed from within by communist infiltrators. 2 more weeks
>>2786085It's going to start happening for the first time as western hegemonly loses its grip
Then again it took them 30 years that's a bit long
>>2786085>No bourgeois state has ever been betrayed and destroyed from within by communist infiltrators.China.
>>2786094He did do this (with the old bolsheviks)
>>2786146So you are propagandizing something that Trotskyists, Anarchists and bourgeois propagandists accuse Joseph Stalin of killing all or at least most of the so-called ”Old Bolsheviks” and thus being able to apparently distort the true meaning behind Bolshevism/Leninism. Here I won’t be getting into a thorough debate about what is or is not the real core ideology of Bolshevism but I would like to examine the accusation that Stalin ”killed the Old Bolsheviks”.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
>>2786350The irony of posts like these is that they actually highlight the vast differences between the way the party was run under Lenin vs Stalin. Lenin often criticized his comrades (and they criticized him) while also regarding them as effective party members and genuine communists. In other words he didn't regard mistakes or disagreements as betrayal, and allowed for a diversity of views within the party in line with democratic centralism.
>>2786389Centralism and open disagreement are contradictory, they cannot both be there at the same time in practice
>>2786395yeah and it works fine and its name is democratic centralism, even bourgeois parties operate similarly to itt
>>2786395>Centralism and open disagreement are contradictory, they cannot both be there at the same time in practiceNo, there can be open disagreement up until a decision is made.
>>2786395>Centralism and open disagreement are contradictoryDemocratic centralism specifically allows for disagreement until an official resolution is passed on a question. While debate is ongoing or if not official line on an issue has been declared, then open disagreement is allowed. You're missing my point though, which is that Lenin clearly had many disagreements with these other party members and yet still saw fit to let them be appointed to high ranking and important positions, let them produce major works of party theory and analysis, etc. So again, he clearly did not regard these disagreements as unforgivable crimes, and understood the difference between criticism and denunciation.
>>2785543The Communist Party of China incorporated purges as a regular process and its the most powerful nation in the world today, funny how you leave that out
Stalin’s mistake was seeing purges as singular events that could be started and stopped
>>2786527>The Communist Party of China incorporated purges as a regular processThat led to capitalist restoration though, even if it didn't lead to the bourgeoisie taking total power.
>>2784821Be a communist, ensure the party remains on a revolutionary communist road.
Simple as.
>>2786557long NEP just works while most of the world remains capitalist. otherwise you're under capitalist siege for decades like Cuba or DPRK
>>2786560this feels like a kafka trap and self fulfilling prophecy.
if a party goes revisionist and purges actual communists like you, would you sit in your cell and think "I had this coming, i clearly deviated, not the party." or would you accept that sometimes the reactionaries win?
>>2786566That's the irony of the whole debate. People will vociferously defend purges as a regular feature of a socialist government when it comes to Stalin's purges, but simultaneously seethe about Khruschev's purges of anti-revisionists. It doesn't occur to them to explore alternative methods of combating revisionism, opportunism, etc.
>>2786744Its really quite sad that it seems 90% of communists have learned absolutely nothing from any of the failures of communist states in the 20th century.
>>2786760Learning requires brain power and everyone is too exhausted from work and keeping up with their own lives, that’s why there will never be a revolution
>>2786744Wow it’s almost like there’s a difference between communists and anti-communists or something
>>2786790It’s the difference between heels and faces in pro wrestling
>>2786790The point is that purges are a bad method for achieving your goals because of how easily they can be weaponized by the very people you're trying to fight.
>kafka trap
purge everyone that uses this term, gulag them even
>>2786803i suggest you get employed for saying "gulag"
>>2786803Did you ever read The Trial? It’s a good novel
>>2786803i've been seeing it get dropped a lot lately because it's a good description of a lot of anons on here. they'll ignore what you said, accuse you of being something, and if you deny it, they say that's proof. if i wanted to troll people i would do nothing but lay kafka traps all day. it's perfect.
>>2786812is just a liberal psyop for when liberals get caught being liberals, dont fall for it
>>2786817yeah so you just outed yourself as a troll by pretending it's not a problem, fuck you traitor
>>2786826whatever you say, but dont act like I didnt warn you about it in the future
Stalinists cannot be trusted. And we should really stop calling them MLs, they like to hide behind that label to avoid having to own being fans of a mass murdering paranoid tyrant by actually using his name. At least Maoists don't hide from their label.
>>2786860>mass murdering tyrantsit did not happen
and what actually happened, they deserved it
>>2786867you sound like a holocaust denier
>>2786867Obvious bait is obvious
>>2786869except that unlike the crimes of hitler and nazism which are documented and know, the supposed crimes of "stalinists and maoists" could be made up and ideologically motivated in detraction of communism
and liberal low effort garbage like your post would be instantly banned.
go back to reddit
>>2786880yeah man i'm sure all of them never happened and actually they so didn't happen and were just all made up in the 50s! yet again you sound like a pathetic holocaust denier but in reverse
>>2786877nah this site probably was leaked to redditors like that one user who shared to r/communismmemes and how leftypol has been namedropped into a hearts of iron 4, plus the constant ultra posting in the last 1 and half years, there is genuine anti-communist garbage posting here.
>>2786884you are a liberal, if you is anxious to compare others to "holocaust deniers" you threw away to empirically analysis history, go back to reddit
>>2786885What HOI4 mod has leftypol? Do you mean Alunya being in TFR?
>>2786891yea, that one. althrough TFR is kinda a mixed bag because there is a dedicated left wing playerbase.
>>2786889i compare to a holocaust denier since like a holocaust denier you're so obsessed with defending a dead man and a dead nation that you will do anything to do so, denying basic facts and just crying like a little bitch to the mods to ban me because i don't like your stalinite nonsense
>>2786893Playerbase yes but sadly the remaining devs are fascists almost to a man. The Chinese devs were leftists but the MSS shut them down, so now we're stuck with only the American and Russian devs; most of the American and all the Russian devs are fascists.
>>2786904>-y-y-you're a liberal if you won't submit to the absolute authority of my surrogate father figure!The problem isn't with me, you need a therapist.
>>2786904sure man i'm definitely an eastern european liberal or your cringe bogeyman, not someone who's sick and fucking tired of hearing the same shit repeated 1000x, maybe we're not all those things you don't like and instead people who are fed up with your shit? you ever thought about that one?
Why stalinoids are scared of democratic centralism?
>>2786904leftypol has largely devolved into ragebaiting and posturing. look at this thread, there are 68 posters and like 5 of them were seriously debating
>imagine being so great that even after 73 years from his death, people still bitch about you, and project on others that do not so, because they fucking lost in 1945.
>>2786915>not someone who's sick and fucking tired of hearing the same shit repeated 1000xlike the idea that Stalin was a hecking evil dictator?
>>2786920Why was Trotsky afraid of it? His platform received 0.5% of the vote and rather than taking the L he sperged out and organized a protest
>>2786961Yes, you do. Stalin killed anyone he didn't like, purely at his own discretion. The people of the Soviet Union had no say in the matter and the idea they did is propaganda. You don't care, because like simps for fascist dictators, you simply tell yourself everyone he kills deserves it, no matter who it is or why.
>>2786936no the idea that i have to 100% agree with a man who died nearly 80 years ago because you personally worship him, and want to make everyone else worship him
>>2786961>"old bolsheviks" who in their imagination could never do wrong and automatically deserve aristocratic positions because they were the first or somethingAnd look at the amazing string of leaders the soviet union ended up being blessed with after stalins death thanks to him killing off basically every single actually competent marxist.
>>2786961> le "old bolsheviks" who in their imagination could never do wrong and automatically deserve aristocratic positionsDo you also cry and moan about the princelings in China? Or the Castro family in Cuba? Stfu.
>>2784821easy dont b a wrecker cunt
>>2786961>Anti-stalinists will ignore the fact that more elected officials were removed every year by popular vote in Stalinist USSR than any western "democracies"Can you give some examples? What's the biggest election that happened in Stalinist USSR?
>>2787119The very fact you think one can't be socialist and oppose Stalin is why Stalinists can never, ever be trusted.
>>2787164No politics actor is honest period
>>2787351Who the fuck is "we"?
>>2787381we the posters on this site
>>2787351Sorry, we don't suck counterrevolutionary cock in here. And Stalin was perhaps the greatest counterrevolutionary ever.
>>2787384>your time will comeagain, Stalin was a counterrevolutionary so this will never happen lulz. Socialism in one bedroom headass
>>2787389you really seem to hate the guy who killed hitler, interesting.
>>2784942Ironic that this is what saved DPRK.
The USSR became controlled opposition because WW2 really did a number on the boomers and they did not want to relive another war and would rather sacrifice themselves to crapitalism than fight it. Which didn't matter in the end because they all decided to become crapitalists out of their own desires after visiting western stores and being completely mindbroken from Bernays' propaganda. At least the DPRK had a vaccine against westoid softpower.
>>2787407Dont most people?
>>2786566>if a party goes revisionist and purges actual communists like you, would you sit in your cell and think "I had this coming, i clearly deviated, not the party."Why would I think that? This only makes sense in a narrative where people who are purged are helpless victims who don't understand the context they exist in. That's not true, and we can see in individuals like Jiang Qing and others that revolutionary Communists are very capable of understanding what is happening around them.
>or would you accept that sometimes the reactionaries win?Why would that be such an absurd statement? Of course they do.
>>2787351I can't go back to reddit, I keep being banned for wanting chuds killed and I'm sick of making more emails.
Also, I too advocate for authoritarian measures to secure the revolution. That's not the problem with Stalinists, the problem with Stalinists is that you're autocrats. You believe in having an unaccountable dictator that can do whatever he wants.
>>2787384That's precisely why I will fight to prevent any kind of Stalinist-led revolution. In the west at least, it would be going backward, since you'd be taking away the one area of life where the masses have any say (politics).
>>2787408If the only antidote to capitalism is creating a fucking monarchy you might as well just be capitalist.
>>2787803Communo monarchism works like it or not.
>>2787852>worksThe fuck does that even mean. Doesn't matter anyway, I don't like or want it whether it """""works""""" or not.
>>2787802Yo buddy, I believe the CIA is hiring people for that mission
I LOVE STALIN SO MUCH I FUCKING LOVE STALIN STALIN #1 NAZI KILLER BEST MAN HES THE BEST STALIN YES!!! STALIN GO!!! STALIN STALIN!!!!
>>2787925Again, the fact you dont think having real elections is important is a red (heh) flag
>>2787929Popularity contests are not a good criteria fir running anything by
>>2787929elections are detrimental to democracy
>>2787802>That's precisely why I will fight to prevent any kind of Stalinist-led revolutiont. first to be purged
>>2787938People who think this are the ones who actually need to be purged
>>2788051Elections, and "representative" democracy in general are and have always been a scam, pure popularity contest where the real people able to choose a candidate are those who are in control of mass media, and so what, to have a guy that gets free rein for the next 5 years to betray everything he was pretending to be for with zero accountability?
>>2787934Irrelevant, there is no other way to ensure the ruling class doesn't completely fuck over the masses.
>>2788086There is no superior alternative. You'll insist otherwise, but no, a dictator is not better, I will not accept that argument.
>>2788087If you want representative government at all, the only sensible way to do is through sortition, make being a politician like jury duty
>>2788089Dictators are more efficient and honest, one need only look at the trajectories of China and the US/Europe to see this
>>2788093China is a democracy thoughever.
>>2788093No, they're not. That's propaganda. You can insist "trust me bro" all you want, it won't happen. No one who insists on having unchecked authority can be trusted, period. No exceptions.
>>2788089They are a dictator in all but name, even in the US no president has been impeached into actually losing their posts, and that's not even talking about countries were the president is basically the monarch and can push laws through regardless of who else agrees, like France
Dictatorship is honestly a less useful thing however, as it makes it so the ruling class can't just swap their public figure and thus diffuse the hate of the commons to different governments.
>>2787796soviets leaders were recallable
>>2787164>The very fact you think one can't be socialist and oppose Stalinthe post you were responding to didn't say that
>>2788135He called critics of Stalin liberals so yes, he did
>>2788100>No one who insists on having unchecked authority can be trusted, period. No exceptions.is it possible to have a system
without unchecked authority? who watches the watchmen? the watchmen-watchers must have their own watchers as well. the only solution is a panopticon where everyone spies and snitches on each other. total surveillance at all times. no privacy.
>>2788136there's a difference between having some reserved criticisms of stalin and coming here to express outrage and shock that not everyone thinks he was just as bad as hitler.
>>2784896>>2784859She was made a diplomat in Scandinavia, kind of like an honorable exile.
>>2788137Ultimately no, but it matters very much WHAT that ultimate authority is. I demand the ultimate authority be the masses themselves, not the General Secretary of a vanguard party, because it is the only way to mitigate abuse of power and incentivize the state to align with the interests of the masses.
>>2788051You want to have democracy consisting of an aristocracy of elected officials who immediately are plunged into an opportunistic/antagonistic role with their voterbase.
I want a democracy of referenda, direct/liquid democratic voting, and lottery officials who have no reason or options for maligning the system.
We are not the same.
>>2788151>Ultimately no, but it matters very much WHAT that ultimate authority is. I demand the ultimate authority be the masses themselves, not the General Secretary of a vanguard partysoviets leaders were recallable
>>2788244Why wasnt gorbachev recalled?
>>2788254because by that revisionism had poisoned the entire party, not just gorbachev
>>2788921An issue i've never really heard addressed
>>2788921What was stopping the soviet citizenry recalling gorbachev?
>>2788166>I want a democracy>We are not the same.actually, you are
>In the usual argument about the state, the mistake is constantly made against which Engels warned and which we have in passing indicated above, namely, it is constantly forgotten that the abolition of the state means also the abolition of democracy; that the withering away of the state means the withering away of democracy.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch04.htm#s6 Unique IPs: 88