Can we stop pretending that Stalinism is a leftist ideology? Stalin transformed the USSR into a reactionary state-capitalist shithole that retained nothing of the Left.
Just read posts by Stalinists - they are indistinguishable from Nazi ones, if you set aside the leftist terminology.
>Inb4 this get deleted and you banned by the zigger mods
>>2893671It's a dogshit bait thread. OP asserts that "stalinists" are nazis, that "the left" was totally absent in the USSR and that the USSR was reactionary without a single thing to back it all up. Vagueposting strikes again
>>2893668Stalinism isn't really a thing. Cutting the USSR up in this fashion is just a way for everyone to take what they like and leave what they don't from an attempt at building socialism that ultimately failed. It failed beautifully, it had some fun stuff going for it even when it had clearly long since lost sight of any lofty goals and been taken over by the sort of people who just want to bumble through today, but it failed and its failures were inherent to its structure, its material conditions, and its administration. You cannot pick-and-choose: Stalinism flows directly from Leninism. There is no "what if Trotsky had…", "What if Rosa had…", we do not live in "what ifs"
(But, before Stalinists gloat, we must remember that it follows from this that Khrushchev and Gorbachev flow directly from Stalinism…)
You’re not going far enough, every flaw and atrocity or whatever in the Soviet Union is embedded within Marx and his works.
it goes back further than stalinism, leninism was basically the same thing, a minority right-wing deviation which arose in what was initially a majority left-wing socialist movement. the so-called "bolshevik revolution" wasn't really a popular revolution, it was a coup d'etat. what started off as a popular socialist movement by the people was commandeered by an elitist wealthy intellectual vanguard who, through clever political maneuvering, established themselves as the leaders of the movement and staged a coup wherein they replaced the old ruling class and became the new ruling class, then rewrote history so that they were the leaders of the movement from the beginning. trotsky was one of the insiders who spoke critically of this and as a result he was excommunicated and vilified as a traitor and fascist sympathizer and was later brained with an ice pick by a hitman in mexico.
>>2893703It goes back to the first international
>>2893714basically any time you get some person trying to say "hey everyone shut up and listen to me, i'm the smart one and i've got it all figured out" and you don't immediately tar and feather that person and run them out on a rail, the revolution is fucked.
>>2893741August Wilich should have murdered Marx, we’d be living in communism now if he did so
>>2893763Willich freed the slaves and killed dixies
>>2893770Because bolshevists and liberals always team up to squash actual communists
>>2893770>successfulYeah look at all these succesful Bolshevik led countries, much success. I can't go outside without seeing a succesful communist revolution led by Bolsheviks.
>>2893772>actual communistsPlease show me these actual communists so I can measure their success.
>>2893782The USA is the biggest Marxist success story and also boring hell
>>2893783They get killed by marxists before they even write a word or do anything
>>2893786So how do you even know they are communists? They can be lolberts for all you know.
>>2893785>USA>Marxist success storyI mean if doing the opposite of marxism is marxism then sure. The only thing I will agree with is yes, the USA is very boring because everything is a psyop or game. Fake and ghey in otherwords.
>>2893782Comparing the roman empire to the USSR is hilarious, it's not only stupid but the roman empire lasted for more then a millenium, what do you think this proves? I don't know anything about the Macedonian empire, so ok sure i guess.
I never said anything about any commune or anarchism, so i'm not sure why you would bring that up except for getting mad at phantoms in you're head.
Just out of curiousity, were you an active /pol/ user?
>>2893789Marxism commands developing capitalism as much as possible until its exhaustion, making Chimerica (China and America, which have been one country since before the death of Mao) the ultimate Marxist practitioners, what Marx didn’t predict was capitalism’s ability to absorb and pacify the supposed working class, or that revolution is an inherently liberal event.
>>2893801>what Marx didn’t predict was capitalism’s ability to absorb and pacify the supposed working classWhat is blud on about?
>or that revolution is an inherently liberal event.>only liberalism can be revolutionary Libshit centrism back at it again
>>2893803Noam Chomsky the anarcho-syndicalist is pic related?
>>2893804Every revolution so far has only produced liberalism, 1991 was hard coded into 1917
>>2893770The bolshevik form of revolutionary organization and agigation is very effective.
The bolshevik form of governance? Only sucessfull of robbing the workers of the means of production and then selling out to capitalism for 678884th time in a row.
>>2893797>the roman empire lasted for more then a milleniumTime was slower back then. Decades in weeks, weeks in decades etc. Point being that just because something does not exist today, does not mean it did not exist in the past. Half the world was ML at one point. If you won a FIFA WC once, it goes on your uniform. Can you point me to any place that successfully answered the problems of modernity while being anarchist?
I used to be a maga q-tard. Then I saw the light. Everyone on this board knows this.
>>2893810>selling outMy my, when did this happen? Did this happen when they were still bolsheviks or… oh wait, this happened after they abandoned Marxism-Leninism for Succdemism in 1987.
>>2893805Either him or infamous billionaire sex trafficker/pedophile jeffery epstein. They and anon all basically hold the same position
>>2893809>Every revolution so far has only produced liberalismThe agricultural revolution produced liberalism dumb dumb? Cease talking.
>>2893819The agricultural revolution was the first step towards liberalism yes
>>2893813>My my, when did this happen? Did this happen when they were still bolsheviks or… oh wait, this happened after they abandoned Marxism-Leninism for Succdemism in 1987.Nooo they weren't true bolsheviks it doesn't count!!!
It was the bolshevik system that put them in power.
It was the bolshevik system that kept them in power
It was the bolshevik system that robbed the proleteriat of any say in the enacting of socialism
It was the bolshevik system that killed any trace of workers democracy.
It was the bolshevik system that robbed the proleteriat of any power to do anything to stop them from selling out the country to capitalism just because they felt like it.
>>2893817>They and anon all basically hold the same positionAnon is an anarcho syndicalist?
>Either him or infamous billionaire sex trafficker/pedophile jeffery epsteinFile related
>>2893821I told you to cease talking. Your stupidity is a terrible thing indeed.
>>2893826I overcame my laziness
feel free to post in banner thread. That i am too lazy for.
>>2893822The USSR stopped being bolshevik after Stalin and if you want, Khruschev. Soviet executives had excessive power to shape the country. I consneed that, but to call the retards running the country in 1987 bolsheviks is laughable. They were succdems at most.
>>2893830Lick my fucking cock you product of modernity
>>2893813>Time was slower back then.Lmao OK, I'm sorry but vague shit likethat doesn't mean anything. Since time is hyperspeed now, doesn't that mean that a 5year commune is now more successful then the roman empire?
>I used to be a maga q-tard. Then I saw the light. Everyone on this board knows this.yeah I remember that reading here but I wasn't sure. Anyway, i'm happy for you, but I'm going to be patronizing; it really fucking shows that you just substituted one thing for another without changing anything about yourself and I think you should try and get more among people, it helps with selfreflection
my son
> Can you point me to any place that successfully answered the problems of modernity while being anarchist?This thread isn't about anarchism, so no I won't entertain your loaded question here.
>>2893835Doesnt matter what you call them its the end result of and fault of a bolshevik system of governance.
>>2893825>Anon is an anarcho syndicalist?I wouldn't presume to know. Their stance on Lenin just reminded me of Epstein's close personal friend Chomsky and his take on the matter
>>2893847Does two and two make five because a pedophile said so? Negative polarization is brainrot
>>2893851Political persuasion is a little different than your stance on a mathematical question. All I'm saying is he wasn't close personal friends with a stalinist
Thread going as well as I thought it would. Sinbad, the bait got you good.
>>2893846To interrupt the vagueposting going on, can you define what a bolshevik system of governance is? Does the fault lie with democratic centralism? A degridation of democratic cententralism? Entrenched bureaucracy?
Be specific, it's correct to say that
something went wrong in the USSR, but we must pick what worked from what didn't. The USSR wasn't all failures, nor was it sunshine and daisies. If we want to make this anything other than a shitflinging thread, we need some substance.
>>2893853He defended the Afghani ML regime
>>2893668Indeed, marxism & socialism are not leftist, and neither is bolshevism/marxism-leninism.
I mean Jean-Claude Michéa said it well: Open up any text by Marx & try to find a single passage where he describes his views to be "left"
>>2893858Good on you for attacking the vaguepost & baitpost explicitly.
>>2893845>doesn't that mean that a 5year commune is now more successful then the roman empire?I thought we were comparing the Soviets to the commune. Both situations are not in your favor anarkiddie. Either way you don't want to show me your successful anarchist experiments
because they don't exist so I don't see the point of going back and forth on this.
Instead, why don't you redpill me on anarchism, father?
>>2893858>To interrupt the vagueposting going on…See, this will never be answered lool.
They hate the USSR because it did work at mobilizing people for objectively good deeds while their anarchist communes could not. Just admit we humans are not a hive mind and need strong organization to get things done. Anarchists cannot admit this. Even if some leader emerges within an anarchist commune and motivates the plebs for something, the idealistic anarkiddies will decry that as statism, stalinism, etc, and cope with saying it's not real communism or whatever.
>>2893870You're the one vaguely posting about time somehow being different in the past and how roman slave empires somehow legitimize industrial state projects in the 20th century.
> Instead, why don't you redpill me on anarchism, father?Why should I ? Figure it out yourself and go to some meetings or any protest. Or some farm, whatever. At least you might stop writing like an imbecile whose only social interactions have been via a screen, absolutely stunted jfc. Find some to love and to love you back, please.
Anyway If you're right I'll have to go mine uranium without any protection anyway for being a degenerate counter revolutionary or some shit.
>>2893858Not that anon but while there is plenty of commendable stuff that happened under the ussr, (which I can say about a lot of liberal projects as well, so it's not that much of a compliment) it's basic model is hardly applicable today outside of maybe china and some other industrial powerhouses, so to me details like the entrenched bureaucratic class don't even matter as much anymore since the basic premise is dead in the water from the start.
That doesn't mean that these questions shouldn't be asked or studied, but to do so in the idea of reviving bolshevism in the 21st century is completely counterproductive.
too much phone typing I hate touchscreens communism is impossible as long as I personally have to deal wit touchscreens >>2893889I like pannekoek and I like pannekoeken
>>2893908Well if you won't tell me about your ideology, goodbye then fellow leftychud.
O7
>>2893671anyone who says zigger is pro NATO
>>2893824>stalin hitler pactcompletely dishonest framing of that event.
>>2893827not justified but also largely irrelevant in a time period where capitalists also persecuted LGBT people
Mods should get back to old BO's zero tolerance policy towards bourgeois anti-communist wrecker bots like OP.
>Just read posts by Stalinists - they are indistinguishable from Nazi ones
The audacity. KYS glowtard
>>2893817you're really reaching aren't you
>>2893950Old BO was a retard for whom aesthetics of resistence overwritten basic reasoning. Same with you judging by your larp flag that clings to nostalgic legacy for social-fascism and Wilhelminist economic management.
USSR, ever since the failure of the German revolution (and to an extent the failure in war with Poland) the imposition of defensive measures to secure its own survival (which was mistakenly identified with survival of the communist project as a whole) put the Russian revolutionary project on a path of reaction. It failed to transform society into anything more than just another developmentalist project, its ideology being just a vacuous coat of paint to better distinguish its Wilhelmine, "state capitalist" economic model from the anglosphere libertarian model. Sadly, this coat of paint also did one hell of a job to remove communism as an alternative within its borders, leading to nationalism being the only mass-movement opposition that could have formed in the wake of its collapse.
But regarding OP, Stalin isn't central to what you are describing. This was literally the only course of action that USSR had if it wanted to survive as a project - sure, Bukharin might have been more humane, but the developmental path would have been the same one (and don't you meme about Trotsky, he had no shot). The other alternative being all-out suicidal war trying to spread the revolution until it burst, which would probably been more productive in the long run.
>>2893813>Half the world was ML at one pointlol if you believe this. at a massive push half the world was "socialist", but a good chunk of those were dysfunctional meme regimes for whom "socialism" meant "doing arms deals with the USSR" and a further chunk were just laughable. (like India. India vs China is basically a what-not-to-do fable for economic development. China cracked it - smash the old dead-weight social institutions with a socialist hammer and then reform, open up, and get rich! India? Protect your old dead-weight social institutions with some democracy, plan and regulate and permit and stagnate, and even even when you reform and open up, enjoy languid growth as the dead hand of tradition drags you to hell.)
>>2893835early Gorbachev sincerely took many of his worst ideas from reading Lenin and trying to interpret him for modern conditions. In particular, his fatal economic blunders were motivated by the NEP (without understanding that the specific form his reforms took would open up convertibility between beznal and nal, effectively allowing the state to loot itself… not that even soviet economists really understood this until later. what it says about a planned economy that the planners did not understand their economy is left as an exercise to the reader.) and Lenin's policy on nationalities. (presidents for everyone! alternative power centres for everyone!)
even if he was just an out-and-out socdem, the USSR remains condemned for allowing him to come to power. "b-but Stalin died" - Stalin must have known he was going to die at some point, why did he not have a contingency? B-but Khruschev was a traitor/couped too soon (delete as appropriate) - why did the system allow a traitor? why did the system coup him? Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko -
why, why, why? m-maybe Malenkov - maybe but not! a system that cannot ensure succession of power to trustworthy and competent leaders is a doomed system. it has failed the single most fundamental task of self-preservation, a precondition for literally everything else.
>>2893858at a higher level i would say the problem was a certain conservatism, or perhaps getting stuck in a rut at a certain stage of development. i negatively contrast the USSR with China, which did ten times as many stupid things as the USSR but offset it by getting the big questions right. in the end stages basically everyone accepted the USSR was going to transition to some kind of market economy, but they dithered and debated and ultimately failed to make that transition where China succeeded. now, China had the advantage of being poorer and therefore having less to fear from the short term pains of doing so, but ultimately a lack of decisiveness is fatal.
i cannot say whether China's system has worked better because it is more competently structured or because it is more competently staffed, but China is really the model to contrast with at all times. whatever you may say against it: it is here! you can go visit China right now!
>>2894002basically fair assessment.
as has been noted before: if Park Chung-Hee wore a coat of red paint, /leftypol/ would sing his praises constantly. much of the fetish for socialist regimes is really a fetish for developmentalism and strongmen.
>>2893682>>2893683>>2893682>>2893689>>2893692>>2893703>>2893772>>2893810lib on lib infighting and nobody wonders why this board has gone to shit
>>2894008>socialist regimes is really a fetish for developmentalism and strongmen.the audicity to say this while at the same time glazing china for said developmentalism, skyscrapers and commodity production is not socialism and now fuck off
>>2894010that's a good thing. members of any kind of political or scientific community are supposed to fight and argue and criticize and question and insult and attack each other all the time, it's what separates healthy functional communities from groupthink echo chamber reddit bullshit.
>>2894010this board has gone to shit because it gets no new blood and because oldBO chased off everyone who pretended to believe in anything remotely interesting. the two primary innovations of /leftypol/ culture, tripflagging and "made by x gang", are both downstream of having lots of left-wing ideologies arguing their case and shitposting with-and-about one another. once everyone who was remotely interesting was chased off, stagnation set in because of good old channer insularity based on a stupid understanding of how website culture works. (noo, if we let in new users we'll turn into le reddit! i am a materialist, but don't believe the design of a website shapes the behaviour of its userbase!!)
>>2894013I "glaze" China because it comes out ahead of most other countries in a head-to-head comparison. India? unlike them China knows how to develop. USSR? unlike them China knew how not to implode. USA? China's got so many people that it's all but inevitable it'll overtake the US in global relevance and power, and the US has clearly started going insane about this fact instead of trying to carve out a comfortable second place. socialism barely enters into it because every "socialist" country is just a less competent version of skyscrapers and commodity production. you cannot cheat your way out of developing the means of production.
>>2894002>>2894008>tldr ussr was le badinsightful, cuba also believed the "muh markets" meme, embarrassing. i guess 90s Russia some people forgot existed
>>2894014>that's a good thing. members of any kind of political or scientific community are supposed to fight and argue and criticize and question and insult and attack each other all the time, it's what separates healthy functional communities from groupthink echo chamber reddit bullshit.its not when the assumption is already wrong, ussr bad is no analysis
>>2894018Russia and Britain are anomalous cases which should generally be excluded from arguments for any particular system of social organisation. Poland went for muh markets and will overtake British prosperity before the decade is out. meanwhile Russia bungled everything and wound up with a totally crooked kleptocracy… but ironically, despite starting from different circumstances, so did Britain. far from unleashing market forces, Thatcher basically handed everything over to insiders and crooks and set them up with a system of licensed looting of the public, protected from any serious competitive interference from international capital, and her successors - for all their market rhetoric - have only intensified this process. no wonder, then, that Britain alone has seen 20+ years of stagnation since the 2008 crash, no wonder then that British elections are scarcely less stage managed than Russian ones.
anyway, go read Collapse by Vladislav Zubok and The Rise and Fall of the British Nation by David Edgerton, then tell me I'm wrong.
(or if you're lazy, just watch Traumazone and then Shifty by Adam Curtis, it's very obvious he's explicitly making the same comparison.)
>>2894002>The other alternative being all-out suicidal war trying to spread the revolution until it burst, which would probably been more productive in the long run.Why do you think this would have been the case? Not to speculate on alt-hist, but do you mean productive in the sense of making a martyr of the russian socialist movement or productive in the sense of further rupturing global capital or something else?
>>2894008>a system that cannot ensure succession of power to trustworthy and competent leaders is a doomed system. it has failed the single most fundamental task of self-preservation, a precondition for literally everything else. Is that nessecarily a condemnation of the ML model? I mean, specifically the vanguardist revolutionary strategy, the conception of imperialism and democratic centralism. I don't think the specific form of government that the USSR took is all that Marxism/Leninism can describe.
>>2894013I don't think it was throwing shade on developmentalism as much as pointing out that developmentalism isn't nessecarily socialist exclusive.
>>2894017>socialism barely enters into it because every "socialist" country is just a less competent version of skyscrapers and commodity productionThat's a rather vulgar take. The particular historical conditions of the prior socialist experients have more value to take from then than simply saying they were less competent. They attempted, to varying degrees, to apply socialist principles, succeeding and failing in different ways. We had the cultural revolution which took on different characteristics to the red terror in the soviet union which then was different to the chaos of the paris commune etc etc. The commonality is the socialist idea.
I suppose I'm asking if you think that the developmentalist road taken by the various USSR sattelites was hindered or enhanced by their official state ideologies.
>>2894017>I "glaze" China because it comes out ahead of most other countries in a head-to-head comparison. India? unlike them China knows how to develop. USSR? unlike them China knew how not to implode. USA? China's got so many people that it's all but inevitable it'll overtake the US in global relevance and power, and the US has clearly started going insane about this fact instead of trying to carve out a comfortable second place. socialism barely enters into it because every "socialist" country is just a less competent version of skyscrapers and commodity production. you cannot cheat your way out of developing the means of production.look how he pivoted from "muh developmentism" to "we need to develope the means of production" cope, thanks for proving that China is not socialist and you arent either. If you only measure yourself against other existing capitalist nations you only dampen your own development, as the measurement for socialism has not yet been developed and will supersede both.
>>2894023Aren't developed means of production a precondition for effective socialism?
>>2894020>Poland went for muh markets and will overtake British prosperity before the decade is out. meanwhile Russia bungled everything and wound up with a totally crooked kleptocracy… but ironically, despite starting from different circumstances, so did Britain. far from unleashing market forces, Thatcher basically handed everything over to insiders and crooks and set them up with a system of licensed looting of the public, protected from any serious competitive interference from international capital, and her successors - for all their market rhetoric - have only intensified this process.>muh pooooland, muh markets, muuuuh coooompetitionit will look impressive to those that have only ever experienced capitalist development
>>2894025>Aren't developed means of production a precondition for effective socialism?Has already been the case in Germany, Britain etc… during the 19th century, so i think we are long past that point.
>>2894028But in 20th century Russia, China etc?
>>2894021>Why do you think this would have been the case? Not to speculate on alt-hist, but do you mean productive in the sense of making a martyr of the russian socialist movement or productive in the sense of further rupturing global capital or something else? For one, it would have removed USSR from the equation which means movements in other nations wouldn't get lobotomized with Soviets forcing them to adapt their party line and organizational principles that were useless outside the specific 1918 context of Russia. In terms of popular imagination the lack of USSR (and its subsequent failures) would also, in my view, lessened the reactionary disposition of our times. Communism would still be propagandized against, but there wouldn't be the default options of pointing to a big red developmentalist oligarchy and missatributing that as "communism". Meanwhile the actual idea of explosive, suicidal end to Soviet project would cause a martyr effect, just as the Paris Commune, while, of course, the actual failed project would have many a survivor who would flee and disperse around the globe, growing the tactical and strategic knowledge of the overall movement globally. Oh and all the great socdem achievments made due to the perceived threat of USSR? A lack of those would be a good thing as well to curb reformist sentiment.
>>2894031>For one, it would have removed USSR from the equation which means movements in other nations wouldn't get lobotomized with Soviets forcing them to adapt their party line and organizational principles that were useless outside the specific 1918 context of Russia.The rest of the post is too much alt-hist conjecture for me but this point I can solidly agree on. From my experiences, most mature MLs (not literally older, but having metabolized the methodology and detached from the aesthetics) take the same position. I think what might be described as "stalinism" is precisely that immature Marxism Leninism who seek to emulate Stalin rather than learn from him and his situation.
>>2894034Meanwhile, the rest of the issue with MLs is that they believe that one can somehow pilot their way through developmentalism into communism, disregarding the obvious sociological truth that by doing this you will recreate the same core systems of capitalism. The anglosphere mythology of markets helps in this delusion, as the seemingly big difference betweend developmental state capitalism and classical liberalism helps justify the special character of USSR or China, but in truth these states operate not that differently than Wilhelmine Germany (and to be contraversial, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan as well). Stalin, in the absolute most best faith viewing, could be seen as someone using terror against his own state officials to keep revolutionary vigour, but the obvious pitfall is that once Stalin dies, these people (who, mind you, in their own sociological self conception, are righteus communist technicians wishing to develop the revolution) rightfully push Stalinism asside as perversely violent. Then, years pass, social habitus and class interest override the utopian ideology and you get just another developmental regime of corrupt aparachiks. And that's where you are now with China using strikebreakers and secret police to hunt down militant labour activists, promising big socialist dreams of more middle class prosperity and building imperialist extractive industries in the periphery.
Unique IPs: 25