/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>650907
> What the tuck do you think politics is?
Not whatever happens in this imageboard, that’s for damn sure
> That they were all anime true companions that were all buddy-buddy with one another and not unified into a block mostly by external circumstances that, once removed, wouldn’t let those tensions return?
Funny that you’re saying this while also claiming that Stalin was the 100% verifiable incorruptible anime protagonist hero without whom the Germans would have surely won a war against a rapidly industrializing state with a much larger population while also being at war with the other western powers at the time, therefore ackshually all his actions were justified, were not committed in the name of personal power, and surely those lifelong communists were fascist saboteurs all along

See, their participation in the Russian Revolution and Civil War was actually a fascist plot all along, step one was to destroy the monarchists, step two was to defeat the liberals, step three was to create a socialist state and then destroy it from within, fuck how could I have not seen this plot?
> That they weren’t petty parliamentarians and closet liberals who were willing to compromise the project for their own gain?
Ah yes, surely unlike Stalin who:
Mostly refused to support the other ongoing revolutions at the time
Was immediately followed by Khrushchev who a bunch of western schizos here think destroyed the untouchable Man of Steel’s legacy
Literally tried to join fucking NATO
> Spoiler alert: most of the bolshevik “old guard” would’ve acted the same.
At which point you’re not actually saying anything in favor of the bolsheviks in general

Okay, let’s get this out of the way once and for all, are you just simping for the only powerful socialist states you know of and must be uncritical because you feel you have no other choice?
> Did you think that Stalin and his political agenda was unpopular?
Even fucking Tsar Nicholas was popular at one point, even fucking World War I was popular at one point, tf does this even mean and how can you verify the popularity of it anyway? You think someone was going around polling the Soviet populace?
> Or I know, that the soviet union and its people weren’t in on it at all and both proudly participated in the construction of a new society and/or gleefully liquidated both perceived threats and former oppressors?
Ngl
These are just words mate
>>650909
>Making yourself a fucking moron with no reading comprehension to simp for Daddy Stalin
Hint: the situation was a hypothetical regarding whether legality actually makes something right or wrong

>>650902

Something about this post doesn't make sense:

What exactly was the Soviet Union supposed to do in these circumstances? Having tried to court allies against Germany and and being rebuffed, what other options does it have to buy time to prepare for the inevitable conflict? Should it have faced the Germans immediately and alone in a weaker position?

Moreover if one accepts Trotsky's thesis that the Soviet Union was too technologically and industrially backward to win the war st the time, wouldn't it then make sense to advocate for an prolonging non-aggression pact longer, rather than for example advocating for secession of Ukraine (and in fact collaborating with Nazis for tactical reasons of wanting to come back to power, see video).

—

Aside, you really shouldn't project your personal insecurities onto others. While there is nothing wrong sith wanting a strong father, the reason why say 70% of Russians have deep respect for Stalin is because symbolizes the epoch real material gains for the population, including industrialization, defeat of the nazi invader, mass housing, free education, health, early retirement, etc, etc.

>>651162
In hindsight the best course of action probably would have been to attack the Germans before France fell, but to be fair to the Soviets nobody knew it would happen so fast, so its not as if they would have had time to prepare anyway.

>>651180

The German attack on France is itself however contingent on the non-aggression pact having already been signed.

As for whether breaking the pact and attacking Germany would have worked then, I am a bit skeptical, but maybe you have some strategic analysis that shows it would have a good chance at success? Happy to look into it.

>>651187
>breaking the pact and attacking Germany
Of course, this is what I meant.
>but maybe you have some strategic analysis that shows it would have a good chance at success?
Well I'm just spitballing here, but fighting on two fronts obviously would have put the Germans at a tremendous disadvantage. Especially since their tank corps was the heart of their doctrine, and they didn't have them in sufficient numbers to deploy them on both fronts. The lack of access to Soviet oil also would have hindered their mechanized units, not to mention Germany's precarious food situation in 1940. On the other hand though, the Red Army had only just begin a series of major reforms that would still be in progress when the Germans attacked in 1941, so their own combat capabilities probably would have been relatively limited. Then again they would have been able to do it without having to recover the kinds of losses they experienced in 1941. There's also the possibility of the Western Allies concluding a separate peace with Germany in the event of a Soviet attack, although they didn't do this irl so I don't know how likely it would have been. Ultimately I think it's impossible to say, but I think that at the very least fighting the war on German/Polish instead of Soviet soil would have been better for the USSR.

>>650913
TL;DR

>>651192
>Then again they would have been able to do it without having to recover the kinds of losses they experienced in 1941.

For fuck's sake, just read already accounts of Gernans themselves instead of propagandists' statistics. Germans lost 4 millions in 4 months, while Soviets have lost 1 million. Just read this shit >>649515

How would you be able to score higher K/D ratio when you don't have supply lines, food, clothes and bullets? They did have a lot of weaponry, though - which they couldn't supply due to outstretched lines. When in two weeks initial blitzkrieg supplies ran out without any resupplies, that's when their blitzkrieg failed.

So, now you are saying that Soviets would have won with lower losses than imaginary 27 millions if they attacked Germany preemptively? Well, that's for sure - they would have lost maybe 10-20 millions to real history's 3.5 million soldiers and 3.5 million civilians. Check the PDF, look up numbers for people employed, in education and such for those years. Remember than Stalin's USSR has reported to the UN a population figure of 193 millions in 1946. Remember that Germany's population today is ~80 millions, basically the same figure as in 1939, while EVERYONE FUCKING ELSE IN EUROPE had their popualtions grew by 1/3 from 1939 to 1990, from France to Britain and USSR.

Germany was throwing corpses at USSR, not the other way around. Germany overextended itself and did the pro-gamer move of trying to push their luck with all their reserves - because if they didn't do it, they'd have VERY limited territorial advancement, and USSR having even bigger advantage than USSR had in reality. You can see this shit in HOI4 lan games all the time, when noobs keep trying to break enemy's defences because 1-2-3 years from now on the enemy will be much stronger than them, so they have to keep pushing.

>>651192
>>651537
>>651552
Look at the fucking wikipedia, even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_in_Germany

I'm so mad I even made you a fucking collage

>>651570
Wait, is that 4 million figure actually from a speech? That's your source? You realize that a wartime speech by a leader is by definition propaganda right? And you think this is more reliable than actual statistics?

>>650887
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact wasn't secret and wasn't malicious, as everyone had such a pact with Germany at the time (and Germany broke half of them, anyway). USSR was printing "secret' contents of that pact in a schoolchidren's newspaper, even! That's how secret and malicious it was!

You see, sweaty, Molotov-Ribbentrop craze was invented with presupposition that there were SECRET PROTOCOLS, and guess fucking what, it turned out that those secret protocols were in the OPEN since 1939, meaning THERE WERE NO SECRET PROTOCOLS. You know, secret stuff where Stalin was kissing Hitler on the lips turned out to be complete bullshit - so, fakers put into their forgeries WELL-KNOWN information from 1939 and claimed it was a top-super-secret stuff.

What, exactly, was in that pact? Well, it just postulated that Germany couldn't place troops past the imaginary line. Note that USSR took Lithuania, and separation of Poland was different as well. Look at the pic, again. Note 1939, note newspaper's name. What fucking secrecy? USSR stated clearly it's intentions - no German troops past the line. That's what happened.

>>651587
>than actual statistics?

"Actual statistics" show a drop in population in Germany from 80 million to 65 million. Stalin's figures totally in line with official stats - except the ones where losses are calculated off Goebbels' propaganda figures, lol

>>651591
>Actual statistics" show a drop in population in Germany from 80 million to 65 million
Yeah because in addition to military casualties of the Eastern Front there were casualties in other theaters, civilian casualties, people exterminated by the Nazis, and the people living in territories that were no longer part of Germany after the war. The wiki article even says that the 1939 census included German territory in what is now Poland, plus Austria and the Sudentenland. The 1946 census did not.

>>651600
Germany got itself a 12 million influx of germans from all over Europe after the war. It had in 1990 3 million turks, 1-2 million southern slavs, 1 million other non-germans. Today it has 1 million russians, even and up to 7 million turks.

I get it you want to suck Goebbels' dick, but come on now, have some dignity. Clear fucking picture - while everyone grew by 30% by 1990, Germany was RESTORING it's population size to 1939 figure. Meaning - that's right! - huge fucking military losses, which destroyed Germany's demographics. None of Germany's neighbours had that.

>>651607
>Germany got itself a 12 million influx of germans from all over Europe after the war
What's your source on that? Were they all back within Germany's new borders as of the 1946 census?

>>651537
>whenever we are raided by /pol/ this stalinist schizo poster also appears
curious

>>651615
>>651607
So a quick search shows that of the 15 million people missing from the 1946 census, about 7 million can be attributed to the war, either as deaths or a decline in births, increase in infant mortality, etc. That leaves 8 million unaccounted for, and the population of Austria and the Sudentenland in 1939, who are not included in the 1946 census, are counted at just under 10 million combined. So that means that the loss of territories more than accounts for this discrepancy, and even allows room for some of the 12 million Germans relocated to the new German borders after the war (a process which wasn't completed until 1950). Moreover, the population of Germany proper in 1939 was only about 70 million, so the losses are nearly as large as you are claiming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1939

>>651589
None of this shit matters to me, simian, my point was contrasting the stance you fucking mindless stalin simpfags have regarding Trotsky’s actions vs Stalin’s actions

>>651587
Stalin was god unironically
His word is Truth

Seriously just accept that stalinsimps are mindless pseudo-theists

>>651621
Austria's population today is 9 mln. "Germany proper" was 70 million, add to that 3.2 mln Sudeten Germans, add to that, Poland's 1.8 + 1.6 + 0.6 + 0.4 = 4.4 mln Germans were deported, 2 mln in East Prussia.

https://theconversation.com/postwar-forced-resettlement-of-germans-echoes-through-the-decades-137219

Total expelled were around 10-14 mln. I can't find real figure, so here's my estimate. So, total, "Germany proper" got a pure population boost of around 1-5 million people. Keep in mind that Poland's and Sudeten Germans are accounted by 80 million figure of 1939.

So, we get around 19 million demographic losses of Germans in Germany and Eastern Europe. In my pic >>651570 we have 14 million because those 5 million influx is unaccounted for.

So, people were quoting Zemskov as the source of objective truth regarding repressions Stalin did. But wait, let's look up the time his figures first came to light!

https://www.politpros.com/journal/read/?ID=783

>At the beginning of 1989, by decision of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences, a commission of the History Department of the USSR Academy of Sciences, headed by corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences Yu.A. Polyakov, was created to determine the population losses. As part of this commission, we were among the first historians to gain access to the previously unreleased statistical reports of the OGPU-NKVD-MVD-MGB, the highest bodies of state power and government bodies of the USSR, which were in special storage in the Central State Archives of the October Revolution (TsGAOR USSR), now renamed the State Archives of the Russian Federation (GARF).

<1989

Note this specifically from the article:

>The number of those convicted of counter-revolutionary and other especially dangerous crimes against the state (4,060,306 for 1921-1953) was first published in 1990 in one of the articles by a member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee A.N. Yakovlev in the Izvestia newspaper. In more detail this statistics (I special department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs), with dynamics over the years, was published in 1992 by VP Popov in the journal "Domestic Archives".

<first published in 1990 in one of the articles by a member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee A.N. Yakovlev

<first published in 1990

Now then, onto Yakovlev himself:

http://doc20vek.ru/node/4230

Check the date - 1988. LAWL.

Check the figures mentioned by both Zemskov in 1990+ and by Yakovlev in 1988, they are pretty much identical. Quite fucking obvious that Zemskov was quoting Yakovlev, the known anticommunist who admitted to have been anticommunist from the very beginning, despite being the member of CPSU Central Committee, who was, by his admission, acting in the interests of destroying USSR from the inside. And now here you are, guys, who keep quoting Zemskov as some kind of an objective figure who is telling truth, truth and nothing but truth.

>>673772
And just to completely murder surprisingly good name Zemskov has amongst leftists, to stop those idiots from quoting him ever again:

https://scepsis.net/library/id_957.html

>In determining the total number of dispossessed people, the arguments of the opponent are quite reasonable, but they did not completely convince me. I still believe that the number of dispossessed people was about 4 million people, who were divided into three groups with the application of the following sanctions: 1st group - arrest and conviction; 2nd - eviction with sending to a special settlement; 3rd - eviction without sending to a special settlement. Maksudov brings this figure up to 10 million by adding "self-dispossessed" and subject to confiscation of property for non-payment of taxes. If desired, this list can be continued by including millions of peasants who, out of fear of the authorities, "voluntarily" entered collective farms and whose land property (with the exception of household plots) was alienated and turned into "socialized". The radical agrarian reform, which was collectivization, had a pronounced confiscatory character, and most of the peasantry suffered from it to one degree or another, i.e. not 10 million, but much higher.

<collectivization was a campaign of dispossession

<number of repressed peasants is much higher than 10 million people

Defend this as Zemskov being pro-communist, you retards

>>673814
nobody cares, lol

>>673871
Those people I am talking very much care about those things. Their willingness to show their care, however, is determined by how many people answer in this thread. They can't refute, so they ignore, and if someone breaks ignore, they'll have to try and refute vocally.

In any case, I hope anons will know that Zemskov is a fucking hack, and he is the same kind of anticommunist as Yakovlev, and his numbers come from Yakovlev as well.

>>673772
You're doing Marx's work comrade.

Also regarding our earlier discussion on Molotov and Khrushchev. >>650575
Why do you think it was fake? Molotov comes off as pretty reasonable in the book.

>>675652
>Gorbachev was a stalinist
Schizo article. He literally denounced Stalin and persecuted people in favor of planning, acussing them of "stalinism".

>>675652
BASED

>>629464 I'm about to blow every 14 year old on here's mind with this but Stalin fucked up plenty, same as literally every other socialist who came to power.

He isn't baby eater extraordinaire and he still did a lot of good but it's retarded to think that every single person he purged deserved it. Especially since he ended up killing a shit ton of NKVD men for abusing their power and manipulating him into killing innocents.

>>675340
I can say nothing new but what I already have said earlier.

Because Molotov was a stalinist basically imprisoned in his own apartments. Why do you think they would allow any journo anywhere near him? They didn't allow anyone to take interviews from Khruschev, even. They've heavily censored others like him - like Voroshilov - to the point of taking his books out of libraries and circulation and not allowing any journos access to him, and then we have Chuev who published this shit after USSR's dissolution. Again, there was also no previously unknown facts disclosed.

>>676643
>Especially since he ended up killing a shit ton of NKVD men for abusing their power and manipulating him into killing innocents.

This whole idea of NKVD men abusing their power to kill innocents is the result of real investigations into the archives, which showed quite clearly that people on the top didn't know of innocent killing. You'd think people would realize that this must mean that innocent killings didn't happen at all, but due to being retards they start to push for two contradictory things simultaneously - that killings happened and Stalin didn't know about 666k people killed without him, and anyone else in the country, noticing. Start doubting 666k figure, and you immediately get rid of perceived contradictions of history and it's retarded moments.

>>629476
>Ban factions
>Factionalism only gets worse
>Factionalism gets so bad you end up killing half the party
MLs on suicide watch. The first revisionist things Lenin did was ban factions.

>>677644
Banning factions was the right move in time of civil war and after what happened in 1917 when zinovyev an buharin publicly went against the party. Enforcing the ban after 1922 was a costly mistake.

>>677647
The ban on factions is what stopped racist politics like those in the US, from happening in the USSR too. It was not a mistake, none of the many ethnic groups could politicize racial identities to rally people around racial supremacy politics.

>>677674
>Political factions is when you do ethno nationalism
You fucking retarded American, that's not even what factions ever were anywhere. Factions are groups of people with different political views within the same party, not fucking ethno nationalism

>>677644
That's what trots want you to believe. In reality, however, 666k people killed in 1937-38 didn't happen, thus your whole thesis of factionalism getting worse isn't supported by reality.

>>677738
Faction bans still sucks and continues to destroy our movements even if they didn't kill actual 666 thousand people.
You don't need to go the trot way of making everything about factions.
Both ml parties and Trot parties constantly split and purge over the tiniest shit because they are both fucking retarded who can't see that if you don't just let people openly express their disagreement together with others, you force people into defensive factional wars to either take control or be purged.

>>677718
>Factions are groups of people with different political views
That's idealist, factions form around material interests of certain groups.
Racist politics is just one possible outcome of factionalism, another is break up into many sects.
Don't throw away Lenin, that political style is not the reason for the political suppression of dissent that occurred in the USSR. That was the result of a State ramping up internal security during the build up for War. No matter what style of politics you have the result is always like that. Authentic democracy can't fight wars, nobody wants to pay for a massive military.

>>677797
>That's idealist, factions form around material interests of certain groups.
Thinking that different racial groups have different economic interests and then calling *me* idealist? Jesus Christ this is your brain on burger politics.

>>677823

Also reminder that unlike burgerstan, in the soviet union and china, minority groups have direct representation in the parlaiment. So much for your retarded "waaaah muh ethnic factions" argument.

You're completely wrong, you're burger poisoned, kill yourself, also saying that Lenin made ONE mistake by banning factions isn't "throwing away Lenin" you dogmatic tanky piece of shit. Your kind is the reason why the left is in fucking shambles with 100 different micro parties.

>>677828
Oh and lastly "factions form around the material interests of specific groups" is insanely reductionist and asserts, like all retarded lead poisoned tankies since Stalin do, that there is one one true line, rather than that everybody makes fucking mistakes constantly and having different views on future decisions isn't the same as having fucking class interests. And again, racial groups don't have their own economic interests. And if the Muslims want to express their material interests for building some mosques through a faction I wouldn't fucking care, I would be democratic.

The ban on faction dogmatism is one of the biggest reasons why communism fell and keeps falling everywhere. You're on the wrong side of history.

>>677823
>Thinking that different racial groups have different economic interests and then calling *me* idealist? Jesus Christ this is your brain on burger politics.
Just WOW, that's your bias, not mine. Racist politics is used by petite bourgeois interest groups or labor aristocrats that need justification for social hierarchies. Do i really have to spell out everything ?

>>677828
The ban on faction is about preventing over-representation of a minority group. For example a minority of bourgeois is over-represented politically in bourgeois democracy. You need to ban factions or else electoral democracy will lead to minority capture of state institutions. It's the bolshevik (majority party) vs menshevik (minority party) question.

I'm not married to the ban on factions though, you can also do democracy by random draw of a lot instead of electoral democracy, that achieves the same goals, it might even be a little more effective than the Leninist style.

>You're completely wrong, you're burger poisoned, kill yourself
What ? I'm not from America. One can observe many places having such problems.
>Your kind
homo sapience ? Cool it with the dehumanization.

>>677833
>Oh and lastly "factions form around the material interests of specific groups" is insanely reductionist
So reductionist is good, it means more clarity of thought. Politics are about material interests.
>retarded lead poisoned tankies
So as soon as you are confronted with a strong difference of opinion, you are othering me into a different faction "the metal tankies", while i may feel a little flattered by this, I'm taking this as unintentional proof that the ban on factions has merit.
>And if the Muslims want to express their material interests for building some mosques through a faction I wouldn't fucking care
No you can't build a place of spiritual worship that is limited to a single faith, the state has to be secular and build multi-faith facilities, that can be used by every faith.
>The ban on faction dogmatism is one of the biggest reasons why communism fell and keeps falling everywhere. You're on the wrong side of history.
Most of the communist parties in history that won upheld the ban on factions.
I'm saying it again, this time more clearly, the ban on factions is a patch for errors in electoral democracy. We are not stuck doing electoral democracy, we can also do democracy by random lot, that has no need for banning factions. If you really are so upset about this, lets settle on random draw democracy instead of electoralism

>>677744
>if you don't just let people openly express their disagreement together with others

You are espouting trot nonsense of factionalism not being serious but rather being a petty disagreement over trivial matters. Truth is, factionalism is a split over CORE issues, it's a tactic used by trots (and your point of view being a cover for it making it seem like trots are the victims here) to stop the movement in it's tracks, to squabble over irrelevant shit instead of actually doing what's important. Factionalism benefits the enemies of communism, and trots are the inside agents of anticommunists, that's why they insist on this bullshit take.

Next. Trotsky ever managed to get meagre what, 4% of the total votes? There was a vote in the Party regarding factionalism, and Party overwhelmingly voted against factionalism. Fuck trots for denying democracy.

>>677828
>Your kind is the reason why the left is in fucking shambles with 100 different micro parties.

No, the Left in the WEST is in shambles because they aren't Leninist enough. CPC is fucking monolithic and is Leninist. Take note of CPC's successes due to banning factions.

>>675676
Trotskyists do this with fucking everyone. Khrushchev? Stalinist. Brezhnev? Stalinist. Janos Kadar? Stalinist. Xi Jinping? Stalinist.

>>677481
Perhaps they thought he was harmless given his age?

I've always liked Voroshilov and wanted to know more about him. Do you have any recommendations?

>>677995
Read Balaev, if you can. He posted entire chapters in his blog, although blog service's design is dogshit if you want to read it like this. First entry of the book, although I didn't check thoroughly https://p-balaev.livejournal.com/220119.html

>>678012
I also found this.
https://en.topwar.ru/179666-mif-o-tupom-kavaleriste-voroshilove.html