Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 22:58:24 No. 690229
>>690186 >Why does this board usually gives the full blame of the split to Mao Because this board is full of leftist liberals, anarchists, social fascists, revisionists and crypto fascists, not Marxist-Leninists.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 22:59:41 No. 690237
>>690186 Reminder that gonzalo was right
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 23:34:25 No. 690258
>>690229 Khrushchev was a revisionist but Mao was an autist. They both share some blame I think Mao a bit more though
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 00:27:34 No. 690284
This video covers the entire sino soviet split accurately watch it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz-2XDTUqIk Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 00:28:39 No. 690285
>>690258 "Khrushchev was a revisionist but Mao was an autist."
Shut the fuck up, no investiagtion no right to speak.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 00:31:08 No. 690289
>>690258 Khrushchev was our enemy who destroyed all Marxist countries and basically all marxist movements. The only countries who remained socialist were China and Albania. Whist Albania was socialist they were revisionist.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 00:48:02 No. 690299
>>690289 How did he ruin socialism, by questioning the cult of Stalin?
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 00:57:50 No. 690308
The moment you realize the split was over nationalist disputes and not "revisionism" or some other cope it all starts to make sense.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 01:24:21 No. 690339
>>690299 Yeah, don't you know you can't industrialize a country without massacring half the party and 90% of the general staff? It's in the book.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 01:26:14 No. 690340
>>690299 Khrushchev didn't oppose the cult of Stalin, he himself was a contributor of it and also led one of the biggest purges in Moscow. He acted very opportunistically and caused a break between communist parties of the world.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 01:30:41 No. 690346
>>690299 It's not that he questioned but the way he did it. Coulda had a 70% good 30% bad approach like Deng did, instead of completely nuking the immense prestige the USSR and communism had around the world after victory in WW2 by throwing Stalin in the mud like he did.
And it was all opportunism, because the Stalinist faction were his rivals in the party so he needed to isolate them. And in the process he destroyed the revolutionary character of the CPSU and kickstarted the age of careerism that led to liquidationists like Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Yakovlev. Fucking cornman
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 01:47:41 No. 690365
Mao should have supported the ussr for the same reason modern communist support CPC.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 01:54:32 No. 690373
>>690365 Umm no sweetie the USSR was just red flag tankie imperialism.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 02:13:30 No. 690391
>>690346 >Coulda had a 70% good 30% bad approach like Deng did Speaking out of my ass, but i think Deng might have been influenced by Khrushchev's when it came to what
not do in these transitional periods.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 02:30:03 No. 690403
>>690401 STEM without humanities: Elon Musk and Silicon Valley techbros
Humanities without STEM: The Four Pests campaign.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 04:08:39 No. 690463
>>690403 >even after being show the proof to the contrary still clings to the "muh four pests campaign bad" Wake the hell up, China got rid of plagues with the four pests campaign - just like zero covid strategy gets rid of covid.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 08:30:52 No. 690678
>>690186 It was 60-40 blame
Khrushchev started the bullshit and mao took it too far destroying international communism by cucking out to the US in the 70's
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 08:35:36 No. 690682
>>690463 What proofs dude? The post ends up saying "they had good intentions but still made a mistake". With China's COVID policies there's like actual evidence that they in fact worked and even Westerners (reluctantly) agree.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 08:52:18 No. 690702
Khrushchev and Mao are some of the lamest people to Great Man around to be honest. They can't be blamed for anything.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 09:26:57 No. 690724
>>690346 >Stalinist faction were his rivals in the party so he needed to isolate them Sounds like exactly what Stalin did. Well Krushchev learned from the best.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 09:28:24 No. 690728
>>690391 Yet Deng cucked out more to the US, than Krushchev ever did under his teinure
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 09:38:15 No. 690735
>>690728 Deng only continued what Mao started.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 10:05:36 No. 690749
>>690731 they wanted gibs from both
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 10:49:32 No. 690771
>>690299 He destroyed socialism by treating socialist allies over the world with respect. Rather than as shitty buffer zones or using them as bargaining chips. How dare Khrushchev be based?!?
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 11:06:45 No. 690777
>>690775 >noo stop slanderinoo muh stalinirinoo Kek. Kruschev was peak Soviet great man with his nuclear brinkmanship.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 11:10:58 No. 690780
>>690777 At least some of Khruschev's accusations are generally regarded as false or exaggerated nowadays. I would call that slander. Regardless even if everything he said was true, saying it aloud didn't un-gulag those people, all it did was cause the reputation of the USSR and communism to take a nosedive.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 11:15:25 No. 690782
>>690780 Also didn't a central planning agency that disciplined the soviet union ministries and etc get dismantled under kruschev.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 11:51:12 No. 690810
>>690682 Do you see a lot of plagues in China today? Do you see locusts eating up Chinese harvests today?
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 11:53:42 No. 690814
>>690782 I'm not sure, but even if he did, Khruschev certainly didn't abolish central planning or reintroduce capitalism. Even the Korsygin reforms just introduced profitability (which is to say a positive intput/output ratio) as a criteria for evaluating the performance of firms. There was no anarchy of production, no commodity production, private property was marginal, etc.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 11:54:21 No. 690816
>>690308 were the multiple splits with communist parties all over the world also caused by nationalist disputes?
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 11:59:17 No. 690818
>>690346 >And in the process he destroyed the revolutionary character of the CPSU and kickstarted the age of careerism that led to liquidationists like Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Yakovlev. this is a core part of anti revisionist criticism that all khrushchevites on this board seem to ignore. i want to hear what is their justification for the empowerment of a bureaucratic clique by kruschev
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 12:06:23 No. 690820
>>690816 I'd argue those were more about personal disputes between members of different parties that were exacerbated by the split.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 12:09:29 No. 690821
>>690814 I mean sure but at the same time he removed the measures used to make sure the central planning would work. For instance While it is true that kruschev still kept the brain or the thinking aspect of the central planning he at the same time removed the disciplinary aspect of central planning. Stalins ruthlessness While horrific ensured that the ministries and etc would follow or at least do their best to follow the central gov plans and it was working. But unfortunately with kruschev demonizing Stalin for being a monster kruschev single handly made the stick aspect of Stalin industrial policy become political taboo. And because of that, it led to the brethren stagnation where without the discipline stick aspect there was nothing to pressure the ministries or gov corporations to follow the state goals.
(Also off topic but I'm starting to realize the problems of economic planning isn't centralization or the planning aspect but rather the implementation. I mean isn't it odd that the only succesful country that had immense planning was either South korea under park chung hee where the state used military forms of discipline to force chaebols and ministers to follow the plans or xist china which also uses a lot of discipline too for the same reasons)
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 12:10:13 No. 690822
>>690821 Why did I say brethren what I meant to say is brezhnov
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 12:10:32 No. 690824
>>690346 can't be a liquidationist if there's nothing to liquidate
>kickstarted the age of careerism yeah, not sure he was the one that kickstarted that lol
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 12:15:40 No. 690830
>>690821 >For instance While it is true that kruschev still kept the brain or the thinking aspect of the central planning he at the same time removed the disciplinary aspect of central planning. You'll need to elaborate on this. What do you mean by eliminating the disciplinary aspect of central planning?
>>690824 >yeah, not sure he was the one that kickstarted that lol Even if he was, it's silly to attribute this to his speech or any other ideological cause rather than deeper structural forces in Soviet society.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 12:22:41 No. 690832
>>690818 Stalin purged all the genuine communists and only opportunists and theorylets remained in the party in the end.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 12:24:24 No. 690834
>>690830 For instance Stalin was willing to purge or remove people without any hesitation be they the state owned company leaders or high government officials. And while you can say it was inhumane at the same time this policy probably prevented the rise of cliques, patronage networks or lazy leaders since you know purges. Then Kruschev then came to power and demonized Stalin for this exact aspect saying that he was a power hungry paranoid maniac that purged innocent people. And while Stalin was imperfect and paranoid at the same time by demonizing this aspect of Stalin it made this willingness to purge others be seen as political taboo since it became the negative aspect of why Stalin bad. And I argue that in part caused the rise of the brezhnev stagnation because by demonizing this aspect of political purges, no one would be willing to follow this policy since its associated with what's considered the extreme bad aspects of stalins rule.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 12:25:02 No. 690835
>>690830 "deeper structural forces in Soviet society" played little to no part in the decisions and general activities of the Politburo. this was by design going back to the founding of the USSR of course
>>690832 this. stalinists always fail to mention he literally came to power as a loyal bureaucratic sycophant of Stalin and eventually ending up in his inner clique
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 12:31:54 No. 690839
>>690832 Yes and this is what I consider stalins great mistake. I argue that his willingness to purge others could have been useful and valuable if it was used for economic and smart political reasons. Like instead of using it in the dumb way he did during the great purge he could have just used that to constantly purge economically inefficient people. Like focus on creating a ruthless monitoring state thats focused on maximizing economic efficiency. Not only that if he did do political purges, purge only the political cliques, patronage networks, corrupt people and etc and not people that you think are secretly traitors to russia when there was no rational reason to think so (burkharin)
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 12:32:13 No. 690840
>>690818 >i want to hear what is their justification for the empowerment of a bureaucratic clique by kruschev In my view this was an unforseen outcome of Stalin's own policies. The immense pressures of industrialization and the war, the consolidation of the Soviet government, the repression of the terroristic activities of the Trots (assuming they were guilty, which I remain agnostic on), etc. all pushed the party in an increasingly autocratic direction out of necessity. While Stalin and the original cadre of revolutionary leaders still lived and ran things this wasn't nearly as much of an issue, since while they ruled as an autocracy they were still a popular, revolutionary autocracy. However in an age before cybernetics, the emergence of a large, centralized bureaucracy and stratum of technical intelligentsia was inevitable, and such people would obviously be in a strong position to take control of the autocratic apparatus that Stalin built upon his death (due largely to their elevated place in the economic command structure). This is precisely what happened, Stalin may have combatted bureaucratic control of the state and party apparatus, but he did not and could not have eliminated the bureaucracy itself, and as such the disease took control once the suppression of its symptoms ceased. Yes, Khrushev represented a bureaucratic reaction to Stalin, but one which made use of the political structures he created for its own ends.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 12:33:18 No. 690841
>>690839 And when I'm talking about economically inefficient I'm not talking about the average workers but rather the supervisors and leaders charged to run the factories specifically minister men aka the fucking burecracy
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 12:44:30 No. 690844
>>690835 >>690834 >For instance Stalin was willing to purge or remove people without any hesitation be they the state owned company leaders or high government officials. Fair point, and I would agree that this was an issue and criticize Khruschev for it. At the same time however I think this illustrates the futility of trying to implement such discipline from the top down instead of the bottom up.
>>690835 >"deeper structural forces in Soviet society" played little to no part in the decisions and general activities of the Politburo Don't be silly of course they did. No political regime can exist independently of its character as determined by social forces and material conditions. All regimes have a class character, and even within this class character some strata of that class may be dominant over others. Men make history, but not as they choose.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 12:50:32 No. 690847
>>690844 I mean if we are looking at xist chiba, I think top pdown purges seem to be working there in that it isnt as extreme. Like there's this saying if you hold soap lightly it falls off your hand but if you hold soap too tightly it also falls off your hand too. I think that a top down policy can work but you have too seek a middle, too little pressure and no one will care , but too much pressure and the ministers or burecrats will be alienated. China under xi seems to be doing a middle ground and it looks like it's working so far
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 12:54:21 No. 690851
>>690847 >I mean if we are looking at xist chiba, I think top pdown purges seem to be working there in that it isnt as extreme. The issue isn't that they don't work, the issue is that they don't have lasting efficacy without direct democratic accountability from the working masses. A strong, competent, popular leader like Stalin or Xi can effectively purge all kinds of people, but without strong mechanisms of proletarian democracy all of this can be reversed with a simple change of leadership. I think that the case of Khruschev illustrates this very well.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 14:30:11 No. 690940
>>690840 so you agree with the core anti revisionist critique that kruschev was an opportunist who took advantage of stalin's mistakes to empower his own clique to the detriment of the union and international movement?
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 14:43:44 No. 690956
>>690940 More or less, but at the same time I think a lot of self-described anti-revisionists massively exaggerate the extent to which Khruschev "betrayed socialism" or even contributed to the USSR's collapse. Sure, he laid the groundwork for the domination of the bureaucracy, which in the long term gave us Gorbachev, Glasnost, and eventually the dissolution of the USSR. However this wasn't a forgone conclusion, I think it could also have gone in a direction more similar to China (economic liberalization without the loss of the party's dominance of Balkanization of the country) or Cuba (increasing democratization of the state within a mainly socialist framework). Certainly I think it's ridiculous to say that Khruschev was a traitor, that he restored capitalism, that he was an ally of the bourgeoisie or a saboteur, etc. He was just a moderately competent statesman who was either unaware of or unwilling to challenge the inertia of the bureaucracy. The long term consequences of his actions were negative, but only in the context of his successors and their own policies.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 02:08:22 No. 691870
>>690229 What is Marxist Leninism to you? Because it’s sure as hell isn’t whatever the fuck Mao was practicing at the time.
>>690186 It’s actually a relatively simple question to answer. Looking back at the split and the excuse used by Mao to instigate it, it’s clearly a contradictory cluster fuck with no ideological consistency. Even Hoxha can see it. Let’s look at everything Mao did to combat “revisionism” shall we?
>backing Pinochet >backing UNITA >intervention into the Geneva convention of 1954 in favor of the US while stomping over the benefits of Korea and Indochina >criticizing Cuba’s attempt at spreading the revolution >trading islands with south Vietnam in exchange for not funding the north >border wars with the Soviet Union >getting mad with Khrushchev when he told you that territorial disputes with India over a tiny ass road is both childish and nationalistic >backing the KR even after they announced a genocidal race war with its neighbors And that’s just the foreign policies, let’s see the domestic one shall we?
<created the line of representatives with the national bourgeoisie which then later created the chance for Zhou and Deng to take over <the Great Leap Forward being a complete failed so hard that Mao got relegated to a secondary position >systematically purging anyone that wanted reconciliation with the Soviet Union starting with the 28 Bolsheviks and later the Korean War generals >the cultural revolution was an attempt for Mao to get back to the limelight but ended up turning into a power ladder for opportunistic fascists in the Gang of Four to temporarily took over In a lot of ways, Mao was an even bigger “revisionist” than Khrushchev ever was. Dude literally called the Soviet Union fascist of the Nazi kind. Making any point with his critique of the Secret Speech completely moot.
>>690940 Yet the Union’s decline only started when Brezhnev coup’ed Khrushchev. Curious isn’t it?
>>690851 >popular leader like Stalin or Xi can effectively purge all kinds of people, but without strong mechanisms of proletarian democracy all of this can be reversed with a simple change of leadership. This can be best seen with Albania’s collapse. All so called “protégés” of Hoxha ended up betraying his ideals. The same is going to happen with Xi if he continues this line of red social democracy.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 02:20:49 No. 691884
>>691870 >All so called “protégés” of Hoxha ended up betraying his ideals. Honestly idk how anybody can still hold the belief that everything would have been fine if Stalin had just purged more people. Certainly Albania proves that purges and rigid ideological orthodoxy are no long term solution.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 03:22:33 No. 691943
>>691884 Purges still matter nevertheless, and they have happened in every socialist country that survived the 20th century. Lenin spoke about their importance
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/sep/20.htm I mean how else are you going to get rid of incompetent, ineffective, etc. party members?
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 03:56:00 No. 691982
>>691884 True
>>691943 >I mean how else are you going to get rid of incompetent, ineffective, etc. party members? Long term:
Computerized and direct democracy with sortition for needed bureaucratic roles
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 04:19:23 No. 692007
>>691982 >>691884 There is the one funny solution, life extension technology
What better way to make sure the ideas remain correct than by having a immortal watcher.
Literal God emperor Stalin kek
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 04:23:28 No. 692012
>>690851 Idk man this can also lead to cliques factions and etc but cliques based around the manipulation of the people
People are very tribalistic and close minded(read the book against democracy) and in worried that this type of gov can lead to the same situation the later soviet union had but just way more fucking decentralized. And decentralization will have its own unique proble.s
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 04:26:23 No. 692017
>>691982 Well I agree but that kind of technology wasn't available in the 1920s.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 04:30:18 No. 692021
>>690285 maybe you should investigate some bitches
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 05:04:53 No. 692047
>>690813 >30 aug 2020 Now find news about this locust swarm dying off very quickly, lol. Western journos were very sad and said "but at what cost?"
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 11:00:09 No. 692233
>>691943 >I mean how else are you going to get rid of incompetent, ineffective, etc. party members? By holding them accountable for their actions via democratic mechanisms.
>>692012 >Idk man this can also lead to cliques factions and etc but cliques based around the manipulation of the people Cliques and factions always exist, banning them on paper doesn't ban them in practice. It just leads to them being driven underground and operating in the shadows instead of the open. For the life of me I can't understand why mfs keep insisting that the faction ban needs to be upheld in all situations, as if it wasn't an emergency measure implemented at a crisis point in Soviet history which was never repealed. Imo the central problem of Soviet governance was that it was never able to do away with mechanisms that were meant to be temporary, emergency measures, instead turning them into standard political practice.
>read the book against democracy I gotta say m8 that's a pretty weird book to recommend on a socialist forum.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 11:05:04 No. 692235
>>692233 I recommend the book since it offers very interesting insights over the American voter. That it turns out that the majority of american people empirically are tribalistic biased and irrational. Of course there are certain things in the book I question specifically the neoliberal shit, but it offers a very interesting insight that most people don't talk about. Like it turns out that huge portions of people that care about politics are by nature very partisan and that the less partisan you are the less you care about politics. Which probably explains the cultural revolution now that I think about
It
Aka if we are to build socialism then we have to understand certain flaws in humans and this book goes into massive detail on humans being really irrational
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 11:17:48 No. 692243
>>692233 Also yes cliques and factions will always exist but allowing them to fully exist is not a good solution.
In the type of system you advocate im concerned over the problems that we see in liberal democratic systems emerging but in a socialist form. Sure you can argue without the borg, there will be differences true, but there will still be division, us vs them mentality, and division based on political beliefs or economic beliefs. Additionally even without borg you have issues like regional,urban,rural,urban,, and etc differences causing the rise of further factionalism. Plus even in the socialist society there will probably be things like the internet mass media and etc that will also further division.
While I agree there needs to be more democratic output and allowance of more ways of criticism at the same time there needs to be centralized control preventing factionalization and division too. A sorta middle ground
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 11:37:32 No. 692263
>>692243 >>692235 >I recommend the book since it offers very interesting insights over the American voter. I think it's a mistake to try to derive a universally applicable critique of democracy from the specific case of the American voter.
>>692243 >In the type of system you advocate im concerned over the problems that we see in liberal democratic systems emerging but in a socialist form. The sense of division that seems to accompany liberal democracies is something of an illusion imo, at least in most cases. Why do you think that liberal democracy is such a popular form of government among bourgeois states? Why was it embraced by the most successful and powerful of these including America, Britain, France, and Germany? It is because it allows the various factions of the bourgeoisie, and even other classes to work out their contradictions in the open. In doing so, the state thereby takes on the general character of the bourgeoisie as a class, subsumed the contradictions within this class into itself and existing as a balanced expression of their general interests. Indeed, isn't this what Marxists are constantly saying when the point out that all parties serve the bourgeoisie? The most successful of these even incorporate elements of proletarian interests into the hegemony via social democracy. This is what allows them to be so effective.
>Additionally even without borg you have issues like regional,urban,rural,urban,, and etc differences causing the rise of further factionalism. Plus even in the socialist society there will probably be things like the internet mass media and etc that will also further division. The problem is that any kind of strict centralization, ideological orthodoxy, suppression of criticism, etc doesn't itself stand above or outside these divisions. Whatever orthodoxy or party line is arrived at will inevitably be the expression of a particular set of interests, which will then become dominant and suppress others, potentially leading to an intensification of contradictions. The divisions you describe are not really political in nature, they are material. Suppressing them doesn't make them go away, it just makes it harder for them to he worked out peacefully and openly. What you end up with is a paper thin veneer of unity which collapses the moment the central force suppressing them does.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 11:44:20 No. 692267
This thread is insane lol.
>>690289 Correct.
>>690299 Khrushchev himself was one of the leading advocates of the cult. His criticism in 1956 was based on complete fabrications as Grover Furr has shown.
>>690365 Except that modern China is not socialist and doesn't deserve or get much support. Nowhere near what the USSR had among the proletariat from 1917 until the 1960s.
>>690771 Lmao, Khrushchev wanted to turn Albania into a agricultural colony for the USSR.
The vast majority of the 1952 central committee was removed by Khrushchev. Remember that the next time someone prattle on about Stalin's purges.
The KGB ended up being dominated by Yagoda types who wished to liquidate socialism.
>>690851 Xi is a capitalist leader, nothing like Stalin lol. And the big bad purges of the 1930s were largely done by rank and file and by workers in the party and NKVD. The war curtailed a lot of this and after 1945, the working class was heavily weakened and exhausted.
Stalin, Zhdanov etc conducted a necessary struggle in 1946-1952 because they could see the rising class struggle and bureaucrats who gained in position.
>>691870 >What is Marxist Leninism to you? Because it’s sure as hell isn’t whatever the fuck Mao was practicing at the time In the 1960s he was undoubtedly upholding a Marxist-Leninist line. The Chinese exposed a great deal of revisionism emanating from the Soviet Union. Peaceful coexistence, the distortions of Leninism etc.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 11:47:22 No. 692270
>>691943 Anti-communist "communists" can never answer that one.
Purges are necessary to remove deadwood, careerists. There will always be people who oppose communism for reasons of economic interests, and they have to be crushed, even if they call themselves communists.
>>691870 >Yet the Union’s decline only started when Brezhnev coup’ed Khrushchev. Curious isn’t it? Khrushchev himself came to power via a coup against Bolsheviks like Beria and Molotov. And the party became bloated over time.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 11:52:58 No. 692277
>>692263 True but the issue is that I'm concerned about is the regular person. Yes the higher elite member division is based mainly on illusion but for your average citizen they consider their difference to be genuine. The common voter genuinely believes in partisan shit and acts upon that and the elites are thus forced to play along in a certain degree. And because of that you get a divided dysfunctional state tho the dysfunction is somewhat on purpose due to borg interests.
Or you get the alternative where like I said the dysfunction comes out of elite interest. Where they manipulate the people into supporting actions that fuck over the government state even tho it's against their interests. Such people will exist even in socialist societies and must be suppresed
As good example of what im talking about Is something like uh the tea party
Also regarding the us voter fair point after all there might be unique problems of the USA causing the problems with the American voter. As thus let me research this further but check voters from different countries. Tho I advise you to read the book since it's interesting
And regarding your other comment yes I agree which is why I believe in allowing good criticism while suppressing suppressing bad. Allow good criticism so to fix the reason why the criticism is emerging in the first place while at the same time removing bad criticism that harms society and factionalism that divides society. Aka fix the problems while suppressing division
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 11:57:11 No. 692282
>>692270 >Purges are necessary to remove deadwood, careerists. And how do you ensure that the people conducting the purges aren't deadwood and careerists? Did Khrushchev himself not carry out purges of Stalinists after his coup?
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 12:14:20 No. 692297
>>692282 Tricky question and there's no magic button. I would say that it should be done by slowly removing functions from the party as Stalin suggested doing, once the proletarian dictatorship was established. Additionally, the economic development towards communism would also involve the state losing many of its functions.
The USSR was doing all this without the benefit of hindsight. Now we can see the necessity of raising the banner of struggle against opportunism and revisionism. Its clear that Khrushchev and Gorbachev ultimately did what Kolchak and Hitler could not do. The worst traitors always come from inside.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 12:49:32 No. 692313
>>692297 >I would say that it should be done by slowly removing functions from the party as Stalin suggested doing, once the proletarian dictatorship was established. By that do you mean gradually dismantling the party itself and devolving more power to the legislature? If so I would agree.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 12:52:28 No. 692316
>>692267 >The vast majority of the 1952 central committee was removed by Khrushchev good, any smart new leader would do that anyways, it was full of patsies
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 12:57:26 No. 692320
>>692277 Oh yeah and if people get confused by this sentence
I'm not calling for the common people to get suppressed I'm calling for the manipulators to be suppressed
I didn't format the sentence well
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 13:11:20 No. 692329
>>692316 Actually it was full of revolutionary Bolsheviks who were much wiser than a jumped up backwards peasant like Khrushchev.
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 13:16:11 No. 692334
>>692329 >a jumped up backwards peasant like Khrushchev. This is a trotskyites attitude son
The reason Kruschev was shit wasn't because he was a peasant
The blessed Stalin was a peasant, Kruschev was shit because he abandoned tractor sharing and the progressive reduction of the workday
and lied about Stalin Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 13:55:49 No. 692358
>>692334 Stalin wasn't a peasant. The peasant conception of socialism was always a drag on the USSR's progress, since many wanted only to own their own land.
Unique IPs: 35