I have yet to find

...

Come on. You know that's bullshit. Read Trotsky.

There is also a difference between critique and condemnation.

Are you in favor of allowing former Arrow Cross members into the Hungarian communist party?

Mucho caliente.

Attached: trot.png (960x548, 524.55K)

make an argument

Truth is, Stalin is difficult to defend because the USSR made a ton of mistakes under his leadership. The purges, Lysenkoism, and repression of intellectuals come to mind as examples.

But that being said, the extent to which that can be actively blamed on Joseph Stalin himself is somewhat nebulous. What was actually going on in the Kremlin is actually tougher to discern from sound historical data than is popularly thought.

Plus, we have to account for the genuinely massive difficulties the USSR had to deal with. Excuse them if things weren't immediately fucking perfect. The Communist party under Stalin was tasked with
1. Building up industry and a war machine which could rival the fascist armies of western/central Europe and Japan
2. Stabilizing the most diverse country in the world, spanning multiple continents and over 100 nationalities
3. Building socialism on a mass scale for the first time in human history
3. Uniting the sparring political factions in the Communist party after years of turmoil
4. Creating a new political culture which respected the rule of law, democracy, and other institutions of modern statehood
5. Thwarting foreign subversion from openly hostile states
6. Developing a previously semi-feudal country and providing peace, land, and bread

It's completely unreasonable for leftist today to criticize Stalin just for not doing all those things well enough, especially when the bad policies didn't necessarily come from Stalin himself (see Yezhov).

But all of those were good overall, and had good reasons.

Really? Explain.

Actually they were bad. Purges murdered thousands of innocents, Lysenkoism was provably false and caused agricultural damage, and repression of intellectuals did nothing but damage the legitimacy of the state and turn the intelligentsia against it.

lolno, lysenkoism is easily one of the dumbest things the far left has ever done and it only happened because knowledge of biology and its political implications were not as known back then

Hitler didn't commit any crimes, either. Checkmate, nigger.

He killed Hitler

Attached: Lysenkosghost.jpg (450x680, 135.19K)

t. professor of english medieval literature at a fourth rate US university

It's sad that this is the best that his critics can do. Truly, the red liberal fears the Furr.

I think his isolation speaks for itself.
Let me know when any other academic agrees with him, or when he attempts to submit his work to peer review.

Wtf I hate Marx now.

there are peer reviewed marxist journals of economics, sociology, and history

also

...

Kinda dodging my point there, no? Marx published very little for Academia during his time besides his doctoral thesis. Although Capital Vol I was reviewed by some Russian economists in his life I don't think it was really peer-reviewed.

Also, considering that Snyder is still publishing after Furr showed him to be blatantly mistranslating and fabricating says a lot about the state of Soviet history today. Furr has also pointed at historians (usually new school of Sovietology scholars) who have come to similar conclusions as him and has published hundreds of pages of unique source material in his work, some of it appearing in English for the first time.

How come his online "left" critics always argue by using ad hominems against him rather than arguing against the evidence suspect. I suspect that is because few of the critics that flood every thread about him have actually read a single book by him.

Attached: image.jpg (430x337, 32.65K)

well Parenti isn't a Marxist-Leninist but a Chavez/Mandela style socialist

May the turkish gods of piracy bless his soul.

So, do liberals have any actual arguments against Furr? How bout specific example from Khrushchev Lied or Blood Lies? Bump for interest.

Never go full tank

Attached: 928e9802a4e5678dc9fd4b3678c3d7ac1a87617862c0e5d250f42de42cf8be02.jpg (460x276, 18.16K)

see

Man you don't get it. The virgin is supposed to be the "normal" one we can all relate to while the chad is the stereotype of the thing we don't like.
Knowyourmeme man.
Sage for off topic

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1024x594, 503.63K)

That's not an upside to Lysenkoism. It's an upside to not Darwinism. There's a huge difference.

What do you mean by this?

Because there are multiple cases of him being fraudulent

He supported Lysenko

That's not a crime either, user. One of my friends pointed out that bankrobbery at the very least is a crime actually, there isn't much evidence either way to show that Stalin did rob banks, he may have or he may not have. Its unconfirmed.

He didn't like Lady McBeth of Mvtensk.

lmao Furr really triggers the libs. They just straight up lie about him to stop people discussing his work.

its a real shame that the nazis spooked everyone so much that caring about the genetic health of humanity is now forever considered hyper-reactionary

Supporting Lysenko is more of a crime than stealing from thieves.

Wasn't going to get involved, but kill yourself Hegelian. The state should only concern itself with the rise of new scientific paradigms if they express distinct alignment (not 'credence to', actual cooperation with) a reactionary political movement. Even if a 'scary' paradigm replaces the old one, the state can still object to policy that would violate basic morals, and work to make the effects of said 'scary' model less severe.

Attached: 1426125789141.jpg (800x451, 138.38K)

see

Daily reminder Lysenkoism has been proven correct through epigenetics.

It's not just epigenetics, plants just straight up adapt to environments.

Well it is hardly original though, Lemark basically came up with the concepts in the 1780s.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Lamarck

Okay call me a retard but literally what the fuck is Lysenkoism, I've heard it before but never once gave enough of a shit to look into it.

Lysenko was the head of soviet science that was effectively responsable for a scientific purge of geneticists in the USSR during the Great Purge. He instead favoured the concept of acquired adaptations that could be inherited. He also managed to increase yeilds through "scaring", which is exposing seeds to harsh conditions to make them more resilient, but he also believed this resilience could be inhereted. Turns out he was kinda right in the sense that acquired adaptations could be inhereted to an extent, but his purge of soviet geneticists did much to harm both soviet science and its standing in the world.

Can I get a non liberal explanation.
So this guy denied genetics, how did he explain how inheritance works?

Darwin was a Larmarkist, because Genes and Mutation weren't known at the time.
Lysenko just followed along with what the big wigs of biology discovered, including forgotten russian researchers who promoted vernilisation, while westerners flocked to new, disruptive Mendelian research that was often funded by the Catholic Church, Aristocracy and burger Robber Barons which aimed to prove Darwinism wrong and find a new, rather eugenic, way to look at heritability.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_eclipse_of_Darwinism

No, I didn't say he was right, he was PARTIALLY right. Epigenetics shows organisms can acquire traits and they can be inhereted, BUT it is also possible they are not inherited and it is often kinda limited to what can be done so (for example it has to exist in the genetic code already, no new means of performing a process can be developed this way). And again, purging the geneticists still kinda fucked up a big section of biology at that time.

The way the DNA works wasn't discovered until the 50s and 60s! Before that it was just bourgeoisie theorists saying that the only thinking part of the cell is this nucleus-thingy which we don't know what it does, which is total bullshit today since we have a plethora of RNA and methylation and all kinds of things changing how the DNA is expressed in every single cell, the Nucleus isn't a brain, it's just a big library, Bacteria don't even have nuclei.

So everything is actually a lie and we don't actually have any understanding of modern genetics.

The problem with Lysenkoism is that it lacked any scientific rigor to begin with. It was politically charged, a knee-jerk response to reactionaries appropriating genetics to rationalize vulgar determinism.
Keep in mind that there is not actually a contradiction between leftism and biology. This was initially a misconception based on a lack of knowledge of the subject matter, and later repurposed as a straw man by anticommunists.

In short, yes. In long: turns out they were both right and we need to reconcile both schools of thought.

Yugoslavia.

Tanks.

So all modern genetics is a giant cluster fuck of ideas based on a cover up?

But– then why were the other guys saying it was right?

I see nothing wrong there.

Stop sending people to kill me

Attached: pls.jpg (600x400, 46.51K)

no

Tito was a revisionist puppet of the west.

"Right" is a horrible word to use in science, which is experimental and unwilling to make claims that it thinks will not ever be proven wrong, even in the "hardest" fields. They are talking about fields like epigenetics, which, while hardly evidence of Lamarckian evolution, are excellent evidence against hard determinism.

No, more we had two schools of thought that were seperated by the cold war which are now reconciling, but it is showing some crazy shit. Oh also CRISPR is showing us how gene editing can work ON A LIVING SUBJECT and be fine.

Lysenkoism wasn't right, he had accurate results from methods but his science backing them up was bs. So the research is useful but lysenkoism is actually wrong in itself.

This isn't actually an argument. There many examples of scientists stumbling onto the right conclusions while the method and research behind were bs and/or wrong.

Zig Forums is like putting your brain into a fryer, except you never die. Don't even really understand what you were writing here.

I'm not going to read Trotsky anymore than I am going to read letters written by Stalin. Tell me why I should read Trotsky.

Is there? I would enjoy examples of the difference between critique and condemnation. Critiques in and of themselves are condemnations of aspects of something, at the very least. Not to say you can't have questions, but I'm not immediately agreeing with what amounts to handwaving. Libshits thrive in the grey world of handwaving, critiques, etc…

This was a problem with a lot of science of the time (and even with a lot of modern science), the political motivations behind kicking out eugenicists were good.

You should NOT read Trotsky, but you SHOULD read Stalin.
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/index.htm
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1929/03/18.htm
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1950/jun/20.htm
He was a genuinely great theorist, his theoretical works are a pleasure to read.

Kicking out geneticists because of the eugenics movement is a classic example of throwing a baby out with bath water.

if Stalin did nothing wrong, wouldn't that mean all the people accused in the purges were guilty?

Isn't this narrative an even greater indictment of Stalinism than the current consensus?
If all the people purged were guilty, that would mean that nearly all the surviving Old Bolsheviks decided it was necessary to to commit treason and overthrow the USSR with the help of capitalists.

wat
spies, wreckers, and opportunists are always a problem no matter how good you do things.

I think you misunderstand my point. Either:
1. Stalin had countless loyal soviets eliminated because his paranoia.
or
2. Tukhacehvsky, Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Yagoda, Rykov, and countless others really were spies, wreckers, and opportunists. (does anyone actually believe this?)

If most of the high soviet leadership became treasonous and conspired to overthrow the system, isn't that a greater indictment of the system than a single bloodthirsty autocrat killing all his rivals?

Betrayed the revolution in Spain during the Spanish civil war which would pave the way to Franco seizing power.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Days

marxist.com/spanish-revolution-betrayed.htm

Allowed NKVD stooges like Beria to continue their abuses (sexual harassment etc)

Stalin didn't strangle Nikita to death with his bare hands

Checkmate

Same with Mao and Deng. Why are ☭TANKIE☭s so forgiving?

He breathed

holy shit

Yeah this is one of the things I never get heard explain. ☭TANKIE☭s always talk about how the purges were to fight against counter-revolutionaries but never explain how that even makes sense. I'm not a fan of Trostsky but his criticism of Stalin was pretty obviously based on something other than spite for not becoming chairman. Lenin warned the party about Stalin for a reason.

Any ☭TANKIE☭s want to explain?

Opinion is divided between the entire Purges being unnecessary and Stalin being too paranoid from the Spanish Civil War, and going too far and Stalin should've put a stop to Yezhov's insanity sooner (but ex-nobility anti-semite like Tukhachevsky had it coming).

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (325x419, 150.39K)

i think being a rebutal for eugenics does not excuse Lysenkoism, at especially not the policy of puring anyone who disagreed with it. it is demonstrably wrong, and it was demonstrably incorrect with the information available in the 1930s.
scientific investigation should never be subordinated to ideology (by this i mean, the idea "lets support this hypothesis to combat this ideology"). scientific investigation is the mirror by which we see reality, subordinating it to ideology, is as flawed as trying to subordinate reality itself to ideology.

would you have purged tugachevsky for being ex nobilty?

What do you think epigenetics is, exactly? If your gene expression changes due to environmental factors, that's epigenetics at work.

i think any relationship between epigenitics and lysenkoism is not do to any scientific on the part insight of Lysenko, but a coincidence

I agree

No. Confessions extracted under duress mean nothing to me. Germans chimping-out secured Stalin's position more than purging remnants of tsarist regime or going after Polish agents agitating for nationalism.

No, what I mean is that plants actually change behaviors while they're alive in response to environmental stimuli. They also pass these living adaptations to their children.

Meanwhile leftpol is going fullout liberal sellout. I'd laugh but it's too pitiful to watch the retards keep repeating about katyn and how "muh evul stalin invaded innocent Poland for NO reason"

8ch.net/leftpol/res/61295.html

Just an announcement:
Use wayback machine and archive 8ch pages, otherwise we lose a bunch of content because people don't bother archiving it actively.

useful site (it's in Russian but has good sources)

ruxpert.ru/Мифы_о_Великой_Отечественной_войне#.D0.9F.D0.BE.D0.B4.D0.BC.D0.B8.D1.84:_1864_.D0.A2-34_.D0.B8_.D0.9A.D0.92

gimme a moment to learn russian

It's called google-translate, literally an option on the address-bar.

if you're using botnet chrome maybe