Why was he the best communist leader ever, lads?

Lenin, Fidel and Che were the best. Stalin was a good military commander, but kinda sucked otherwise, especially in terms of geopolitics.

Thomas Sankara did a lot of good things, however his literacy programs failed, and he failed to protect against counter revolution.

It was his fault he stopped funding it.

Lenin, Makhno, Allende and Mao were better. Heck, Castro too

one of these… is not like the others
also
"no."

Attached: 1528772547720.jpg (344x344, 11.97K)

woops meant to bold not red text

he was the best and still lost?

how did he lose though
are you the same boomer who's been posting all the "muh starvation tho" bullshit in other threads

I know this is expected from an anarkiddie but you really need to drop the leader worship for a more coherent materialist worldview

I prefer Lenin, Sankara, and Castro to Stalin but daily reminder that

S T A L I N
D I D
N O T H I N G
W R O N G

Attached: stalin.png (800x2449 270.39 KB, 819.79K)

I prefer Lenin, Sankara, and Castro to Stalin but daily reminder that

S T A L I N
D I D
N O T H I N G
W R O N G

Attached: stalin.png (800x2449 270.39 KB, 819.79K)

He wasn’t. Fighting the Nazis and industrialization were good, most of the rest of what he did was bad. I would consider moth 20th century socialist leaders to be better than he was, including Lenin, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Tito, Che, and others.

Also exactly how do abstract antiestablishment "movements" turn into Socialist ones in every single instance again? Oh yeah, a vanguard and strong-willed leaders who achieve speedy victories over capitalists with the help of the larger working class and achieve its goals (this includes "anarchist" ones by the way)

Wow mods the reunification with Zig Forums sure has improved the quality of discussion on this board, I really missed having to see an anarkiddie accuse everyone who isn't an anarchist of hero worship when they say one nice thing about Lenin or Stalin while simultaneously fapping their dick into oblivion to pictures of Mahkno and Marcos.

Attached: eyeroll.jpg (640x628, 37.92K)

I seriously hope you don’t consider yourself a Marxist while spouting this tripe. Revolutions are driven by the inertia of history and class conflict, the presence of individual leaders and personalities is irrelevant to their success or failure. If Lenin had been hit by a train in 1910 then somebody else would have taken his place.

C'mon guys

Attached: HOChiMinh1969CentralPressGetty-56a040963df78cafdaa0af8d.jpg (768x1080, 93.64K)

Tell me about comrade Ho.

Led 3 consecutive anti-imperialist wars against Japan, France, and the US, ending in an independent Vietnam.

marxists.org/reference/archive/ho-chi-minh/works/1960/04/x01.htm
marxists.org/reference/archive/ho-chi-minh/works/1945/declaration-independence.htm

Ceausescu was the best commmunist. He destroyed 2000 years of capitalist history and demographics.

Attached: ceausescuinstagram.jpg (640x360, 82.45K)

that nigga created a million orphans to be sodomized all over the world

youtube.com/watch?v=459322pS_HU
that's what communists do

What he's trying to say is that you missed the point of the thread.
You can say whatever you want about the soviet model, but you have to agree that in countries that followed this model, leaders played a big part in the decision and policy making.

I don't think every communist forced women to have children when they couldn't afford them

there is no such thing in a communist society. Women can afford all the children they want

children cost money user, not enough money to feed children means they either starve or are dropped in front of the church

Sankara maybe?
I want to say Lenin but he didn't actually have that much of an oppurtunity to lead his country, with the Civil War and all that

And pictures of Abdullah "Apo" Ocalan.
Also maybe Durruti as well.

Attached: u (38).jpg (620x399 721.04 KB, 234K)

I think what is hilarious about this is how many people are all "Hmm, well truthfully I prefer Lenin or Castro, but hue hue hue Stalin is oookeh, for a normie". Notice how Lenin died very early, and Castro was the leader of a tiny country, with basically no power compared to the USSR. Why do people like these leaders more? Because they are infinitely more ideologically pure due to the limited scope of the problems they faced! Anons here will squawk about how useless leaders are, claiming they would be replaced by anybody (even in specific events that they started!!), yet every single decision is an error barely outpaced by some other good. Y'all are straight fucking laughable. Under Stalin's leadership the USSR was kept together, the USSR successfuly stopped the Nazis, and the USSR improved the quality of life of its people by tons. How quintessentialy fucking "left" and utopic of you all to endlessly hem and haw about every little fucking flaw. History repeats itself.

...

Most people have acknowledged the good things he did. His two main accomplishments were industrialization (an idea he copied from Trotsky) and winning the war (which was more the result of the Soviet officer corps and material superiority). Frankly I don’t see what Stalin did specifically that’s so great, most of his supposed accomplishments are attributable to the people around him or the Soviet people in general. The idea that individuals have any real bearing on history is anti-materialist.

Every other option besides Stalin was anti-Leninist, so Josef wins by default.
Trotsky's ideas are fucking ridiculous and his his romantic tales about being Lenin's teacher are tripe only "western Marxists" buy into. I'd rather have Bukharin leading the SU than a Menshevik opportunist who thought peasants didn't matter because his classical Marxist Bible says so.

Castro, Che, and the Cuban people helped kickstart revolutions all over the world when Khruschev decided that "nah, we shouldn't piss off the Yanks and some smaller countries aren't worth it tbh".

That is a meme. Romania even still has very high home ownership and average Romanian is richer that 80 percent of worlds population. There weren't that as many orphans as western propaganda makes you believe.

well you have a few options

from a strictly utilitarian approach to ethics, Stalin has to be one of the greatest communists leaders if not one of the greatest leaders in history, even if you were to accept his supposed death toll which is highly contestable mind you, not just the extreme zero deaths that Grover Furr puts forwards but many totals add up those that died due to German invasion and just anyone that died in the soviet union and chalk it to being because of him, but the good he did, rapidly industrializing the early 20th century equivalent of India into a one of the most livable nations in the world is objectively a great thing to do. End of the day, for the vast majority of Russians, they went from lives as peasants with no food, to having a factory job with less hours, bread on the table, and a child learning to read and write literacy rates shot up to 100% under Stalin

perhaps the only Communist leader to have ruled without a strike against his name, nearly everything he did worked and none of led to catastrophic side effects like the collectivization of farms in Russia. When people raise Zimbabwe to me I raise Sankara and Burkina Faso, a country equally if not more desperate that was able to go above and beyond it's means simply by going even further left then Banana.

The enlightened one, while his political ideology and policies are something left to be desired, his leadership as a war time leader is perhaps the greatest in all of history. While many ML's fondly remember world war 2 as a devastating war for Russia that they heroically came back from, the Vietnam war was comparatively hundreds of times worse for Communist Vietnam. indiscriminate raids, random firebombings, and constant chemical attacks ruled the north Vietnamese people and struck constant fear into their heart. It's close to impossible to imagine the feeling that must of been going through these people during the war, constantly fearing their own lives and the lives of their loved one, it would of been easy to just surrender and cede to the south, a safe catholic dictator was better then a people's leader who could not protect them. Indeed many villages did cede, but far more stayed with Ho Chi Minh, his inspiring speeches and icon as a friendly old wise man living in poverty gave him the ability to inspire these people to fight for their people's nation. Americans often accuse North Vietnam of forcing children to fight their war, but those children weren't forced, they chose to fight after listening to Ho Chi Minh.

Attached: ho-chi-minh-9340663-1-raw.jpg (600x800 34.18 KB, 94.59K)

How was Trotsky anti-Leninist? Genuine question.

Thomas Sankara was a good leader, but some of his policies-mainly literacy campaign and industrialization failed.

yeah but mind you they could have been more successful in the long run had he not been killed after only a few years in office

What about Tito?

OP said communist leaders

Attached: карикатура-тито_cr.jpg (700x633, 266.08K)

He was one of the best, don't if he was *the* best. he made a few mistakes by allowing revisionism to take hold and not focusing on light industry enough.

Shut the fuck up chetnik

Attached: c598152083d253dd340ed3dc01d71246d598772fa0f503d2c2bbf26391ff0820.jpg (351x480, 40.76K)

This. Stalin BTFO the Nazis, but did he do it with a bunch of peasants hiding in the forest with captured German weapons? I don’t think so.

Attached: A940D08F-B16D-42F7-A656-DAB186E11D28.jpeg (620x419, 192.44K)

RANJENIKE NE SMIJEMO OSTAVITI

Castro wasn't some half baked shitty Socialist, he lead one of the most Socialist countries every created, despite being attacked and kneecapped by the US at every chance. And he managed to keep the country Socialist after his unfortunate death.

Fpbp

Even though Yugoslavia turned into a shitshow
It's kinda retarded to say that Tito was a nazi
Reminder that a lot of Chetnik factions were nothing more than bandits that worked with the Occupiers (Kosta Pecanac)

Topkek. College liberal larping as a commie detected.

c+f: hoxha: 0 results.
c+f: bunkerman: 0 results.
No leader has been more based than he was. Even if you disagree with his theories or whatever. seriously… stop whatever you're typing and read this fucking article now:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha

I agree. A lot of people praise Thomas Sankara, but Enver Hoxha is similar. More crazy, but at the same time more successful.

hoxha was an autist who isolated himself from other socialist countries over his petty dogmatism

One thing I can't really figure out is, by the time of the Yugoslav dissolution was the country's economy even socialist in any meaningful way? And I mean by the standards of the ML conception of socialism, minimally. I've been looking at historical literature of the period but it's so heavily filled with propaganda that I can't be sure of fucking anything.

By my understanding, by 1990s there were already heavy liberal market reforms, big unemployment, and the "self-managed" cooperatives - which were supposed to be the distinctive feature of Yugoslav socialism - were worker-managed only on paper.

Point is, even if we accept that the heavily nationalist movement in Serbia fought against western imperialism, I don't see how it could have prevented capitalist restoration.

I don’t even consider market socialism to be socialism fam, but it’s still a massive improvement on capitalism and Tito is based for implementing it with relative success. Was capitalist restoration inevitable? I think so, since the collapse of the Soviet Union discredited all forms of socialism.

Maybe so, but I think the collapse of the USSR can't be compared with Yugoslavia. The USSR was dismantled basically from above, with the majority of the population not supporting it, while it seems to me that large swathes of Yugoslav people didn't want to preserve it and were very reactionary. Consider that the USSR has a huge communist party, while over here the left is nonexistent. It should have some kind of support left if the people wanted it to stay.

Che literally founded an entire school of revolutionary thought and military theory you fuck

Don't most people today now say they regret the dissolution of the SFRY?

This

Is juche an acceptable and less meme-y version of nazbol?

Eternal President Kim Jong Un

Hoxha was cool, but to say the "best"…. nah. Anti-revisionism is always to be commended but he took it a bit too far.

Evil Morty obviously…

Attached: tirz.png (1024x1707, 758.24K)

Praise the Great Leader!

Attached: kimilsung_04.jpg (518x724 109.19 KB, 29.79K)

See….

...

As Marx wrote, "Workers' democracy is when you destroy large parts of your capital town to build your megalomaniac palace while poor people starve"

...

Stop.

That's not an argument against Stalin, that is literally an excerpt of the situation and ignores the vast multi-faceted issue of Party changes Throughout the 30s

Leaders of the "Communist Party" you all mean.

Not in commie countries, where everyone is employed so has money, and stuff is either free or with controlled prices, low so everyone could afford it.

Mao

In Russia Nostalgia for the USSR and Positive Feelings About Stalin
>pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/29/in-russia-nostalgia-for-soviet-union-and-positive-feelings-about-stalin/
Stalin Voted 3rd Most Popular Russian
>reuters.com/article/us-russia-stalin/stalin-voted-third-most-popular-russian-idUSTRE4BR17620081229
Why More than Half of Russians Miss the Soviet Union
rbth.com/politics_and_society/2016/11/04/why-more-than-half-of-russians-miss-the-soviet-union_643655
Over 70 Percent of the Soviet Citizens Vote to Keep USSR Together in 1991 Referendum
>sputniknews.com/infographics/20110313162959645/
Majority of Eastern Germans Feel Life Better under Communism
>spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html
Struggling Romanians Yearn for Communism
>washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/30/struggling-romanians-yearn-for-communism/
Growing Up Under Communism was the Happiest Time of My Life
>dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221064/Oppressive-grey-No-growing-communism-happiest-time-life.html

Attached: USSR_achievments.jpg (800x2449 270.39 KB, 1.03M)

Why

Good communist and player of geopolitics, very poor military commander. Are you confusing him with Trotsky?

This is a western myth. He wasn't a genius but he was a good military leader.

Why? Because he made a mistake ones? He captured Volgograd against overwhelming odds in the Civil War, a victory so reknown that the citizens of Volgograd changed the name to Stalingrad. He might have been a bit out of touch initially against the German Blitzkrieg doctrine but adopted eventually. Generally throughout Stalin's career he has proven himself to be very adaptable, which was something the Politburo recognized when they voted him into power.

Trotsky was a great administrator, but not a good field commander. He fucked up Warsaw, which might have been the most decisive battle for communism ever.