Gorbachov Hate Thread

Inb4 ☭TANKIE☭s start screeching how based Eyebrowman could have lead the global revolution

Yep. Year or so ago,people were defending y*ltsin puting all blame on gorby. (who is still a dick)

Defending Vietnamese Social Imperialism

Dont tell me you guys defend pol pot now

Critically stand with Pol Pot and the Cambodian monarchy against Vietnam!

Vietnam wasn't supporting Pol Pot you dolt, they were fighting him.

Attached: lCyk8C0QGIs.jpg (200x277, 22.78K)

Yes. Not Left. Definitely Right.

Stop being retarded. Brezhnev was SocDem. Gorby was Liberal (if not worse).

It is Stalin who is "for all his faults".

Khrushchev destroyed Communist movement and rewrote Marxism just to get more power. He is the one who started the whole slide back to Capitalism. And not just in USSR, but he is indirectly responsible for Dengism and other bullshit.

Who? Brezhnev?

Oh i thought polpot was a communist that killed a bunch of people idk

And Nazis were Socialists, right?

So under breshnik the ussr was a state capitalist soc dem?
That sounds perfect.

Attached: hengsamrin.jpg (853x600 400.24 KB, 85.41K)

Yes which Vietnam overthrew in 1979, don't chat about Cambodia if you don't know the basic facts you dolt.

Yep, meant Brezhnev

Ну ты даешь.

Attached: 15211995327120.jpg (500x515, 35.11K)

Gorbachev much like other revisionists like Dubcek's and Dengs vision of Socialism was that of a Humane Market economy as envisioned by the SocialDemocrats

I grow more unsure about this. I don't recall him ever expressing any major regret over the collapse of the USSR, he betrayed the international cause of socialism by abandoning struggles in Afghanistan, SE Asia, and Africa. He increasingly liberalized the USSR when it was evident to anyone that wasn't an opportunist or naive SocDem the course had to be reverted. He abandoned the eastern bloc almost entirely.

I don't think Gorbachev was as power-hungry and avaricious as Yelstin was, but I don't think he was simply some stupid sap that let socialism collapse before him. He was like Dubcek; a revisionist and traitor.

The idea of "Reverting the course" and returning to a 30s-40s-50s economy had been abandoned by almost all of the party by the 80s
Best case scenario would have been Andropov living a few years longer and the USSR ending up with Soviet-Cuban/Kadarist model at best or "Socialism" with Soviet characteristics at worst

The USSR spent far less on foreign interventions and client-states than the USA, but it still cost them money. Poland, for example, was largely a drain on the USSR in terms of the value of goods they received, subsidies, materials, etc. Afghanistan in particular was an intervention that I think even Brezhnev knew was a bad idea, but he went along with it because reasons.

4D Chess?

4D Chess.

The return of Pizzaman.

That was still shit, doing such privatizations would turn the CPSU into a shity capitalist party, like Deng did with the CPSU. Reminder Dengism isn’t Communism, and it isn’t Soiclaism. Dengism = Capitalism.

Well got to go with what works.
Full socialism doesnt work without a stalin.
When workers have full freedom they need to be pushed around to get them to work.
Would you guys like to live under guards with rifles watching over your back or have some markets.
Also im curious as to what the average social benefits the average chinese person is entitled to.

Pol Pot was the destroyer of Revisionists.

>>>Zig Forums

How exactly?

By giving in to liberal imperialism.
All I can remember is the news telling us they were in a deep financial crisis and couldn't afford to compete with Saint Ronald de Reagan's ingenious Star Wars Missal Defense Shield™ But it was no doubt a lot of spin.

I was talking about Khrushchev not Gorbachev.

Here: quora.com/What-were-the-factors-that-forced-Gorbachev-to-initiate-the-reforms-of-the-USSR/answer/Chuck-Garen

Attached: choices by gorbachev.jpg (960x686, 256.84K)

WTF dont you hate the USSR and wish that Lenin and Stalin / Trotsky were executed anyway?
I swear youve posted shit like that before

ᴼʰ ˢᵒʳʳʸ. ⁿᵐ.

Wasn't Pol Pot a CIA plant?

People are prisoners of their systems. I have less sympathies for those with lots of blood on their hands. I may like something Lenin or Trotsky wrote, but I can't forgive the rest of their faults and betrayals.
I'm the same with the theorists on the libertarian-socialist side. If I read something that is false, foolish or outdated, I disregard. Kill your heroes.

The thing I don’t understand is that if all these statistics are true (an they all appear reliable) then what the fuck happened? How does a supposedly healthy superpower go from steady improvement in strength and prosperity to total collapse in just a decade? The entire thing leads me to believe that these statistics fail to paint the whole picture, since I find it hard to believe that Gorbachev would or even could have single handedly destroyed the USSR for no reason other than he was le ebil liberal revisionist wrecker.

Did you read the thread. Most people explain that while things were overall far better than now, after Brezhnev there was a need for modernization, but Gorby failed. And yes Soviet Union was destroyed with the help from outside from inside basically.

youtu.be/_1d3Kxx36gY

Attached: Soviet Referendum.jpg (950x751, 211.96K)

Wasn't Lenin a German Intelligence Plant?

Counter-revolution. I'll need to write a long-post on it to make it coherent (and not oversimplified), but see below on tl;dr.

It's not about power, it doesn't matter if quality changes - as it was the case, since class structure of society was changing.

The part that is missing are changes in class character of Soviet Union that had been going on since the 1950s.

tl;dr version: due to "destalinization" (or, should I say, "decentralization") of Soviet economy, high-ranking administration had been getting less oversight and more control. This is euphemistically called "getting more initiative". I.e. instead of cog-in-the-wheel status they transitioned to being independent actors (by 80s), with their own agendas; a highly influential minority that desired to be completely free from restraints of Socialist state.

Process of gaining power was self-perpetuating:
1. get more individual power
2. harm economy by decreasing coordination with others
3. blame everything on overcentralized nature of Central Planning
4. promote reforms that give more individual power
- [go back to step #1] -

This was a powerbase of Gorbachev's liberal reforms.

Soviets refused to recognize this problem due to doctrinaire revisionism of Khrushchev (and upper ranks being afraid of inevitable purges that would follow).

tl;dr of tl;dr: Stalin was right about state (as class structure of society) withering away through state (as administration of things) being strengthened. Soviets reversed strengthening of state (as administration of things) and paid the price.

That's properly Marxist approach.

Though, I must point out that Marked One was also part of high-ranking mafia that was taking over upper ranks of Soviet Union. Look up Gdlyan-Ivanov investigation to get better idea.

Attached: political compass.png (705x767, 62.9K)

By revising Marxism to get more power.

The long and the short of it was claiming that USSR had achieved True Socialism^tm and no longer has any classes (which blinded society to counter-revolution).

From this it was decided that there is no need to centralize economy (which created, effectively, Petit-Bourgeois among the upper ranks), that seizing power by force should be last resort for communist movements, that kolkhozs should own their agrotech (means of production) and a whole lot of other stuff.

Which alienated many Communist parties (such as Chinese) and made impotent those parties that stuck with Soviet line.

Are we turning into socdems now?

No, just being realistic that the top of the communist party had already soured long before Gorby came along.

youtu.be/3jG0o9RJEbY

that comment section
ho boy

So Khrushchev wasn't brutal enough for them. Crazy.

It's just what governments do.

Ouch