What does Zig Forums, think of Lavrentiy Beria...

What does Zig Forums, think of Lavrentiy Beria? Do you think he could have saved the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War if he had been allowed to implement his reforms instead of getting overthrown and executed by Khrushchev? Even if he had turned out to be a Soviet Deng Xiaoping and turned the Soviet Union into a state capitalist nation would have been better than the Soviet Union completely collapsing and falling to the Oligarchs and Putin?

Attached: 1538149818495.jpg (547x547, 55.76K)

Other urls found in this thread:

libgen.io/search.php?&req=court of red&phrase=1&view=simple&column=def&sort=extension&sortmode=DESC
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1450145/Stalins-depraved-executioner-still-has-grip-on-Moscow.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OGAS
espressostalinist.com/2011/11/15/grover-furrs-response-to-mike-elys-charges-against-beria/
youtu.be/f0cjhN-cVdA
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Did you mean "started World Revolution"?

What reforms are you talking about?

Wat.

A paedo who deserved it, Zhukov did nothing wrong.

He was a child rapist?

I don't get why Khrushchev is blamed for Gorby's revisionism and the dissolution of the USSR. It probably comes from the Sino-Soviet split when the Chinese autists were accusing corn boy of restoring capitalism but really Khrushchev's "revisionism" was absolutely nothing compared to what came later. The economic reforms didn't fundamentally change the economic system that was built during Stalin's leadership. I'm starting to think all of these accusations against Khrushchev regarding revisionism are about people being salty he talked shit on Stalin.

very high eye queue post

Prove me wrong. Ismail already btfo'd the claim that Khrushchev restored capitalism in the USSR (or that his economic reforms set the USSR on the "path" of capitalist restoration) multiple times. Meanwhile "anti-revisionists" would rather just talk about how Khrushchev lied about Stalin who was a good boy who dindu nuffin (nothing substantial about how he made the USSR capitalist unless you literally think trash-talking Stalin = capitalism).

I was agreeing with you non-sarcastically. Forgot to take off the flag.

Also I want to add that the way anti-revisionists see Stalin vs. Khrushchev perfectly mirrors how trotskyites see Lenin vs. Stalin

oh ok then

He was a nigger

What's the difference between a Ferrari and almost 50 bodies?
A Ferrari ISNT in Laverenti Beria's back yard

You say that like it's a bad thing. He prevented a massive civil war by dissolving the USSR

I have to disagree with you
Even neo-trots dont think Stalin went full capitalist and/or imperialist

Attached: beria.png (734x288, 79.63K)

who the fuck is this mythical Ismail guy I keep hearing about?

He is a guy who used to post on RevLeft but is probably most known around here as the board owner of >>>/marx/ . He is extremely well read on leftist history, especially that of the USSR and other 20th century socialist states, and his hobby is scanning obscure Marxist works and Soviet textbooks and uploading them to the internet.

Yikes…
the vast majority opposed it and the protests that followed were repressed by porky Yeltsin

No I mean preserve the Soviet state instead of it collapsing and it's constituent Republics gaining independence as well as ending the massive military and nuclear build up between the United States and the Soviet Union and all the bloody proxy wars that were fought between them.

Ending or at least significantly lightening up the police state, granting more autonomy to the constituent Republics and liberalizing the rigid planned economy of the Soviet Union.
What I'm asking is would a surviving Soviet Union with an economic system similar to current day China be preferable to a collapsed Soviet Union with a revanchist Russia controlled by robber baron Oligarchs and headed by tin pot tough guy?


I'm not saying that Khrushchev was a revisionist, the problem is that he wasn't and that his adherence to planned economics is what caused the Soviet Union's stagnation and collapse.

Tbh if anybody really laid the foundations for revisionism it was Stalin himself.

I misunderstood your point then. I'm not sure this analysis is correct. Economic growth and development of the Soviet economy was still pretty good during his leadership (if I'm not mistaken) and the era of stagnation was post-Khrushchev. Even if the kind of economic configuration of that era was what lead to stagnation I'm not convinced going full Deng would have been the correct solution.

Btw Cockshott has some good videos on the reasons for the economic stagnation and fall of the eastern bloc countries. You should check them out.

Definitely no. Modern communists should recognize that the USSR was doomed from the beginning. As Cockshott argues, their political structure was shit. It was bound to descend into oligarchy.
The technology wasn't there yet to have a highly efficient planned economy. We do have it today. Let's learn from the ways in which the USSR failed and stipulate a new program.

Is there actual proof of the serial rapist thing? The only people who accused him of it were his political enemies as far as I know.

They found the bones of the women he raped in his Dacha, and the list of women which he raped was kept as per his request.

These.


Beria himself is one of the most shameful things to happen to the USSR. I'm far from a Trot and not necessarily even anti-Stalinist, but holy shit Stalin putting up with Beria's comically evil behavior is itself evidence supporting that a lot of the internal criticism of Stalin wasn't just western infiltration or "revisionism" but just reasonable fucking people objecting to obvious excesses and oversights.

Attached: 1541628300513.png (451x533, 35.57K)

There is record of Stalin requesting his daughter be kept far away from Beria.

Links?

Here's comic villainy is what fascinates me so much, the thought of one of the most evil people in history, stopping the madness of the Stalinist regime and ending the Cold War and saving millions of lives is so beautifully ironic and I hate Khrushchev so much for ruining that and almost starting World War III.

How the fuck would Beria have done that lol. He probably wouldve instituted mandatory pedophile rings or something.

He would've nationalized children.

Beria stopped the Great purge, he was a good guy.

Beria was a necessary evil. Under his command and cold, calculated efficiency the Soviet secret agencies during WWII provided immeasurable value to the war effort. Motherfucker ran shit like nobody's business.

Still was a shitty person, though.

Attached: beria.jpg (408x611, 94.94K)

Can't cite it directly but "The Court of the Red Tsar" (I know andram name but his sources are legit) by Simon Sebag-Montefiore.

Also reminder Beria's "reforms" are what lead to the builders' strike in East Germany. Some great economic mastermind he was.

which were?!

They weren't a result of his economic policies but the result of easing the repression by the East German state and the East German people taking that as a sign that they could overthrow the government.

Nah mate, his retarded quota system lead to massive issues in reconstruction era Berlin: specifically it promoted hurried work and overwork in a period with scarcity of labour.

Pretty disagreeable dude

I do not recall Beria ever being in charge of East Germany's eco system or imposing such quotas.

hey guys, here's a wilde idea
what if, and i know that sounds crazy
but
if revisionism isn't something you accuse someone of and imply that it's a 180 turn that immediatly establishes capitalism, but rather a subversion of principles that erodes the socialist foundation?
what if you're all just strawmanning tards who obsess with retarded hoxhaite and maoist accusations because you are just so hell bend on riding that corn knob?

There's literally no proof of this or of him being a rapist at all. Go look at the sources that are cited on Wikipedia, I did and it's a dead-end. Just a bunch of "biography" books citing each other.

Yeah, that sounds like a trustworthy book that can be cited instead of primary sources…
Let's see what this book says about Beria's skeleto-
>shall probably never know. There is of course no proof that Beria is to blame—but anything, no
libgen.io/search.php?&req=court of red&phrase=1&view=simple&column=def&sort=extension&sortmode=DESC
Now, you'd think we'd at least have photos of these bones… Maybe carbon dating? Dental records? Photos of the part of the building they came from? But I can't fucking find any evidence this even happened. Just a bunch of articles with no proof, like this one:
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1450145/Stalins-depraved-executioner-still-has-grip-on-Moscow.html
LOADS of fake news/history was written in Yeltsin-era Russia. You people need to stop mouthing off about Beria until you can get some solid fucking evidence.

Beria is a nice man. I would let him drive my daughter home after a party function.

Beria was
1) a serial rapist
and
2) an opportunist liberal.

Prove it. Show me the primary sources.

Not to mention he was not Russian, not Georgian but a fucking Mingrelian

Ismail? I remember when Ismail sided with maoists/hoxhaists. There was a pretty long discussion of Bill Bland's book before he switched his opinion. Unfortunately, he went full Khrushchevite afterwards.

Much more importantly, non-revisionist ML (unlike maoists/hoxhaists) does not claim that Khrushchev restored capitalism.

It does state that:
Also, note that there was no "BTFOing" of this by Ismail. He constantly tries to weasel away or resorts to cheap rethoric to cover his ass.

Destruction of Central Planning is not harmful to Socialism?
Forcing privatization of agrotech on kolkhozs is not harmful to Socialism?
Protecting and nurturing Petit-Bourgeois elements within Soviet society - by suppressing Marxist analysis of class character of USSR - is not harmful to Socialism?

Khrushchev effectively destroyed Dictatorship of the Proletariat, substituting it with SocDem class collaborationism. It's a miracle USSR survived for 30 years after his coup.

Oh boy.

USSR was not in danger of collapse in 1950s.

Which was impossible, as it was not the USSR that was the initiator.

There was no police state.

You mean Perestroika reforms? How does this prevent dissolution, if this was exactly what caused it?

It could not survive with such a system. Soviet state went too far in Socialist reforms to permit rollback to Capitalism. In fact, without stealthy revisionism that slowly prepared ground, I'm quite certain Perestroika in 1950s would've ended in civil war.

Which would've happened by 60s, if Perestroika was implemented in 1950s.

Much more importantly: when and where did Beria suggest Perestroika?

I'm not even a stalinist, but you unironically need to be banned (and fuck off back to Zig Forums).

I don't see the problem if Beria was into loli honestly

Zhukov should have started a new monarchic dynasty after Stalin's death tbh.

If you blame anything other than Kruschev and War Communism you need to read a fucking book

Why do people hate Nicky so much?

he liberalized the shit out of the Soviet economy.

liberal countries say the same shit about Assange

Lenin also did so, why no hate?

that’s what I meant by “and War Communism”

Explain?

Lenin’s capitalism wasn’t actually that bad, the problem with War Communism is that it had to use Democratic Centralism which in turn gave rise to the Politburo due to its natural lack of democracy.
Lenin and Trotsky insisted on the necessity of liberal Capitalist development because they knew Russia was practically a third world shithole and needed to develop to have the economic status of the first world. This, however was proven wrong by the success of Stalin’s five-year-plans, which in my opinion makes the necessity of War Communism not only bunk, but counterproductive.
It’s this political bureaucracy which Stalin failed to disintegrate that gave rise to the Western-admired “Kruschev Thaw”. This meant the reintroduction of wage-labor and consumerist advertising back into the economy, which any sane leftist should know is a prerequisite only for C-M-C production.
This in turn slowly became a reality as the “Warsaw Pact” became much less of a pact but grounds for Russian imperialism. Much in the same fashion that western empires invade countries to ensure capitalist trade, Russia did much of the same following the death of Stalin in order to ensure “mutual assistance”. Make no mistake, Russia was very much an Imperialist power already by the 1960s.
At that point I’d argue Russia was already capitalist, so Gorbachev is not to blame; Workers were working in wages, bureaucracy was prolific, imperialism was present, and slowly the liberal “wheels of circulation” had started spinning within Soviet planning.

War communism had nothing to do with 'liberal capitalist development' though. It was a set of emergency measures during the civil war period. Besides to claim that the five-year plans prove war communism was 'unnecessary' or 'counterproductive' is sheer nonsense. How does it prove it? I get the impression you're confused about what war communism was and how it relates to the soviet economy.

Are you denying the NEP had anything to do with War Communism? They were both organized by Lenin in response to the civil war. Any wartime production method can be seen as a component of governmental measures.
Also the 5 year plans, as well as pretty much any mode of economic planning in all of history, proves that free market policies are useless for war.

Yes, they were completely different policies.
They were both proposed and implemented under Lenin, yes, but how is this relevant? As for being 'in response to the civil war' this phrasing obfuscates the different relation they had to the civil war. War communism was implemented during the war in order to win it, the NEP was implemented in the aftermath of the war in order tor rebuild and buildup the country. Its insane to try and equate the two.
I have no idea what you're talking about here or how its relevant.
What does 'usefullness for war' have to do with anything? And you are yet to show that war communism had anything to do with 'free market policies'. Also the notion that the five-year plans could be implemented from day one is a pretty bold claim that requires some strong evidence in support of it.

It looks to me like you confused war communism with the NEP and are now backtracking to cover yourself by trying to make them out to be the same thing.

"Nicky" usually means czar (Nicholas II).
Because Khrushchev personifies the faction that destroyed Soviet Union and international Communist movement - all in the name of their personal gain. I.e. the very same kind of treason as SocDem - if not worse, as power of the Left was much higher than during pre-WW1.

Lenin did not liberalize anything, as War "Communism" was not an actual economic policy, but emergency measures (it was not about economic development, but assesment and distribution of existing resources, not production; it was utterly unsustainable). I.e. there was no economic functions for "Lenin" (it was party decision) to liberalize.

Also, LeftCom do have some retarded objections.

False. State Capitalism was the goal since before October (as creation of Central Planning would take time).
NEP - in it's first incarnation - was being implemented in the spring of 1918. War put things on hold, and NEP was mere return to pre-war economy.

You are a retard. I don't even want to respond to this bullshit.

You don't know what Democratic Centralism means, you invent some bullshit about Lenin wanting liberal (!!!) Capitalist development, and some "political bureaucracy" (?), and keep on spewing more and more nonsense.

The stagnation didn’t start tell the 70s when Brezhnev came into power. And this was because he refused to invest in technological development of the USSR.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OGAS

see:
espressostalinist.com/2011/11/15/grover-furrs-response-to-mike-elys-charges-against-beria/

Yikes…

Posting bullshit without a source.


lel

how about "no"

Where is your argument, fag?
Furr isn't saying that Beria saved the World (which is true btw), just refutating Ely.

youtu.be/f0cjhN-cVdA
he was practically a james bond villian and stalin letting him do comically evil antics bit him in the ass in the 50s

Seems legit.

Sure thing ☭TANKIE☭-boi.

Gulag was summer camp.
Beria was a nice man you can trust with driving your daughter to school.

The absolute state of "Stalinism".

Prove it.

USSR's charges?

Now that you've got your Goebbels-tier "evidence" deleted, you have no other arguments than claiming that "this is simply true"?

I've gone unspoken ITT until now but I now feel like giving my take

Beria despite his obvious awful personal failings as a Human being served more then competently in the role he was assigned which was effectivly head of the USSR's National Security services

His Competence in this position does not negate the fact that he along with Stalin Malenkov and other members of the Anti-Party clique had conspired to destroy democratic Centralism and the System Lenin had built and replace it with rule by a "council of Wisemen" so to speak (Stalin/Malenkov and their immediate posse)

So ultimately it was not wrong of Nikita to remove him from his post along with the other members of this clique though I believe execution may have been to harsh a penalty for his actions

Do elaborate. Where did you hear this "fact"?

Ismail explained this further on /marx/ on either the Soviet or AMA threads so if you want something indepth ask him

But basically in the immediate aftermath of the German Invasion of the USSR Stalin Beria and Malenkov and a Bunch of guys that no one bothered to remember formed an emergency council that had sweeping executive powers and the ability to bypass soviet legislature

Even after the war ended this committee never really "went away" and basically continued to rule by dictate from 1945 to 1954 with the Politburo seal being rubber stamped on

The Politburo itself only met FIVE TIMES between 1945 and 1954

This is clearly a Breach of Democratic Centralism and a Betrayal of rank and file party members

They staged a fuckin coup and made a complete joke of the legal system. This is the real treason here. Evaluating the harshness of Beria's punishment is not what matters.
Define rank and file members, because it seems that the people really upset were high bureaucrats, or show me the restoration of democracy operated by Kruschev gang.

If Holding show trials like the one held for Beria were Treasonous acts then Stalin and Beria themselves committed treason dozens of times in the 30s by your standards
Those who were members of the Anti-Party group which had formed within the State Defense Committee who had been endangering Soviet / Leninist Democracy by going behind the Politburo's back for almost a decade (Beria / Malenkov / Molotov) Were removed from power and their successor (Khrushchev) allowed the Politburo much more say and…..Actually allowed them to meet?

this would be shown by the eventual choice of the Politburo to Remove Khrushchev from office

So, no sources.

As did everyone. That's how wartime government operates.

Seriously need some sources. Also, neither Beria nor Stalin survived 1953. So who exactly "continued to rule by dictate" till 1954?

Seems unlikely. Politburo was less than dozen people at the time. All routinely interacted with each other.

And yet rank and file members started making uprising against the Khrushchev, not Stalin.

"Show trials" kept public informed. We have books printed with full protocols of proceedings and evidence.

Beria's trial was anything but. Everything happened behind closed doors and kept secret to the level that some people today argue that we can't even be certain if Beria wasn't shot the same day he was arrested.

meant 53 sorry
That dosent change the fact that by the 50s stalin and his clique were the ones going against Leninist-Democracy

We seem to be getting off topic
My simple point is that by the end of his Tenure Stalin Along with Beria Malenkov and Molotov had begun to ignore the pillars of Soviet Democracy thus the need to remove them from power by any means necessary to stop the Revisionist Rot

Cont.

This exact same scenario unfolded under Stalin and Beria on Multiple occasions btw
Such as in the case of Nikolai Voznesensky who was originally a member of the War committee and a close member of Stalins Clique who after falling out with Stalin over an Economic Debate was arrested and executed on the same day Similar to the fate of Beria

I don't believe that this was the case.
You presented scant evidence, while uprisings indirectly suggest the opposite of what Khrushchevites claim.

I thought Beria is the topic.

Khrushchev's. Who is a confirmed liar.

You referred to "show trials" - highly public political trials - did you not? That was not the scenario that happened there.

Maybe 1952? Politburo (of VKPb) ceased to exist in 1952 and was replaced with CPSU Presidium.

Even with Khrushchev's Capitulation to Reactionary smear about the USSR in the secret speech the actions he took were still necessary to protect Soviet-Democracy
Which Uprisings are you talking about?


A Show trial need not be highly publicized it is simply a trial where the verdict is a Foregone conclusion before it even commences

As I said, I don't see anything that would prove this to be the case.

Well, the first one would be Tbilisi in 1956, which had to be suppressed with tanks.

It still has to be public. Beria's trial was not.

Does not a formal meeting of the politburo make.

...

*Catalyst

I'm talking about democracy, not meetings where high officials can jerk off to each other.

Also, we forget that the Soviet Union was in constant danger of being nuked any moment in those years.

Smearing people as nazbols, the oldest trick in the book.

The old clique was corrupted as fuck and they killed stalin.
Zhukov did nothing wrong

Attached: 15e7c8e7810e0ca9fc451510b4d51a6c128c25267c1c9fcfaa392dae7fe051d3.jpg (2844x4694, 1.56M)