Flaws & nuance

"In October 1939, [Stalin] told the Lithuanian Foreign Minister that it was no concern of the Soviet Union how the Lithuanian government dealt with its Communists; and, even more bluntly, he informed the Latvian Foreign Minister: 'There are no Communists outside Russia. What you have in Latvia are Trotsk[y]ists: if they cause you trouble, shoot them.'" (Martin McCauley, Communist Power in Europe, 1977, p. 29.)

Post other examples of the legitemate mistakes of Stalin and his government. This is NOT a thread for bourgeois propaganda, kulak apologism, or Tr*ts. What this is is a thread for uprooting idealism like cults of personality and hero worship in favor of sober analysis of our own history. Provide good sources for your claims. We need less anarchists claiming the USSR was tyrannical and less ML's claiming it was a perfect bastion of effective proletarian democracy, and more nuance and good faith internal debate all around.

Attached: 29ca6d2c42e93bf7214d559301b2886fd26ae6a8ae5cde6dbe336662ecfa5c8a.png (1069x1602, 2.09M)

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.org/details/TheBalticRiddle
babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89017381948;view=1up;seq=5
drive.google.com/open?id=10yz1OQmJD7M34klUaGTJR6vdLfzn7Mqc

...

Trotskyists more like bronsteinists lmao

Attached: 1551907958064.png (362x368, 140.45K)

The reaction to Barbarossa was slow, inefficient and further orders were unwise, such as the refusal to give up territory, the battle of Brody, Finland and many other encirclements/pockets that the Germans had relative ease in opening.
Modern combat changed the difficulty of seizing Finland, compared to the Finnish war of 1808-1809. The lack of tactical retreat early-war was a little arrogant, but I think the Stavka overestimated the usefulness and industry of the territory that the Germans came to occupy in the war (Yes I know the SU did scorched earth/shipped industry when retreating), and so they attempted to hold on to Kiev, Kharkov etc at huge and unnecessary cost.
Not all of these were the fault of Stalin however, the decisions prior, during and after ww2 weren't all some architecture built by I.S.


This isn't an example of anti-internationalism, or betraying Communism as a movement I think. Looks a bit more like realpolitik to me, remember Molotov Ribbentrop was being signed near this time, and Lithuania was planned to be under German influence

I haven't really done much research on the Spanish civil war however it seems that supplying the Republicans was probably logistically difficult, and supplying tanks and air force wings would be more difficult than say Italy, which was reasonably close to Spain at the time.

Anyone care to weigh in?

Attached: 1052px-Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg.png (1052x744, 235.38K)

based steelman

...

You mind actually posting the rest of what Martin said along with the quote hun?
Nobody actually unironically claims this. the Stalin did nothing wrong is a meme.

wew lad rip socialist internationalism we petite-bourgeois now

Attached: 1e5bcaaebed6d809a5a1f18621c0c49ea36caa0a9f1ab73f6fd96b9a0ed8d3c7.jpg (946x568, 148.89K)

No one actually believes this you retard

>>>Zig Forums
leave faggot

Really because it seems like I see a whole lot of unironic "Stalin did nothing wrong" around here


Ill be honest I got this from Ismail over on /Marx/ and dont know the full context could you fill me in?

It got pretty bad during the split and height of Body Odor repression.

Stalin did the best he could.

Attached: stalin anti-imperialism.jpg (1367x1776, 485.57K)

wew lad sorry wanting to replicate the most successful socialist countries is being "capitalist realist"

I agree with that quote, I understand it, but did Stalin's government really carry that out to the best of their ability? This is a sincere question, I like Stalin, but dont understand his dismissive attitude towards actual socialists outside of the formal USSR. Lithuania aside, what about Yugoslavia and China? Even if you argue they were inferior to the USSR, Stalin himself here is arguing against ideological purity in internationalism. I dont get it.

So do you guys actually believe that Bukharin was guilty of the crimes he was accused of? That from the October Revolution onwards one of the most committed, well liked Bolsheviks, that Lenin spoke highly of (sometimes more highly of then Stalin), had secretly been plotting to assassinate Lenin and Stalin and divide the USSR between imperialist powers? That makes any kind of sense?

I thought Bukharin was in trouble for being too close to socdem

Trotsky and Bukharin were dealt with by the party in the late 20s. It was during the Great Purges that all sorts of claims were made that they had since become involved in espionage, sabotage, assassinations, collaboration with foreign states, etc., of which there's no evidence. That was the hysteria around which the Great Purges revolved.

At most, Trotsky tried to organize his followers in the USSR during the early 1930s (as he publicly said he would do) to agitate among workers to carry out a new revolution to overthrow what he called the "bureaucracy." That certainly made him a threat of sorts, and his antipathy toward Stalin made him take stupid positions by the end of his life (e.g. that in the coming second world war Soviet workers would overthrow Stalin in order to defeat Hitler), so it isn't surprising he ended up assassinated.

He wanted to continue the NEP for longer and ease into collectivization instead of immediate appropriation from the kulaks. (He also formulated Socialism in One Country that Stalin adopted) Personally I am skeptical of his stance on this and think quicker collectivization was for the best. Tho to be fair it is unclear how long Lenin thought the NEP or something like it would be necessary, I think in his later journals he implies it could be a long time, like decades, so it should not have been in any way a forbidden point of debate. Regardless of whether or not Bukharin had a point, it was still a legitemate concern to raise and should have been deal with within the established Democratic Centralist framework, not through shady means let alone fucking show trial and forcing confessions under torture.


Yeah, there is no doubt that Trotsky was being extremely irresponsible at best even if some of his criticism was well founded. A well known and respected Old Guard Bolshevik talking about overthrowing the Soviet government and claiming his old political rivals were tantamount to the bourgeoisie was a genuine danger, and then trying to start a Fourth Internationale and splitting further an already ill positioned global communist movements was a horrible strategic move by any account.

Attached: Tpb-ricky3.jpg (614x411, 41.32K)

I APPROVE, JULIAN.

He did.

You don't have to be a Stalinoid to see how cursed this fuggen image is.

liberals are harder than full blown megahitlers to convert to leftism
Unless you mean the everyday average apolitical normie who is a 'liberal' by default but is not actually in possession of any reasoning or justification for their 'belief'

Unironic, engaged liberalism (as in lanyard tier faith in liberalism and liberal institutions) is usually an extension of one's class interest which is why they are so hard to convert I think.

Been here for four years I'm not leaving yet redditor ☭TANKIE☭.

"successful"

Attached: 52109973_2111593195598814_3668882887839943268_n.jpg (928x1150, 76.85K)

...

How were they not at least some of the most successful attempts? If you are going to say that the Russian revolution not happening was preferable to it happening, left-communism truly is an infantile disorder

Fuck are you on about? SocDems flip Socialist after reading Marx once.

i fail to see what stalin did wrong here

Attached: 8fd4df6e5564bd5b5f8c6c197b62161f9d67a6f0dbfc3fb55d676a3c187813d1.jpg (2020x1352, 616.15K)

That quote (bout Stalin and the Lithuanian foreign minister) was taken from a post of mine without wider context. The USSR sought to conclude mutual defense pacts with the Baltic states amid the growing Nazi threat. Naturally, as these countries were run by semi-fascist regimes, they were worried about whether these pacts would result in the "communization" of their countries.

So that quote was Stalin just brushing off the issue; he didn't literally think there were no communists outside the USSR. McCauley likewise quotes Stalin telling the Latvian foreign minister that "as far as Germany is concerned we could occupy you" (since Hitler was more concerned about Lithuania than Latvia and Estonia.)

To quote a post I made over at /marx/:

>* archive.org/details/TheBalticRiddle

>* babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89017381948;view=1up;seq=5 (pamphlet about events in 1940 in Lithuania)

>* drive.google.com/open?id=10yz1OQmJD7M34klUaGTJR6vdLfzn7Mqc

Thank you, did not mean to misrepresent the issue but it's a hard balance between trying to start actual discussions here and needing to be a little provocative to get enough responses for a decent discussion to even happen.

Not a primary source. If there's no primary source affirming he said this, it should be discounted as propaganda.

The source provided by the author is: File N 4794/803/59, Preston to Orde, 19 April 1940, Foreign Office Archives, Public Record Office, London.

Obviously not very helpful.

so was it purely realpolitik?