Take the Tankiepill

Gabriel Adams
Gabriel Adams

Since there's a lot of newfags here I decided it was time for another Marxism-Leninism discussion thread. Anarchists and leftcoms welcome but please try not to fling shit

Starting with some links for discussion
poll from 2019 shows Stalin viewed positively by 50 percent of Russians today
rt.com/russia/456690-stalin-rating-historic-maximum/
60% of Russians want communism back
web.archive.org/web/20140223044330/http://www.systemiccapital.com/60-percent-of-russians-want-communism-back/
Gallup: Former Soviet Countries See More Harm From Breakup
news.gallup.com/poll/166538/former-soviet-countries-harm-breakup.aspx
76 percent of Soviet citizens voted for preservation of the USSR in 1991
sputniknews.com/infographics/20110313162959645/
Growing Up Under Communism was the Happiest Time in My Life
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221064/Oppressive-grey-No-growing-communism-happiest-time-life.html
More Fulfilling Relationships and Better Sex Under Socialism
nytimes.com/2017/08/12/opinion/why-women-had-better-sex-under-socialism.html
10s of Thousands of Russians Protesting Yeltins Government Adorned in Red Flags and Hammer and Sickle back in 1993
youtu.be/bjBmtkW3Tl8

Michael Parenti-Communism Has Worked
youtu.be/6Tmi7JN3LkA
Michael Parenti-Authoritarianism in Socialist Countries
youtu.be/6gtUaGV6mNI
Truth About Starvation in North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela
youtu.be/sknaV0nqVT8
Why Communism is Important
youtu.be/TumR7eTc_-c

Playlist of cool Communist music including from the USSR and other socialist states
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCbbYCusuEhZ50TsgFwVnKdQHha_fz7uv

Attached: 609c000b6482f191f6b50ba1f863474eb33f5d3c91b0f4a3736e26ad2a4c2ad2.jpg (48.19 KB, 546x640)
Attached: 23j7hh.jpg (51.27 KB, 960x539)
Attached: quote-what-would-happen-if-capital-succeeded-in-smashing-the-republic-of-soviets-there-would-joseph-stalin-110-24-61.jpg (89.28 KB, 850x400)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Industrial_Workers_of_the_World#Centralizers
archive.org/details/tradeunionisminu00hoxi/page/n6
youtube.com/watch?v=fgm14D1jHUw
revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n1/gorbach.htm
m.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13855239.html
isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml
m.youtube.com/watch?v=jxhT9EVj9Kk
youtube.com/watch?v=ZGn5gCDDQlY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War).
youtube.com/watch?v=6Tmi7JN3LkA
youtube.com/watch?v=npkeecCErQc
ciml.250x.com/gallery/h_pictures.html
the-eye.eu/public/Images/Russian Propaganda/
youtu.be/2BO83Ig-E8E
iww.org/history/library/iww/responsetoRILU/4
youtube.com/watch?v=nSd48emp0lI
youtube.com/watch?v=ktE_3PrJZO0
medium.com/@rsahthion/communist-nostalgia-as-the-reality-of-bourgeois-democracy-hits-home-in-eastern-europe-3960aa341560
marxism.halkcephesi.net/Grover Furr/Furr tortsky japan.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=4xWeMBXV23g
latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-aug-18-fi-1224-story.html
pbs.org/video/frontline-terror-little-saigon/
desuarchive.org/leftyb/thread/3171/
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism
marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1985/comintern/ch6.htm
mixcloud.com/symptomatic-redness/jacob-feygin-on-the-soviet-union-part-2/
rbth.com/history/327846-henry-wallace-magadan-kolyma-collusion
overland.org.au/2017/11/against-anti-fascism-amadeo-bordigas-last-interview/
icl-fi.org/english/wv/archives/oldsite/2005/Makhno-839.html
isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml
marxist.com/who-was-makhno-and-what-did-he-stand-for.htm
reddit.com/r/communism/comments/64wkgf/polemic_the_anarchokulak_bandits_of_russia_and/
icl-fi.org/print/english/esp/59/kronstadt.html
youtube.com/watch?v=fkYRcBL1tmg
espressostalinist.com/2014/01/15/grover-furr-anatomy-of-a-fraudulent-scholarly-work-ronald-radoshs-spain-betrayed/
archive.fo/ovBVQ

Lucas Bailey
Lucas Bailey

okay but what does stalin have to do with marxist-LENINISM?
as far as i know, the industrialisation and authority under stalin were particular to the material conditions in USSR at the time, so a brutal leader like Stalin is wholly unnecessary today in capitalist abundance.

right?

Ian Roberts
Ian Roberts

yes, exactly. There's a cult of stalinoids online with authoritarian fetishes who get their politics from memes and shitposts instead of doing work in real vanguards. You join an actual M-L party, as in with people who will you see face-to-face, like PSL, FRSO, or WWP and they aren't going to be going on and on about their freaky Stalin boners.

Ian Lee
Ian Lee

Right.
Having said that, what conditions develop will develop.

Christopher Murphy
Christopher Murphy

okay. thanks. to get confirmation on this actually opens me up to leninism.

Jack Martinez
Jack Martinez

Brutal leader
Stalin was a Leninist my man. You're also fundamentally understanding what people who are called Marxists-leninists believe in but that's okay most people do at first

It's not about installing a strong leader although one usually does arise due to the necessity of material conditions at the time (which has happened both pre capitalism and within capitalism, in the latter instance leading to fascist states if there is no strong and organized left to counter it so it isn't unique to socialist states). There's obviously idiosyncrasies between various ML orgs and so on but the general consensus among us is that if a workers state isn't created in a revolutionary scenario the revolution is doomed to fail. However, due to the conditions within various countries the forms these states take will necessarily be unique to their particular condition and the level of class consciousness in the people at the time and place it occurs. In some instances it also makes sense to support revolutions which are in themselves bourgeoisie as a stepping stone to the development necessary for socialism as a way or keeping the bigger and more advanced imperialist nations from subverting them and incorporating them instead into the network of global capitalism.

Also some retarded people who say they're MLs for clout on Twitter would disagree with this but it's perfectly fine to be critical of figures such as Stalin and is in fact integral to Leninism and a natural following from Marx and Engels own style of dialectical materialism. It's just that we don't do it by parroting Red Scare and Nazi propaganda about the 100 gorillion Stalin personally killed and so on lol

If you're arguing in good faith and really want to know more about this stuff I highly recommend reading a few of those links I posted and also The State and Revolution, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, On the National Question, The Foundations of Leninism and Blackshirts and Reds back to back. That's how I personally came around to more or less agreeing with the Marxist Leninist tendency

posting objectively true historical facts about the ussr means you are a Stalinist cultist
M8 PSL and WWP literally so the same shit about both Stalin and other socialist countries to this day. Gloria De Riva gave a speech like last year where she said north Korea was,socialist to a room full of non psl members lol

Ethan Green
Ethan Green

All the MLs are newfags tho

Attached: thinking-leninism.jpg (22.88 KB, 431x311)

Colton Smith
Colton Smith

newfag here. I need a quick rundown on ☭TANKIE☭s - do they actually want to eat capitalists and their children or is it a meme? cannibalism isn't funny boyos

Logan Reyes
Logan Reyes

There's a cult of stalinoids online with authoritarian fetishes who get their politics from memes and shitposts instead of doing work in real vanguards. You join an actual M-L party, as in with people who will you see face-to-face, like PSL, FRSO, or WWP and they aren't going to be going on and on about their freaky Stalin boners.
I've never been a part of an ML party, but my experiences working with MLs in activist stuff is pretty much this. They're mostly normal, have good criticisms of Stalin(while generally still defending him), and know to tone it down for the normies. It is like a night and day difference from insane twitter ☭TANKIE☭s and the idiot memers that post here. I have heard some of the parties can get a bit more crazy, but I assume most of that is weird Lenin wannabe LARPers rather than regular members.

Justin Sanchez
Justin Sanchez

"Authoritarianism" is a total spook word by the way. Every revolutionary scenario develops a vanguard and leaders even if its libertarian in nature. If they're successful in taking the opportunity they develop their own chains of command and repressive apparatuses to weaken the chance of counter revolution. Even in Spain the anarchists put folks in cages and Robespierre's measures during the French revolution are where the term "Reign of Terror" came from. Look at how the children of counter revolutionaries today still defend their parents atrocities in the name of bourgeoise freedom and combine it with the actual historical record of who and how many died under Stalin and tell me about authoritarianism.

Also modern day imperialists love to talk about "authoritarianism". Look at how Chavez and Maduro are treated despite governing essentially like Tony Benn would have governed the UK if he had been prime minister at any given point in time. "Authoritarism" is literally only ever used to describe things which threaten capital or to associate socialism with fascism and confuse the working class and even moreso the lower sectors of the petite bourgeoisie into thinking that freesom means equal opportunity rather than the abolition of the dictatorship of capital

Ryan Hill
Ryan Hill

Im not sure how I've acted like a Stalinoid itt tbh other than posting a few pictures of Stalin. I recommended that user read 3 of Lenin's works, 1 work by stalin, and a historical work by Michael Parenti who is not an open Marxist Leninist, defends tito (which I agree with him on despite many online ☭TANKIE☭s disliking tito) and who in the very work I recommended has a long section devoted to Stalin's actual pitfalls

I also encouraged criticism of Stalin as a figure myself. Where's the Stalin boner or whatever? Kind of seems like you two are having this weird knee jerk reaction cuz Twitter ☭TANKIE☭s are either sjws or edgy contrarians who make anyone who defends Stalin and the Soviet union at all look bad. If I came off that way I genuinely apologize but it wasn't my intention at all.

I've been here since 2015 and I believe leftypol has only existed since 2014? I used to be an ancom as,well so idk, I was around when yui and anfem poster were still here. I haven't seen any stats though so maybe ur right about most mls being newfags

Nah fam but check out pic related

Attached: on19ckkqoye21.png (189.2 KB, 712x650)

Ryan Bailey
Ryan Bailey

M-Ls are unironically some of the most big brained leftists. Their assesments of actually existing socialism are a lot more impartial and unbiased than you'd think. The problem is that many left critiques of the USSR and such are drenched in capitalist propaganda and thus "tankies" are forced to engage only in defense. When you're not forcing them to play defensively all the time you can actually get solid critiques and materialist analysis of AES from them. People are just salty that M-Ls call them out on buying capitalist propaganda wholesale and thinking they can repurpose it in favor of socialism.

Attached: stalin.mp4 (2.25 MB, 640x360)

Christopher Cruz
Christopher Cruz

I agree with this

What do you think about the Soviets failure to give adequate support to the anarchists in Spain during the civil war? I always kind of thought it was a pretty big misstep personally along with the alienation of Yugoslavia (although I understand the reasons for the latter a bit better)

Benjamin Nelson
Benjamin Nelson

In the UK the only proper M-L party genuinely do have 'freaky Stalin boners'.

Attached: Cbv3OkrW0AADyW5.jpg (156.16 KB, 1200x900)

Adrian Walker
Adrian Walker

there is something very progressive about that picture

Leo Brooks
Leo Brooks

Middle girl looks like a Puerto Rican I know

Attached: trippin-bowls-medium.jpg (9.25 KB, 240x240)

Juan Phillips
Juan Phillips

A question for fellow MLs, from someone that considers themselves an ML also:
What place do soviets have in the 21st century? I see plenty of reasoned critique of existing socialism from MLs, but I've never really seen anyone critique the specific organisational form that is the soviet itself except for Paul Cockshott, who, I believe, is an ML.

Will we perhaps discover new forms in the course of things, like how the 1905 revolution created the soviets for the first time? Will soviets be used instead as a transitory stage to some radically new form, as Cockshott seems to imply in pic related? I don't know. I was just kinda curious, as I said, as to whether there existed any other ML critiques of the soviet system.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (108.77 KB, 535x550)

Brandon Gomez
Brandon Gomez

I mean I think something like what Cockshott proposes or cybersyn is an obvious next step for Communists who believe in following Lenin's path to revolution. A Stalin stage is mostly obsolete in the first world so it's obvious that even if a Leninist vanguard or party forms and takes power it wouldn't literally look like the USSR

Oliver Jenkins
Oliver Jenkins

Oh CPGB-ML, the autists that will never die.

Camden Williams
Camden Williams

They even have meetings with the DPRK ambassador to the UK.

Attached: dprk-ambassador-cpgbml.mp4 (14.43 MB, 1280x720)

Jonathan Hernandez
Jonathan Hernandez

this
(Centralizers
Of the centralizers, Hoxie observes,
The centralizers believe that the actual building up of the industrial organization will train and educate the workers in the conduct, not only of industry, but of all social affairs, so that when the organization has become universalized it can perform all the necessary functions of social control now exercised by the state in its legislative, executive and judicial capacities. This universal organization of the workers will then displace the state, government and politics in the present sense; private ownership, privilege and exploitation will be forever abolished. The one big union will have become the state, the government, the supreme organic and functional expression of society; its rules and decisions will be the law.
Decentralizers
Hoxie explains the decentralizers,
The decentralizers look forward to what they call a free industrial society. Each local group of workers is to be a law to itself. They are to organize as they please. The present industrial and social arrangements are to be overthrown simply by making it unprofitable for the employing class to own and operate industries. Future society is to consist of independent groups of workers freely exchanging their products. The proper proportions of investments and production, the ratio of exchange of goods, etc., will automatically be determined, just as they are under competitive industry, only then the competition will be between groups of workers, instead of between individuals. Universal knowledge and a superior morality, which will spring up as soon as capitalist society is abolished, will take the place of our present complicated system of social control and do away with the necessity of government in the present sense.
Beyond the described differences, Hoxie concludes, the theories, methods, and policies of the centralizers and the decentralizers were much the same)

Attached: Robert-F.-Hoxie.jpg (6.54 KB, 170x217)

Robert Morgan
Robert Morgan

Also I believe that a workers state in the first world's primary function would be the suppression of counter revolution. For instance a while back I was discussing with Stalinstache in /leftytrash/ what a Leninist state in the USA might look like and we agrees it would keep the security apparatuses developed my capitalism to suppress dissent but use them instead as a mechanism to monitor and suppress porky. In a country like the USA you'd have a lot of rich people to keep at bay as well so the massive amount of private prisons after being nationalized and the majority of their populations freed (insofar as they weren't serial murderers or rapists or something like that) they could be used to contain folks scheming against the State and so on. Ideally while this is happening the intelligence and productive forces of stem types could be mobilized to develop the technology necessary to provide necessities while forming more communal spaces and so on.

This is all really abstract and none of it would be this easy though which is why I kind of take the line that fantasizing about the role a party would play post revolution is a bit useless and instead we should focus on how to actually get there

Cooper Miller
Cooper Miller

Where is this from? It's reminiscent of Lenin in the State and revolution but more sober and concise

Jonathan Scott
Jonathan Scott

Agreed, it's cybercommunism or bust. As you said, there's no need for rapid industrialisation per se, though I do wonder about the fact that a lot of production is outsourced today making some sort of "re-industrialisation drive" necessary - needless to say I wouldn't expect it to be anything like what the USSR had to do, though. And yeah, definitely agreed on the last part.
Also I believe that a workers state in the first world's primary function would be the suppression of counter revolution
Well, as with any worker's state, no? Can't say I really disagree with any of this post either though; the tools exist, and it would be foolish to discard them.

Noah Bailey
Noah Bailey

Right I just meant that in the third world the State might have to industrialized of rendustrialize parts of the country while in the 1st we could pretty much just focus on suppression of and resolution of class antagonism.

Gabriel James
Gabriel James

Robert F. Hoxie

Kevin Lopez
Kevin Lopez

Not that guy, but I found it on Wikipedia after Googling a few lines:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Industrial_Workers_of_the_World#Centralizers
Appears to be from this book:
archive.org/details/tradeunionisminu00hoxi/page/n6

Matthew Parker
Matthew Parker

Fair enough, I was thinking more of how some countries in the first world, as I understand it, don't have all that much industry left in them due to shifting it overseas/to the third world. I dunno, I might be talking out of my ass here.
Page 167 in specific, even.

Joshua Hill
Joshua Hill

brutal leader like Stalin
In the early-mid 1920s Stalin was seen as on the more "moderate" side, allied with Bukharin against Trotsky who claimed both men were afraid to move against kulaks and other exploiting elements.

If you mean "brutal" in regard to industrialization and collectivization, it's debatable, but at the same time Stalin did point out in 1931 that the USSR had ten years to catch up to the advanced countries or else be crushed.

If you mean the purges i think Stalin was just retarded.

Andrew Lee
Andrew Lee

ML parties' complete top down structure led to the demise of the USSR and the fall to revisionism in China because once people chasing power got to the higher up positions there was nothing stopping them from ruining everything.

Change my mind.

Liam Cox
Liam Cox

yes, like i said, i recognise the material pressures put on the soviet union, especially during WW2 - but my crucial point was that these constraints do not exist in such a way today that a leader in the fashion of Stalin could emerge as he did. So a marxist-leninist leadership would be much more 'libertarian' in regard to overall autonomy.

The history of the Soviet union is actually hardly relevant in consideration to contemporary western abundance, but many on the left are afraid of another failed communist project, or a scary dictator. I think the 'tankie' role in his propaganda must be to teach of the safeties and exceeding benefits of continuing the leninist approach.

Jace Flores
Jace Flores

USSR was smashed because of US hegemony.

Nolan Foster
Nolan Foster

The burden of proof is on you

Jackson Turner
Jackson Turner

Stalin was just retarded
This is a pretty bad misreading of the purges. It's a know fact that the number of people purged, like nearly every other statistic people always talk about from Stalin's era, are often inflated. When it comes to the fact that Stalin took the purges too far that doesn't make it okay but to say he shouldn't have done the purges at all and he only did them out of ignorance or paranoia completely misrepresents the situation. It reminds me of when people act like the Cultural Revolution was a psyop from the start and not a necessary attempt to try and quell revisionism that started as a legitimate bottom up movement which Mao than later used to salvage his name after he fucked up the great leap forward.

Aaron Barnes
Aaron Barnes

Explain how Gorbechev and Deng got to power then.

Camden Richardson
Camden Richardson

Yeah, I agree. The party's structure was ultimately very flawed. I think another attempt should have been made toward a more democratic system, but I'm not sure how that would have been best accomplished. I mean, ultimately the Soviet Union wouldn't have been abolished if it were actually democratic as most still wanted it.

Bentley Morgan
Bentley Morgan

I would smash the girl in the middle.

Logan Morris
Logan Morris

Gorby was a reformer who, while being retarded, had his heart in the right place when he started collaborating more with washington and the west in general. He rose to power because the ussr was in a recession, partially thanks to large amounts or military spending in Afghanistan throughout the last decade, a war they got involved in only because the cia invented a crisis which wasn't there. That combined with sanctions and tarriffs that had existed for decades really put a boot on the back of the ussrs neck and opened the door to Gorby who in turn opened the door to the US to come inn and wreck his nations shit

Now to be sure there was a level of corruption that allowed certain self interested individuals into positions of the party that had various levels of influence and yeah, this was partially because of kruschev and Brezhnev blowing it, but to say that within the heart of Leninism itself is some guarantee of its own decimation is a total exaggeration that is firmly ahistorical

I don't know much about China after Mao so idk maybe a mlm fag can give their take

Bentley Torres
Bentley Torres

youtube.com/watch?v=fgm14D1jHUw
This ad sums up the entirety of Gorbacheff's presidency. I can't believe that faggot got to be the last president of the USSR.

Sebastian Harris
Sebastian Harris

because once people chasing power got to the higher up positions there was nothing stopping them from ruining everything

No, democratic centralism effectifly prevents this, by having elections from bottom up and- this is important- by having every legislative body be accountable to the lower one, meaning that people who would be power greedy and this resulting in breaking promises or bad handling of issues in power, were stripped of their ranks when the bottom legislative body reported them to the responsible comitee. This combined with a regular report on the work of each body/high positioned leader and a critical and self critical evaluation of the work oneself has done, safeguarded the vanguard from those power hungry careerists.

The downfall of these socialsits state where not the fault of a few "bad apples" that where "overseen" by "good" Communists and destroyed the Socialist states, this is an inherently idealist analyis of the demise of socialist states

If we analyse the counterrevolution of 89' through a materialist lense, meaning that we look at the economic and cultural changes that led people develop a specific trail of thought and act in a counterrevolutionairy way, we see that primarly there where mistakes that the communist parties did that led to revisionist ideas grow inside the party and creat apathy from the masses to the party.

Namely this would be communist partíes losing connections to the people,the same old people inside the party congresses, not much change in the country, a state apparteus that wasn't a dynamic between state and people rather an apparetus that just guarded the status quo and didn'T change much else.

This combined with an influence in western idealism inside the GDR for example gave fire for people that were tired of the current political crusted system and wanted *new* things, fancy western fruits, coca-cola etc.

Revisionist tendecies also grew inside the SED with people like Gregor Gysi and others advocating for "democratic socialism" losing connection with Marxism-Leninism, even many SED politicians filled the streets and protested for an end of the "SED Dictatorship"

In the Soviet union I would probably say that stalins neglegtic of keeping the Socialist democracy vivid with increasingly infrequent meetings of the Central Committee and Politburo and a long delay from the 18th Congress in 1939 to the 19th in 1952.

This lead to revisionist like khrushchev coming to power and his unmarxist evaluation of stalins mistakes gave further growth to revisionist tendencies, Breshnev, while not revisionist in policies or else, kept things at a status quo, not keeping party life vivid and not working on the socialist state, helped revisionist grow further. This ended in Gorbachev who threw all of Marxist-Leninist thought and theory in the trashbin and proposed social democracy and killed the soviet union

In conclusion we see that democratic centralism wasn't at fault for the demise of socialist states, rather its usefulness wasn't exerciced enough and this enabled traitors to rise to power.

Democratic centralism by itself is the most effective tactical tool Marxist-Leninist have. It enbodies freedom of discussion and unity of action, it combines the power of Marxist-Leninist thought and puts it into praxis, with a vanguard party at its top. Without it communist parties wouldn't be more than movements, mere loose connections of communists, without a competent leadership, without unity of action, resulting in a uncoherent praxis without direction. No Socialist state has ever been achived without a vanguard party and democratic centralism

Brayden Johnson
Brayden Johnson

You know I've never actually watched this commercial before and god damn. They literally equate pizza hut with freedom lol

Adam Gray
Adam Gray

Gorby was a reformer who, while being retarded, had his heart in the right place when he started collaborating more with washington and the west in general.
Oh, shut the fuck up. A reformer who had his heart in the right place was Andropov. Not fucking westernboo Gorby who showed being a cocksucker for the west before and during his reign.

Attached: stfu.jpg (45.82 KB, 605x336)

Isaiah Green
Isaiah Green

this

Grayson Garcia
Grayson Garcia

le free market

Adam King
Adam King

Fair enough I was just trying to give that guy a sober answer so he didn't accuse me of having some illogical hatred of Gorby or something, I agree he was a retard.

The pizza hut commercial is unforgivable

Liam Young
Liam Young

After that pizza hut commercial he should be put to the wall and be re-educated, of course. Not that it would have helped much at that point.

Blake Fisher
Blake Fisher

SHUT THE FUCK UP STALINIST
Socialism with Vuitton characteristics is the only path to communism. Dissenters will be sentenced to wage labour for life or, if the offense severe enough, to death by lethal injection of Krokodil

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (371.58 KB, 600x330)

Evan Robinson
Evan Robinson

lib

Ryder Nguyen
Ryder Nguyen

DISSENTER DETECTED. SENTENCED TO MANDATORY RE-EDUCATION
A COPY OF THE PEER-REVIEWED HISTORICAL ACCOUNT "THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO" HAS BEEN DISPATCHED TO YOUR PLACE OF RESIDENCE

Grayson Nguyen
Grayson Nguyen

krokodil lethal injections
How inhumane. Heroine lethal injections are better.

Attached: truthstalin.webm (7.7 MB, 640x360)

Camden Robinson
Camden Robinson

old lady literally saying she would go to prison if it mean Stalin could be the leader of Russia again
And yet people try to debunk the nostalgia for the ussr by saying it's just young kids trying to be cool and if you talk to the old people it drops off

Jackson Allen
Jackson Allen

That boomer ☭TANKIE☭

Attached: lmao.png (29.41 KB, 500x500)

Adrian Brooks
Adrian Brooks

THis addresses my other issue with ML states: the parties eventually becoming a Blanquist-like disconnected ruling class. I see this as an inherent danger in the existence of a party post-siezure of the state apparatus tbh.

My question is why do you refer to democratic centralism as an exclusively ML thing when trots believe in it as well?

Chase Cooper
Chase Cooper

BASED BOOMERS

William White
William White

What do we think of this guy

Attached: grover-furr.jpeg (78.71 KB, 270x367)

Jaxson Campbell
Jaxson Campbell

good for making clear the innumerable contestable claims of liberals, but his actual work that goes on and says "well, it was actually like this instead" is bullshit and he's an academic joke in this line of inquiry

Adam Perry
Adam Perry

muh ☭TANKIE☭s
tankies represent the opposite of MLs, stop using this word

Jason Walker
Jason Walker

Make me faggot

Attached: Mideast-Syria-Acciden-Horo-e1378756480410-640x400.jpg (45.91 KB, 640x400)

Jack Rivera
Jack Rivera

gtfo, muke

Jose Butler
Jose Butler

buy your crops at a fixed price
LOL GET FUCKED KULAK
OLDEST TRICK IN DE BOOK

Joshua Perez
Joshua Perez

Back in the day ☭TANKIE☭ meant khrushchevite, something that most MLs hate.

Angel Anderson
Angel Anderson

Gorbachev admits he was not a communist but a social-democrat and wanted to destroy the Soviet system.
revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n1/gorbach.htm
m.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13855239.html

Lucas Diaz
Lucas Diaz

See

That's a nice link though. I have to admit I never knew a while lot about Gorby outside of the general story of his rise to power and then the fall. My knowledge of the union gets a bit fuzzy after kruschev particularly on the nuances of everyone after Stalin

Brandon Powell
Brandon Powell

How do we feel about Arab socialism

Attached: fd939af6ef7c3e52eeaaf0fe3b6d41f2e63cae0145b397085ea2ceac52791b53.png (443.21 KB, 1350x1080)

Jaxon Bell
Jaxon Bell

Far better than what exists in most Middle Eastern/African countries now

Hunter Cook
Hunter Cook

why was lenin able to maintain party discipline without killing people, but Stalin was not

Lucas Brown
Lucas Brown

How long should the Vanguard party rule? When will the state devolve into higher stage communism?

Ryder Martinez
Ryder Martinez

Until there's world socialism

Parker Bell
Parker Bell

Now it seems to be used to refer to basically anyone who wants some sort of state structure to defend the revolution, or questions literally anything bourgeois media says about a force resisting its imperialism.

Attached: dotp.jpeg (1.83 MB, 2040x1107)

Jonathan Smith
Jonathan Smith

Why wait until then? Does socialism need a state to expand?

Jaxson Cook
Jaxson Cook

Because Lenin died while the main focus of the party was purging remnant fuedalist/capitalist elements of the country writ large and not trying to maintain party discipline without a common enemy with which everyone agreed to fight at all costs

Jace Rogers
Jace Rogers

First, because if you don't you'll be crushed by the still existing capitalist powers. Second, because the state can only be abolished when the conditions for not needing a state are acquired, otherwise the state will simply reappear as a necessary force to address said conditions.

Ryan Baker
Ryan Baker

What are those conditions? The CNT and Zapatistas seemed to meet the needs of the people fairly well without a state.

Chase Anderson
Chase Anderson

The CNT and Zapatistas seemed to meet the needs of the people fairly well without a state.
The CNT got crushed by both the monarchist government and other reactionary forces, and the Zapatistas are relegated to their small sphere of influence and survive due to not being large enough to be a threat that would get other countries involved. The CNT also had somewhat of a state, and utilized work camps not so different from the USSR.

Jaxon Bennett
Jaxon Bennett

The state is the instrument by which one class suppresses another, antagonistic class. For as long as class struggle goes on one class will be compelled to wield state power against the other class in order to force it to submit even if they do not call it a state. When class society disappears, so too will the state.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (25.35 KB, 526x386)

Connor Bennett
Connor Bennett

Do I need to have a solid grasp on Marxism to fully understand this, or am I good starting out with this?

Leo White
Leo White

Go for it, I'd say. Lenin writes well. It's one of the first Marxist things I read, back when I was an anarchist.

Evan Peterson
Evan Peterson

isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml

Attached: makhno-state.png (133.4 KB, 843x846)

Samuel Robinson
Samuel Robinson

Is it really a good argument to say a single anarchist state (hehe) did exactly what a state would do, and thus all anarchists states would follow? isn't that like saying the problems of the USSR will follow every single socialist state to follow? the problem of democracy, of distribution?

Luis Carter
Luis Carter

MLs want to arrive to communism by creating a transitional socialist state and eventually when the world is socialist (or most of it), it will transition to communism. Ancoms want to create a socialist anarchy and directly transition to communism

Landon Nguyen
Landon Nguyen

In this video ( m.youtube.com/watch?v=jxhT9EVj9Kk ) Chomsky claims that Lenin destroyed worker’s councils and thus did not have the worker’s interests at heart. What is he referring to, and what are your thoughts on it?

Jacob Gomez
Jacob Gomez

Buhkarin was a Leninist
Lenin was fundamentally opposed to coercing the peasants in the way that Stalin did to extract the grain needed to rapidly industrialize.

Leo Rogers
Leo Rogers

Most MLs here aren't newfags, it's just that by 2017 many here converted to some strain of Leninism, because they realised Stirner posting and Žižek memes won't move anything forward. Just look at into what type or creatures Muke, Yui, Bat'ko or Rebel turned.

I joined Zig Forums in 2015 as a idiosyncratic Marxist but I always regarded the notion that the USSR was state-capitalist as incorrect (for example the argument that commodities existed is completely redundant considering that Marx himself wrote that the exchange of commodities and the distribution of goods under socialism organises itself amongst the same metric, e.g. labour in time units, this difference is that there is no market exchange in socialism by individual producers), and when I learned more about Leninist theory and read more about the historical aspects of Stalin, Mao, Ulbricht, etc. I came around as a ML. One negative example of maintaining false believes based on ideology are the anarchists who were populating this place, they didn't make a Leftcom argument but rather fell in line with the 100 gorillion/redfascism stuff, and now look what happened to them at /leftpol/, they went full circle and became NazBols. Such is the case when you are forced to use right-wing authors constantly if you want to cling to your outraged historical beliefs.

Attached: fb53e7e9b0f19b554b6297a55c5ad4a3a1339a24df809dc545342ff1aaf141c3.png (926.37 KB, 877x585)

David Cruz
David Cruz

As a M-L, I believe the immediate stage of future would mirror the current capitalist three-level world system, a kind of "reflection"

The Core - "Centralizers"
There would be a single huge core country, or several core countries with Marxist-Leninist doctrine. Their centralised economic system would enable an advanced heavy industry and sophisticated large-scale infrastructure (other word, modern wonders compared to the ancient pyramids). They are responsible for carrying out the great missions of humanity, space exploration and nature preservation. In contrast with capitalist core state, socialist core state doesn't focus on consume, but investment.

The Semi-periphery - "Decentralizers"
There would be many of smaller decentralised socialist countries who would not adhere to Marxist-Leninist doctrine. However, they still live in peace with core countries and getting assistance in heavy industry investment from them. Their society would focus mainly on consuming and idyllic life, in harmony with nature.

The Periphery - "Barbarians"
There would be a remnant of capitalism and other old mode of production like feudalism or nomadic, agriculture tribes. But the principle of non-intervention in internal matters keeping us from exporting the revolution to them. The semi-periphery and core would keep a trading relation with them. The core may in need of raw materials, while the semi-periphery might need consumer products.

As socialism in the core and semi-periphery are different to each other, so are the people. People in the core state would live a simple, rustic material life. They consider labour as their greatest need, instead of consuming, the kind of human that Marx and Engels had envisaged in later communism stage. By contrast, people in semi-periphery would lead a "balanced" life in the same veins of the old mankind.

Leo Thompson
Leo Thompson

(cont.)
I predict there would a huge tendency for Marxist-Leninist revolution in the semi-periphery countries of capitalist system (a main example in history was Russia), because of their main focus on investment and low level of consuming. That's why Marx and Engels had huge hope for revolution in Britain, when it was still a semi-periphery capitalist country who focus on industrial investment, "the workshop of the World".

And on revisionism in USSR, the greatest fault of Khruschev and CC of Communist Party was not the denouncement of Stalin, but the denouncement of Stalin's policy. They want to manage a core state (USSR) like a semi-periphery socialist state. The main motivation of Soviet labour was not of consuming products, but seeing their great achievement of labour in own eyes and take pride in it. Stalin and previous Soviet managers understood it, while they still kept the wage rising each year, but they were never wavering on the matter of primary sector focus. They let the Stakhanovists had wage as same as the manager, or even higher, because it's not money that matter, but it's a statement that it's high skilled labourers who were the greatest honourable people in USSR. They "wasted" time and labour on "Stalin's excessiveness" in architecture, not for the sake of vanity, but to display the greatness of labour itself.

Khruschev and his managers, didn't understand that. They removed everything positive from the Stalin's era, but kept all the bureaucratic nature of it, which by then was unnecessary with the advancement in planning science. They switched focus from primary sector to the secondary sector, trying to race with USA in the tasteless consuming game. They declared better consuming than capitalism is the only criteria of socialism. This eventually created apathy in labour, generated instability and finally the destruction of USSR.

Camden Anderson
Camden Anderson

Lenin was fundamentally opposed to coercing the peasants in the way that Stalin did to extract the grain needed to rapidly industrialize.
I'm sure Lenin would have let the double the people that needed to die die during the famine, ww2, and it's aftermath just so he wouldn't look "coercive" lol

Anthony Peterson
Anthony Peterson

My question is why do you refer to democratic centralism as an exclusively ML thing when trots believe in it as well?

It is a Leninist concept, non- MLs can adhere to it, wich is good, but utimately they are still a left or right deviation from ML wich leads to their demise eventualy

Hudson Stewart
Hudson Stewart

What do we think of this guy

Attached: ouc3odgajkzy.jpg (426.16 KB, 2000x1500)

Angel Robinson
Angel Robinson

big brain

Jaxson Powell
Jaxson Powell

Based and redpilled

Tyler Gutierrez
Tyler Gutierrez

The based-est leader ever. He sacrificed himself for the proles.
We should steal his mummy from the mausoleum and revive him.

Noah Hall
Noah Hall

Attached: the-simpsons-already-predicted-the-9-11-and-trumps-rise-to-26053162.png (116.71 KB, 500x438)

Adam Murphy
Adam Murphy

breadpilled

Luke Hernandez
Luke Hernandez

It is really a tragedy how little Lenin gets counted in the pantheon of great men while absolute ghouls like Ghandi or mother Teresa get jerked off by liberals constantly

Jeremiah Howard
Jeremiah Howard

absolutely.
i was not even taught of the existence nor importance of Lenin while in school. I grew up not knowing an essential aspect of the world I lived in, so I grew up as a fractured, incomplete being.

Daniel Ortiz
Daniel Ortiz

Yeah, it's because he was a communist. If he didn't do what he did in the name of communism, he'd have been called one of the greatest, if not the greatest person to live (which he is, but he isn't recognized as such).
I'm so pissed at the hypocrisy of the society we live in, honestly.

Eli Torres
Eli Torres

would there be a lenin with karl marx though?

Jordan Evans
Jordan Evans

without*

Jose Cooper
Jose Cooper

Well no but Marx also gets trivialized

Nathan Jenkins
Nathan Jenkins

I think my idea was that lenin is great necessity of the communist continuity, so he should be celebrated for his role in this particular narrative rather than in this individual comparison of other "great men".

very small autistic point, i know.

Owen Adams
Owen Adams

More credit should be given to his brother, Alexander Ulyanov, than to Marx, I think. I believe he wouldn't have become a Marxist if it wasn't for him.

Jaxson Davis
Jaxson Davis

What did ever happen to Yui? As far as I'm aware of them they just fell off the planet.

Gabriel Martin
Gabriel Martin

Well historically, it is what all anarchist groups which came in control of a territory have done. Established a disorganized de-facto state to defend their territory. And whether you call it a state or not, in class struggles state power is what is used by one class to suppress another class.

Wyatt Reed
Wyatt Reed

Yui is now a trans leftcom who regularly shits on ☭TANKIE☭s on Twitter in between posting about comic books and breadtube

Justin Hill
Justin Hill

problem of distribution
You mean the one that housed, clothed, fed and made literate the vast majority of the population in less than 5 decades, accelerating particularly after ww2 and closing the gap with the USA completely by the 1960s?

Wyatt Powell
Wyatt Powell

imagine being so unoriginal

Brody Myers
Brody Myers

please accept my cold war fanfiction that directly contradicts the objective historical record as true because the successes of socialist states hurt my little libertarian Marxist fee fees

Joshua Fisher
Joshua Fisher

lenin was ahead of his time

Attached: 9781898231332.jpg (13.89 KB, 255x400)

Juan Diaz
Juan Diaz

At least he cared about the Soviet Union. He was a MASSIVE fuckup, but he didn't actively conspire with the US like Yeltsin did.

Samuel Martin
Samuel Martin

Also the first.

Landon Clark
Landon Clark

I have a critique that hopefully isn't going to be taken too harshly, mostly on how a lot of marxists talk about the state when dealing with anarchists.

When discussing the nature of the State under a marxist sense for the sake of defending the creation of a proletarian state, it's very common for marxists to bring up the class nature of the state as it relates to classed oppression, as of one class ruling the other through violence, the necessity for the proletariat to do the, discussing the "withering away" of the state as the dissolution of one class continues, etc.

However when critiquing anarchist praxis, it seems to become very common for Marxists to suddenly revert to an almost naive liberal definition of the state, that of simple governance born of pragmatic necessity, of regulation and organization, etc, with every sense of the State as an organization of class control suddenly wiped away. For example, the picture here suggests the Makhnovites were against the idea of a state, then went on to create a state in all but name, not by describing the class character of the Makhnovists, but rather their regulatory functions.

I highly doubt any marxist intends for public regulatory functions to "wither away", unless we are to believe that the primary reason for creating "mandatory standards of cleanliness for the public health" is that of the liquidation of the bourgeoisie and that it too will fade with the rest of the State.

Please try to watch yourselves for consistency.

Eli Long
Eli Long

This is actually pretty interesting.

Eli Thompson
Eli Thompson

This, honestly

Attached: 71avnx847VL.jpg (231.75 KB, 907x1360)

Daniel Ward
Daniel Ward

4chan/pol/ here: Why do you call yourself ☭TANKIE☭s?

Isaac Richardson
Isaac Richardson

Tankie originally was a word that leftists lobbed at other leftists who defended kruschev sending tanks to put down a revolt in Hungary against the Soviet government. Then throughout the 20th century it expanded to mean anyone who defends the USSR and now it basically is just a pejorative used to describe anyone who isn't a "libertarian" socialist. On Zig Forums people kind of reclaim it in a tongue and cheek way and most here aren't actually supportive of kruschev specifically and moreso the Soviet union and it's allies in general and moreso Stalin and Lenin specifically. On Twitter there's really stupid idpol faggots who try to reclaim it unironically and they're usually always cringe Maoists

Attached: Kim-drinking.jpg (43.14 KB, 325x325)

Grayson Jones
Grayson Jones

thank you

Cameron Wright
Cameron Wright

How do we feel about this guy?

Attached: 220px-Josip-Broz-Tito-uniform-portrait.jpg (19.96 KB, 220x331)

Blake Campbell
Blake Campbell

For example, the picture here suggests the Makhnovites were against the idea of a state, then went on to create a state in all but name, not by describing the class character of the Makhnovists, but rather their regulatory functions.
The Makhnovist state was objectively used as a tool of one class against another, however. Unless the Makhnovist army never engaged the White army in battle, never engaged in the suppression of counter-revolution, never created their own secret police? It even says in the image itself:
Why did self-proclaimed anarchists create a state? They were not confused or impure. They built a state because they had no choice. Ultimately, states are coercive instruments whereby one class rules society. A workers’ state is unique in history because the class wielding power does so in the interests of the vast majority. During the civil war, the Ukraine was far from a classless society, as the actions of the Makhnovists show.

Zachary Jones
Zachary Jones

Attached: d4a21bab9f929860b0fc1d3a0a9732d9a0f1378615cb25771fe1abe999e507f3.jpg (54.79 KB, 600x806)

Matthew Lee
Matthew Lee

Oh, sure, I'm not going to argue that they didn't go about fighting the upper classes in an organized manner. I think most anarchists would agree that this is only right and proper. I'm just saying that if this constitutes building a revolutionary State then so to would any properly organized anti capitalist revolutionary subject, and there is therefore no reason to discuss the organization of public regulation. My criticism is that a lot of Marxists end up calling anarchists "state but in name" for their adherence to regulatory function.

I actually disagree that an organizational body attempting to liquefy one class is a State, though. The capitalist state has interest in regulating the proletariat, not liquidation

Ethan Sanders
Ethan Sanders

My criticism is that a lot of Marxists end up calling anarchists "state but in name" for their adherence to regulatory function.
I don't disbelieve you, tbf. For my part, I've only ever really pointed out the role of the state in class struggle since I moved over towards Marxism from anarchism.
I actually disagree that an organizational body attempting to liquefy one class is a State, though. The capitalist state has interest in regulating the proletariat, not liquidation
A fair point that requires a little elaboration from the Marxist end more often than not, of which I'm definitely guilty here, I'll admit. Engels notes in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific that:
The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property.

But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinction and class antagonisms, abolishes also the State as State. Society, thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the State. That is, of an organization of the particular class which was, pro tempore, the exploiting class, an organization for the purpose of preventing any interference from without with the existing conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labor).
[…]
As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a State, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished". It dies out.

Marx also suggested in a letter to Bebel that it might be an idea to drop the word "state" altogether when referring to the "state-in-withering":
so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore suggest that Gemeinwesen ["commonalty"] be universally substituted for state; it is a good old German word that can very well do service for the French “Commune.”
Might've saved everyone a lot of trouble had that been the case heh. Though, "Commonalty and Revolution" is a much less catchy title.

Anthony Turner
Anthony Turner

If I ever am involved in the creation of a proletarian state, I'm definitely gonna be pushing for naming it "The Commonality of X" tbh.

Evan Perez
Evan Perez

Attached: Tito.jpg (59.6 KB, 570x629)

Matthew Morgan
Matthew Morgan

Attached: Linen.jpg (44.5 KB, 468x631)

Josiah Kelly
Josiah Kelly

youtube.com/watch?v=ZGn5gCDDQlY
Really good video I found about the USSR the other day.

Attached: 85563ce9faa9242a63b529c033f32ddbb3047f4d701c5a430537007df06b5543.jpg (27.49 KB, 415x466)

Isaac Hall
Isaac Hall

If you defend stalin you're not a leftist.

Kevin Baker
Kevin Baker

Usually the people saying this are, ironically, huge liberals

Logan Roberts
Logan Roberts

If you defend Locke you’re not a liberal
If you defend Hitler you’re not a fascist
If you defend the pope you’re not a Christian

Caleb Lee
Caleb Lee

We're talking about the man who murdered Trotsky, Bukharin, and any number of Bolshevik revolutionaries. You might as well worship Judas and call yourself a Christian. Stalin was the worst thing that ever happened to Marxism.

Joseph Perry
Joseph Perry

So communists and anarchists were liberals all this time? Damn.

retarded analogies
Hello, /v/!

Daniel Hill
Daniel Hill

Stalin had problems but was definitely a comrade.
You might as well worship Judas and call yourself a Christian.
The only way to be a coherent Christian is to at the very least acknowledge that Judas was extremely important for the development of christianity and for Christ himself. Also the gospel according to Judas btfo's most christian stupidity.

Justin Cooper
Justin Cooper

there are only two narratives: Stalin is the worst thing ever and Stalin did nothing wrong

Benjamin Allen
Benjamin Allen

Can you please fuck off back to reddit or wherever you came from. Also this

This isn't a religion you dumb faggot, we're allowed to be nuanced about shit

Jaxson Hernandez
Jaxson Hernandez

what a well put, logical argument

stallinoid trash

Gavin King
Gavin King

literally agree that we're allowed to be critical of Stalin while also pointing out the good things about him
Stalinoid!

Try harder

Ryan Cruz
Ryan Cruz

If you don't love Stalin, you're a liberal.

Parker Robinson
Parker Robinson

Trotsky
A petit-bourgeosie who couldn't put himself below the revolution
Bukharin
A theoretician who have soft spot for kulaks and NEPmans
Bolshevik revolutionaries
Any other names?

Levi Smith
Levi Smith

building up and developing the first socialist country into a superpower, defeating fascism, and aiding in the spread of socialism to China, Korea, East Europe etc was the worst thing to happen to Marxism

Attached: kim-jong-il-on-marx-engels-lenin-stalin.png (1.62 MB, 1080x1783)
Attached: 6f8d74bc747cbecc109ac4e6bece9fd31a5e853e.png (464.84 KB, 1952x600)
Attached: 077e6c05d8c11c61c75c973c1248081238f93f9b.jpg (116.44 KB, 958x960)
Attached: quote-i-have-sworn-before-a-picture-of-the-old-and-mourned-comrade-stalin-that-i-won-t-rest-che-guevara-71-66-54.jpg (68.03 KB, 850x400)
Attached: f0ea1221ceedb71145355b4f649170ca462760f1.jpg (124.53 KB, 939x1024)

Cooper Morgan
Cooper Morgan

That's why Stalin is great. If your enemies are praising you, you must do something VERY VERY wrong.

Hunter Brown
Hunter Brown

If anyone cares, I made a pdf of Foundations of Leninism from the marxists archive, since I noticed there wasn't any

Kayden Taylor
Kayden Taylor

Based. Was looking for a .pdf of this.

Ayden Parker
Ayden Parker

There are arguments to be made of Stalin, but they are arguments in favor of nationalism and authoritarianism, not leftism.

Great examples here.
building up and developing the first socialist country into a superpower
I'm not Russian, I didn't benefit from their rapid industrialization. The side effect is that communism has been associated with brutality, authoritarianism, oligarchy and famine for generations since. This characterization has adversely affected every leftist on the planet and has given right wingers and liberal societies a mandate to destroy communism where ever it takes hold

defeating fascism
Perhaps somebody who didn't kill as many of his own people as the Nazis did could've done a better job.

aiding in the spread of socialism to China, Korea, East Europe etc was the worst thing to happen to Marxism
Real workers paradises. Just what Marx had in mind, no? These societies are only "communist" in the worst right wing definitions of the word.

Dominic Allen
Dominic Allen

Attached: 1484755615243.jpg (465.81 KB, 2592x1944)
Attached: 1488962158341.jpg (34.9 KB, 480x335)
Attached: 1550188648531.jpg (44.02 KB, 220x302)
Attached: 1552951848191.png (2.67 MB, 1600x1079)

Ryder Parker
Ryder Parker

tfw computer broke
tfw lost my collection of ML pictures, art, books, quotes, wojaks, pepes, military shit

Attached: 1492901552301.png (48 KB, 756x760)

Liam Green
Liam Green

authoritarianism
See

Attached: thumb-a-revolution-is-certainly-the-most-authoritarian-thing-there-is-23083005.png (17.81 KB, 200x252)

John Flores
John Flores

maybe it was a sign from the universe to stop spending so much time on imageboards.

Alexander Gutierrez
Alexander Gutierrez

The side effect is that communism has been associated with brutality, authoritarianism, oligarchy and famine for generations since.
Imagine my shock. Anticommunist propaganda exists since before even the October revolution and will continue to exist. Bolsheviks were accused by capitalist media of the most absurd things, like eating babies and nationalizing women.
Perhaps somebody who didn't kill as many of his own people as the Nazis did could've done a better job.
Stalin didn't kill tens of millions or whatever. I don't know how you can believe trash like this when it's so easy to debunk
Real workers paradises. Just what Marx had in mind, no? These societies are only "communist" in the worst right wing definitions of the word.
They were socialist states, they had their flaws but those states helped defeat imperialism, had to rebuild after being destroyed by war, lifted hundreds of millions of people from poverty, achieved high life expectancy, eliminated illiteracy, disease, gave people healthcare, education, housing, etc. What's your example of real socialism? Sweden?

Asher Jenkins
Asher Jenkins

"Where there is no unemployment, and where a person is not in fear of losing his job, his home and his bread. Only in such a society personal and any other freedom can exist for REAL and not on paper" -Jospeh Stalin

Think I found my new favorite quote, thank you leftyanon. People in the US think they are free because they're given the choice between a job they despise or having their family starve, so this quote from Stalin, a great man who died more than 60 years ago, can be applied today. Only the true (non-libcuck) left can boast such a feat

Gavin Perry
Gavin Perry

This is why you keep backups on external storage

Attached: hoxha-folder.png (1011.96 KB, 1743x916)

Hunter Allen
Hunter Allen

would you mind uploading this folder somewhere

Eli Wood
Eli Wood

checked
why do you have so many hoxha pics? can't really talk tbh since i have over 2600 eastern bloc pictures saved. i really need to sort them sometime.

Parker Evans
Parker Evans

Powerful folder

Michael Martin
Michael Martin

I'm not Russian, I didn't benefit from their rapid industrialization.
Well, the Russian working class certainly did, and the working classes of other countries did as well. The USSR supported communist parties all over the world and built the strongest international socialist movement ever seen. Even working people in anti-communist states benefited, since most of those nice social democratic welfare reforms never would've happened without the threat of communist revolution. Not to mention that Russian industrialization was literally necessary to defeat nazism.

Is this really how you evaluate the history of socialism? "Russian industrialization didn't personally benefit me, some spoiled kid posting on an image board a hundred years later, so who cares?!".

The side effect is that communism has been associated with brutality, authoritarianism, oligarchy and famine for generations since.
How naive are you? Anti-communist propaganda would exist regardless. The Red Scare started before Stalin. Listen to the lecture "Anti-Sovietism in the Media" by Michael Parenti (it's on youtube). I don't know what flavor of leftist you are, but whatever anarchist movement you fetishize, the reason they're not as vilified is that they're not a significant threat to capitalism and imperialism. That's it.

By the way, I'm not saying the USSR wasn't flawed, that mistakes weren't made or that crimes weren't committed. It's perfectly fine to be critical of the USSR and Marxism-Leninism, but this notion that it would've been better for the USSR to not have existed because there would be less anti-communist propaganda around today, is extremely stupid. "Communist and anti-colonial revolutions bad because the propaganda surrounding them makes it harder for me to argue with libertarians in youtube comment sections". Get the fuck outta here.

has given right wingers and liberal societies a mandate to destroy communism where ever it takes hold
Again, you are an idiot if you think capitalist governments would need some special mandate to crush anti-capitalist movements. Western governments tried to overthrow the Bolshevik government immediately after the revolution, before there was a Stalin (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War). The propaganda is manufactured as a justification for crushing socialist movements. If Stalin and the USSR never existed, some other villain would be created as the reason for spying on and sabotaging left-wing groups at home and squashing socialist movements abroad.

Perhaps somebody who didn't kill as many of his own people as the Nazis…
This is a narrative that many liberal historians don't even buy into. How come certain leftists go further in their anti-communism than professional anti-communists? Timothy Snyder, for example, whose entire career is basically predicated on equating communism to nazism, concedes that the Soviets didn't kill nearly as many people as the nazis did. Consider, for a moment, that you're more extreme in your anti-Sovietism than people who literally get paid to bash the Soviet Union. How come?

Real workers paradises.
The workers' states of the 20th century weren't paradises no. If being a paradise is the only acceptable standard to you then there will never be a revolution worth supporting. They did however rapidly improve standards of living, provided healthcare and education for it's citizens, fought imperialism and colonialism and created better, more egalitarian societies than what existed in those countries previously. Watch these:
youtube.com/watch?v=6Tmi7JN3LkA
youtube.com/watch?v=npkeecCErQc

Just what Marx had in mind, no?
Marx intentionally avoided making any declarations about what a future socialist society would look like. However, he did write this:
<The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Attached: rnf459i620f21.png (255.98 KB, 853x480)

Josiah Torres
Josiah Torres

Lenin was in charge during the Civil War when basically anybody serious about maintaining the gains of February and October on the Bolsheviks side basically decided ride or die all hands on deck until the whites were destroyed.

Samuel Sanders
Samuel Sanders

based

Luis Robinson
Luis Robinson

thx4dat

Attached: five-freedoms-plz.webm (11.15 MB, 250x140)

Benjamin Butler
Benjamin Butler

Most of the images seen in the screenshot are from here:
ciml.250x.com/gallery/h_pictures.html
In total I have like 45000 images saved over the years, all sorted into their folder.

Attached: stalinfolder.png (998.25 KB, 1765x917)
Attached: soviet-poster-folder.png (1.13 MB, 1770x921)

Wyatt Nguyen
Wyatt Nguyen

were do you get all your propaganda pictures from

Angel Jones
Angel Jones

Some of the Soviet posters are from this board, but most were downloaded from here:
the-eye.eu/public/Images/Russian Propaganda/

Attached: 2abf2a7ecd6eaf3cbcd8f3ff05455af2c408bce8792a3f9c6d448d9f5f44b24e.jpg (212.57 KB, 1203x900)
Attached: 1f12026a629b82e59222242f28c58aa2c5aca3f10fce163359ce738e99283c69.jpeg (84.43 KB, 699x945)
Attached: sovmilpost18500025.jpg (1.41 MB, 1210x1753)
Attached: ksssrpost-0013.jpg (1.34 MB, 1150x1753)
Attached: flagproletariat.jpg (265.3 KB, 806x1200)

Aaron Roberts
Aaron Roberts

ML quote/info time?

ML quote/info time.

Attached: stalin.jpg (64.33 KB, 960x540)
Attached: sankara.jpg (156.89 KB, 900x541)

Joseph Fisher
Joseph Fisher

that's one sketchy ass website, why are they posting Soviet posters?

Kevin Campbell
Kevin Campbell

Attached: ideological-workers-radio-warfare.jpg (89.23 KB, 1500x568)
Attached: kim-jong-il-historical-lesson-in-building-socialism.jpg (733.84 KB, 1307x1769)
Attached: theimportanceofredoctoberbyparty9999999-dbt56d0.png (356.32 KB, 686x915)
Attached: 8c212ffd65e2cf204937126f4e2471c161b08b5f.jpg (951.64 KB, 2222x1695)
Attached: 42231124-2194140060912726-1857255051198726144-o.jpg (83.92 KB, 1100x558)

Lucas Taylor
Lucas Taylor

It's a website which archives stuff from all over the internet

Cameron Davis
Cameron Davis

Why are most of these so god damn ugly?

Asher Ross
Asher Ross

Is this really how you evaluate the history of socialism? "Russian industrialization didn't personally benefit me, some spoiled kid posting on an image board a hundred years later, so who cares?!".
You're taking that one phrase out of context. I said in the same paragraph that Stalin's reign has affected the rest of the world adversely. The number of people who have benefitted is relatively small, particularly among those alive today. Stalin did vastly more harm than he ever did good.

this notion that it would've been better for the USSR to not have existed because there would be less anti-communist propaganda around today, is extremely stupid.
I never said that. The USSR would be fine if Stalin never rose to power.

"Communist and anti-colonial revolutions bad because the propaganda surrounding them makes it harder for me to argue with libertarians in youtube comment sections"
It's not hard when you disavow Stalinism.

Again, you are an idiot if you think capitalist governments would need some special mandate to crush anti-capitalist movements.
The mandate I'm referring to is incredibly powerful. There is hardly a living person in the west who didn't grow up believe that communism is the ultimate evil. That's only finally starting to change. Why? Because the cold war and USSR are no longer fresh in people's minds. As somebody barely old enough to remember, the difference between communist sympathies now and then is night and day. I can only imagine where we'd be now if not for Stalin, gulags, death camps and all of that absolutely retarded bullshit.

Wyatt Jackson
Wyatt Jackson

tankies = cucks

hope the coup in Venezuela actually happens to see them rage

Attached: 113ce46eaee24ef325040f700c8213bceabcd0c6ce3e5cb613c2ae5b04a7229f.jpg (379.63 KB, 1403x1808)

Eli Clark
Eli Clark

Kropotkin: supported WW1 to own the Germans
Bordiga: discouraged militant anti-fascism pre-WW2; spent most of WW2 chatting to police informants and calling Hitler and Mussolini authentic revolutionaries while actual communists fought and died against fascism
Goldman: got assblasted that the USSR hadn't gone full communism while recovering from a civil war and two famines under constant siege
Pannekoek: was kinda chill I guess
Makhnovtsy: just as "authoritarian" as the Bolsheviks
ok then

Brody Reyes
Brody Reyes

Supporting US globalism to own the ☭TANKIE☭s

Attached: 0c2b1e649b34856c3f9245cfd6ada47c9ec822da42b901e1cf87ca97ea220921.png (1.46 MB, 1766x2354)

Owen Martin
Owen Martin

Attached: hoxhaml.jpg (86.42 KB, 750x628)
Attached: kaganovichstalinpostyshevvoroshilov.jpg (2.99 MB, 2961x2107)
Attached: warsawpact.jpg (145.01 KB, 736x1155)

Juan Nguyen
Juan Nguyen

I'm a Stirnerist, so I'll probably never be fully ☭TANKIE☭ pilled, but I do think Stalin's reputation as "le evil socialist man" is really over blown.

Levi Ward
Levi Ward

middle girl is qt

Connor Watson
Connor Watson

I think that ones opinion on Stalin should become the new litmus test on whether someone is serious about being a leftist or not tbh. In the past it made since not to worry too much about it but if in the age of the internet you can literally have primary sources and things intelligence agencies said shoved in your face and you still believe boomer propaganda about Stalin and the ussr it betrays that no matter what tendency you are you're really just a crypto liberal who isn't actually interested in combating capitalism

Jordan Jenkins
Jordan Jenkins

Attached: kropotkin-anti-imperialism.png (5.56 MB, 2056x2808)
Attached: bordiga-anti-imperialism.png (3.99 MB, 2057x2451)

Dominic Kelly
Dominic Kelly

Daily reminder that the DPRK were the good guys in the Korean war and when capitalism finally falls will probably emerge as a leader into the next era

Attached: 886b56ecd2c968a500cbf6e9b10b10381f23aae4156df9b83bc8521974f7b8d9.jpg (279.77 KB, 2048x2048)
Attached: Kim-drinking.jpg (43.14 KB, 325x325)

Dylan Morris
Dylan Morris

I know that the first guy is Kropotkin, but whos the second one?

Lucas Martin
Lucas Martin

Bord(n)ig(g)a

Elijah Hill
Elijah Hill

I think that ones opinion on Stalin should become the new litmus test on whether someone is serious about being a leftist or not tbh
I agree. If you defend stalin you're right wing trash.

Isaiah Wright
Isaiah Wright

right wing
Joseph Stalin, classic Nazi sympathizer

Tyler Hughes
Tyler Hughes

Stalin is upheld everywhere except shitty anglo honkey lands

Gavin Miller
Gavin Miller

This tbh. The third world loves Stalin just as much as Mao, Castro, Sankara, or Minh and for good reason

Jack Cooper
Jack Cooper

Stalin and Hitler had a non-aggression pact. They only became enemies when Hitler violated it.

Caleb Lopez
Caleb Lopez

Attached: tankie-calls-ML-podcast.webm (3.02 MB, 250x140)

Lincoln Hughes
Lincoln Hughes

Is that why Stalin tried to get Europe to do something about the Nazis both before and during Molotov ribbentrop you pea brained faggot?

David Roberts
David Roberts

Preventing your country from going to war with a vastly technologically superior foe is good, waiting and rapidly militarising and building up defences in the time you can buy with a non aggression packs is bad.

Bentley Russell
Bentley Russell

They only became enemies when Hitler violated it.
You're kidding right?

Aiden Davis
Aiden Davis

Stalin offered an anti-Nazi alliance to Britain and France before the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. They refused because they didn't want to ally with le ebil communists. Stalin couldn't risk war with Germany until the USSR had finished industrializing. He had to maintain peaceful relations with Hitler until the USSR was strong enough to fight them off. Since the West didn't want to team up against Hitler in the beginning, Stalin was left with no other choice. The West created Hitler by appeasing him, and then rebuffed the Soviet Union's attempts to contain him.

Angel Morgan
Angel Morgan

dosomeshit

Grayson Ward
Grayson Ward

2877829
2877991

Attached: 1526139390383.png (847.54 KB, 1064x762)

Wyatt Rivera
Wyatt Rivera

2878377
totalitarian
using liberal buzzwords
That's a paddlin

Levi Evans
Levi Evans

we can achieve a stateless society be creating a totalitarian state!
the state will wither away trust me bro!
Marxism-leninism was a mistake.

Oliver Carter
Oliver Carter

Literally the ideology that caused Fascism making that joke.

Chase Sullivan
Chase Sullivan

original anarchism caused fascism
coming from a supporter of stalinism that was fascism on steroids

Attached: laughing-pepe.jpg (27.43 KB, 399x385)

Charles Ramirez
Charles Ramirez

Proudhon was the harbinger of Fascism

Juan Powell
Juan Powell

The DPRK originated from the PRK and people's committees which were established by the will of the working people of Korea and aided by the USSR. By contrast the ROK came from the US military government which was established by force of arms and cracked down of the people's committees and the PRK while massacring the population.

Attached: Peoples-Republic-of-Korea2.png (191.9 KB, 1187x863)
Attached: survey-korea-1946.png (168.71 KB, 645x541)
Attached: korean-genocide-1950-1953.png (507.61 KB, 1080x1040)
Attached: rok-capitalist-hell.png (179.99 KB, 717x675)
Attached: arrested-for-praising-kim-il-sung-Loyal-Citizens-of-Pyongyang-in-Seoul-서울의평양-시민들.webm (12.64 MB, 640x360)

Samuel Morgan
Samuel Morgan

ikr, she's quite attractive

Attached: stalin-shades.jpeg (20.14 KB, 310x311)

Adrian James
Adrian James

WWII was fascist infighting

Attached: c0eb653172849f2dee5b1102f7c6a798a1900e8f6ca8d3e65b3d4446668a2c06.jpg (75.29 KB, 628x534)

Isaiah Garcia
Isaiah Garcia

Anarchists are so fucking cringe and bluepilled bros

Charles Cruz
Charles Cruz

I feel like the anarchists itt are newfags from /lit/ and reddit cuz of the Peterson debate or /pol/fags larping. I know that we've regained some anarkiddies since /leftpol/ started going to shit but most of them at least concede that the ussr wasn't as bad as cia propaganda says. These ones are posting like they just came here

Brody Peterson
Brody Peterson

This is a good post. If anyone here hasn't seen the short documentary "The Haircut" I highly recommend it
youtu.be/2BO83Ig-E8E

Connor Walker
Connor Walker

Fuck ☭TANKIE☭s and fuck jannies.

Christopher Lee
Christopher Lee

Suck Joe Hill's dick
iww.org/history/library/iww/responsetoRILU/4

Grayson Jones
Grayson Jones

Well memed. Now show the video where a Nork boasting his privilege and disposable income flies to Australia for a haircut.

Jace Bailey
Jace Bailey

muh evil gommunists are imprisoning everyone inside the country

Attached: 中天進入北韓-採訪過程全紀錄.webm (1.5 MB, 480x360)
Attached: DPR-Koreans-in-finland-teaching-tae-kwon-do.webm (2.51 MB, 480x360)
Attached: dprk-citizens-china.png (74.39 KB, 668x706)
Attached: defector-on-dprk-dictatorship.webm (1.63 MB, 640x360)
Attached: al-szymanski-human-rights-in-soviet-union.jpg (206.75 KB, 1080x1350)

Adrian Robinson
Adrian Robinson

It was though. Hungry was planning to conquer parts of Germany instead of sending troops to the front-line, and Italy made Hitler attack Greece.

It turns out Ultra-Nationalists tend to fight a lot because of MUH NATION

Carter Jackson
Carter Jackson

Oh and British Union of Fascists people were the first people that Hitler killed from Britain.

Joshua Ortiz
Joshua Ortiz

Also these documentaries:
My Brothers and Sisters in the North:
youtube.com/watch?v=nSd48emp0lI
Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang in Seoul:
youtube.com/watch?v=ktE_3PrJZO0

Attached: defector-think-tanks-Loyal-Citizens-of-Pyongyang-in-Seoul-서울의평양-시민들.webm (11.71 MB, 640x360)

Julian Reyes
Julian Reyes

Bump for the raid ,)

Jaxson Hill
Jaxson Hill

Mark station, Lianozovo district, Moskva

Attached: IMG-20190426-173221.jpg (5.97 MB, 4608x3456)

Austin Roberts
Austin Roberts

I may be✊ a communist 🚩⚒⭐️ but if i see👀 a fine 💯👌😩 capitalist 💰🇺🇸 girl 👱‍♀️ you bet😤🙌 imma be tryna seize 👐 the means of dat booty 🍑🍆💦💯

Alexander Barnes
Alexander Barnes

that last video is great. remember korea copied the "western freedom and democracy" blueprint and this is what they do…in the west.

Anthony Jenkins
Anthony Jenkins

another great point. the right wing neoliberal think tanks are publishing houses for the Rich Elite.

Jace Campbell
Jace Campbell

medium.com/@rsahthion/communist-nostalgia-as-the-reality-of-bourgeois-democracy-hits-home-in-eastern-europe-3960aa341560
Stalins approval rating hit a record high amongst Russians recently showing a 70 percent approval rating of Josef Stalin published by the independent Levada Center pollster.

Hungary:
“A remarkable 72% of Hungarians say that most people in their country are actually worse off today economically than they were under communism. Only 8% say most people in Hungary are better off, and 16% say things are about the same. In no other Central or Eastern European country surveyed did so many believe that economic life is worse now than during the communist era. This is the result of almost universal displeasure with the economy. Fully 94% describe the country’s economy as bad, the highest level of economic discontent in the hard hit region of Central and Eastern Europe. Just 46% of Hungarians approve of their country’s switch from a state-controlled economy to a market economy; 42% disapprove of the move away from communism. The public is even more negative toward Hungary’s integration into Europe; 71% say their country has been weakened by the process.

East Germany
“Today, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, 57 percent, or an absolute majority, of eastern Germans defend the former East Germany. “The GDR had more good sides than bad sides. There were some problems, but life was good there,” say 49 percent of those polled. Eight percent of eastern Germans flatly oppose all criticism of their former home and agree with the statement: “The GDR had, for the most part, good sides. Life there was happier and better than in reunified Germany today.”

Romania:
The most incredible result was registered in a July 2010 IRES (Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy) poll, according to which 41% of the respondents would have voted for Ceausescu, had he run for the position of president. And 63% of the survey participants said their life was better during communism, while only 23% attested that their life was worse then. Some 68% declared that communism was a good idea, just one that had been poorly applied.

Serbia :
A poll shows that as many as 81 per cent of Serbians believe they lived best in the former Yugoslavia -”during the time of socialism”.
The survey focused on the respondents’ views on the transition “from socialism to capitalism”, and a clear majority said they trusted social institutions the most during the rule of Yugoslav communist president Josip Broz Tito.

Russia
The majority of Russians polled in a 2016 study said they would prefer living under the old Soviet Union and would like to see the socialist system and the Soviet state restored.

Ukraine, Lithuania and Bulgaria
The poll showed 30 percent of Britainrainians approved of the change to democracy in 2009, down from 72 percent in 1991. In Bulgaria and Lithuania the slide was to just over half the population from nearer three-quarters in 1991
In Bulgaria, the 33-year rule of the late dictator Todor Zhivkov begins to seem a golden era to some in comparison with the raging corruption and crime that followed his demise.
Over 60 percent say they lived better in the past, even though shopping queues were routine, social connections were the only way to obtain more valuable goods, jeans and Coca Cola were off-limits and it took up to 10 years’ waiting to buy a car.
“For part of the Bulgarians (social) security turned out to be more precious than freedom,” wrote historians Andrei Pantev and Bozhidar Gavrilov in a book on the 100 most influential people in the Balkan country’s history.

Attached: xEexxPR.jpg (22.74 KB, 344x400)

Juan Wood
Juan Wood

More good stuff from the medium article:

"Most East German citizens had a nice life,” he says. “I certainly don’t think that it’s better here.” By “here,” he means reunified Germany, which he subjects to questionable comparisons. “In the past there was the Stasi, and today (German Interior Minister Wolfgang) Schäuble — or the GEZ (the fee collection centre of Germany’s public broadcasting institutions) — are collecting information about us.” In Birger’s opinion, there is no fundamental difference between dictatorship and freedom. “The people who live on the poverty line today also lack the freedom to travel.”
“From today’s perspective, I believe that we were driven out of paradise when the Wall came down,” one person writes, and a 38-year-old man “thanks God” that he was able to experience living in the GDR, noting that it wasn’t until after German reunification that he witnessed people who feared for their existence, beggars and homeless people

Another man, a 51 year old who remarks that ‘“There’s no doubt it: I’ve been fortunate,”when he set up his business post reunification and did quite well for himself. This well to do man remarks
“In the past, a campground was a place where people enjoyed their freedom together,” he says. What he misses most today is “that feeling of companionship and solidarity.”(Ibid)
And summing up bourgeois democracy quite succinctly:
“As far as I’m concerned, what we had in those days was less of a dictatorship than what we have today.”

The troubling economic situations in some of the post soviet countries is worsened by demographic decline. With the return of the ills of unemployment which has been accompanied by a huge drop in the birth rate. As mass privatisation and de-industrialisation entered the former GDR the former GDR required mass West German subsidies of 130 billion annually to the crumbling East German economy which has still not recovered.
With ahopeless situation where they grew up East Germans migrated en mass. A stunning population decrease of 2.2 million people from 16.7 million in mid-1989 to 14.5 million in 2005.

In Bulgaria the devastating ramifications of economic privatisation and ‘democratic transition’ was the loss of jobs and professional occupations in Bulgarian villages.
Mike Donkin, a BBC reporter and journalist, stated in 2006 that Bulgaria had the fastest rate of population decline in all of Europe: “and the sense of abandonment is even greater in the countryside…Scattered across the landscape now are dozens of deserted or almost deserted villages”.

The same thing has happened to Poland.
“Poland is in a more dramatic version of the cycle of decline in which Britain found itself during the 1970s when we lost a net half a million residents over several years. As people leave, the economy is suppressed which encourages yet more people to up sticks and seek better opportunities abroad.
And of course it tends to be the most entrepreneurial people who leave, while more conservative-minded workers stay behind. Job-creating businesses which might have been set up in Warsaw or Krakow end up being established in London or Berlin.”

Having ruthlessly smashed the communists in Poland and 3 decades of Polish Nationalist propaganda means there is not room in Polish society to manoeuvrer to the left. The plummeting birthrates, the young Polish abandoning the country has brought the spectre of fascism to the fore.

Attached: 2337609-CGOKIQPU-6.jpg (24.11 KB, 375x500)

Blake Anderson
Blake Anderson

Attached: 2c1c6e47119e02744d655affed177b8c9d52ef4f43f155badc6fff42c2b18eeb.webm (11.42 MB, 480x267)
Attached: ec6204404c721350e5f0c98b6c9b9ecbbb06135f387a83acd08f28c093391070.webm (3.92 MB, 480x360)

Jace Johnson
Jace Johnson

I like how liberals always,smugly dismiss Soviet aesthetics as being brutalist architecture and propaganda posters and nothing else. There's people who literally think that Soviet citizens had nothing cool or pretty to look at all day and it's just such bullshit

Blake Ross
Blake Ross

Man I love that second webm so much.

Jace Moore
Jace Moore

It's especially jarring when you compare it to American suburbia where there is absolutely fucking nothing to look at.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1.88 MB, 1000x664)

David Sanchez
David Sanchez

Do Americans actually enjoy living there? I've seen suburbs done right but this isn't it.

Brandon Nguyen
Brandon Nguyen

They usually do because people in those houses probably have a household income over $150k.

Adam Collins
Adam Collins

Most were built with federal money, and had subsidized mortgages so while they might suck to live in, you don’t have to pay rent which makes up for it. this was in the 50s and 60s so now if you want a house their you have to actually pay rent so it’s not the same

Ian Clark
Ian Clark

this looks like video games

Attached: simcity.jpeg (1021.5 KB, 1920x1080)

Liam Bailey
Liam Bailey

Actually looks better.

Ayden Peterson
Ayden Peterson

Attached: einstein.jpg (166.76 KB, 900x617)

Gavin Butler
Gavin Butler

iirc on the RevLeft radio episode on Stalin they pointed out that Stalin purged less people then Lenin. In my uneducated opinion I think the purges were paranoid but ultimately necessary to preventing a trotskyist coup or worse.

Brayden Miller
Brayden Miller

preventing a trotskyist coup
because that would be a bad thing

Benjamin Wilson
Benjamin Wilson

Well, if you like fascism I guess that's a desirable result.
Whatever, no kink shaming here.

Anthony Allen
Anthony Allen

Trotskyists are anti-fascist. How would a trot coup lead to fascism?

Caleb Mitchell
Caleb Mitchell

I like how everyone this argument happens it goes exactly the same way and then you fags just ignore it and start it all over again in another thread

William Ortiz
William Ortiz

Trotskyists are anti-fascist. How would a trot coup lead to fascism?
Woooaaaahhh Trotsky was an ANTI-fascist? Oh, my bad, when I skimmed the overview of his Wikipedia article in 4th grade I missed the word anti and just thought he was a -fascist. Which, in hindsight was a negative fascist meaning he was actually not a fascist, but alas my grasp on mathematics was insufficient at the time to make that conclusion.
I guess that, like, totally destroys the mountain of evidence show that he collaborated with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. He was, after all, antifa.
And a full blown civil war in the country that sacrificed the most men to stopping the Nazis would have no effect on things like manpower, coordination, logistics and equipment, and loyalty.
One minor detail, here's a report with evidence showing he collaborated with the Nazis and Imperial Japanese. So, what's the deal with that?
marxism.halkcephesi.net/Grover Furr/Furr tortsky japan.pdf

Attached: 5cc0baadfc7e937b358b458c.JPG (13.86 KB, 460x258)

Andrew Cook
Andrew Cook

I guess that, like, totally destroys the mountain of evidence show that he collaborated with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. He was, after all, antifa.
That “evidence” does not exist. It is made up. Stop lying.

Zachary Diaz
Zachary Diaz

no actual refutation just "no bully pls"
Lol
trot telling someone else to stop lying
Wew

Christopher Taylor
Christopher Taylor

Comrade Kim going for the Enver Hoxha look

Attached: 1509220945844.jpg (123.45 KB, 886x774)

Lucas Evans
Lucas Evans

Attached: Anti-Trotskyite-Gang.png (1.03 MB, 1738x3346)

Jeremiah Collins
Jeremiah Collins

Attached: Krupskaja-1890.jpg (254.91 KB, 749x900)
Attached: krupskaya-on-trotsky.png (645.79 KB, 1080x1196)

Adam Cook
Adam Cook

You know what my biggest problem with trots is? It's not even s matter or principle or of feeling superior. Stalin did a lot or things he can rightly be,criticized for and I think trots on a purely ideological level have plenty in common with Marxist Leninists. My problem is that trots if given even a modicum of influence within a party immediately start working overtime to completely dominate the fucking thing and if they are unsuccessful have s massive autistic meltdown and try to tear the entire thing to the ground or split it

I would have no problem working with Maoists or even Ancoms who were critical of the ussr and Stalin so long as they were genuinely interested in s popular front and actual workers solidarity. Trots however are incapable of this. They believe, in a very un-Leninlike fashion, that their mathematical equations of political programs are destined to bring full communism and anything which stands in their way is just as bad as capitalism

Jose Price
Jose Price

"Fake news"
Weak as fuck. If you can't counter with any actual arguments then fuck right off, historical revisionist.

Joseph Sanders
Joseph Sanders

Thoughts on the Cultural Revolution?

Attached: Victim-of-the-Cultural-Revolution-2.jpg (250.77 KB, 1397x1404)

Brody Reyes
Brody Reyes

trots who want to hold a coup and install socialism then throw a hissy fit when they dont get their way
neocons who want to hold a coup and install "democracy" then throw a hissy fit when they dont get their way

Attached: 158.png (14.55 KB, 447x378)

Colton Williams
Colton Williams

Marx also suggested in a letter to Bebel that it might be an idea to drop the word "state" altogether when referring to the "state-in-withering":
This really shows how there isn't really too much of a difference between anarchism and Marxism which rejects stagism.

Levi Hernandez
Levi Hernandez

Marxism is a branch of anarchism and the only way to get around this is to use an inconsistent and incomplete definition of the State.

Xavier Lopez
Xavier Lopez

Marxism is a branch of anarchism
You meant the other way around, right? I always feel that anarchism tries to be a more libertarian Marxism but fails by staying really vague on the question of the state. Probably one the causes is that anarchism wasn't created by a single person.

Logan Russell
Logan Russell

No, Marx witnessed anarchists snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in his life-time.

Attached: 8fd9acbe665863894b998d7bcf45c3140930e4ee42dc826b0bdae5c5e2818378.png (220.5 KB, 996x1020)

Carter Brown
Carter Brown

Nah, marxism falls under a branch of anarchism. A specific one that is much better defined and developed than most, too. However there are large numbers of other anarchist branches that would not be compatible with a lot of the very basic tenets of Marxism (a lot of anarchism does indeed start with idealist theoretical basis but not all)

Brandon Hall
Brandon Hall

Wait… if Krupskaya was actually supportive of Stalin, then Kotkin and Furr must be wrong about Lenin's Testament.

Robert Scott
Robert Scott

What do we think of this guy?

Attached: ho-chi-minh-2.jpg (228.25 KB, 845x1200)

Nathan Gutierrez
Nathan Gutierrez

Most underlooked Communist leader, him a Le Duan should be an example for communista around the world

Brandon White
Brandon White

I'm vegan so I don't eat chicken so no opinion

Robert Evans
Robert Evans

Redpill me on Le Duan I've actually never heard of him

Jaxson Scott
Jaxson Scott

I'm reading the Foundations of Leninism right now and I'm having a hard time understanding this particular passage. Basically I don't really get what Stalin means when he says there's a difference between economic and political general strike if someone could help a brainlet out it would be appreciated

Third dogma: the proletariat cannot accept the method of the political general strike because it is unsound in theory (see Engels's criticism) and dangerous in practice (it may disturb the normal course of economic life in the country, it may deplete the coffers of the trade unions), and cannot serve as a substitute for parliamentary forms of struggle, which are the principal form of the class struggle of the proletariat. Very well, reply the Leninists; but, firstly, Engels did not criticise every kind of general strike. He only criticised a certain kind of general strike, namely, the economic general strike advocated by the Anarchists 2 in place of the political struggle of the proletariat. What has this to do with the method of the political general strike? Secondly, where and by whom has it ever been proved that the parliamentary form of struggle is the principle form of struggle of the proletariat? Does not the history of the revolutionary movement show that the parliamentary struggle is only a school for, and an auxiliary in, organising the extra-parliamentary struggle of the proletariat, that under capitalism the fundamental problems of the working-class movement are solved by force, by the direct struggle of the proletarian masses, their general strike, their uprising? Thirdly, who suggested that the method of the political general strike be substituted for the parliamentary struggle? Where and when have the supporters of the political general strike sought to substitute extra-parliamentary forms of struggle for parliamentary forms? Fourthly, has not the revolution in Russia shown that the political general strike is a highly important school for the proletarian revolution and an indispensable means of mobilising and organising the vast masses of the proletariat on the eve of storming the citadels of capitalism? Why then the philistine lamentations over the disturbance of the normal course of economic life and over the coffers of the trade unions? Is it not clear that the practical experience of the revolutionary struggle smashes this dogma of the opportunists too?

Also what do you guys think of foundations? I like state and revolution and imperialism more of course but I think Stalin's matter of fact prose does a pretty good job of summarizing Lenin's main points I haven't struggled to understand anything til this passage.

Attached: nrhj2rz4qu911.jpg (85.37 KB, 804x802)

Christian Bennett
Christian Bennett

I think he's saying that general strikes purely for wages and benefits will not lead to revolution, but general strikes with revolutionary political purposes can.

James Thompson
James Thompson

I think one could only read stalin and have read all the things they need to read.

David Cruz
David Cruz

bad b8 m8
stalin's good, but you really do have to read the five heads

Also what do you guys think of foundations?
It's funny you're posting about it right now, I took a break from reading Marx and picked up Foundations of Leninism for something lighter. If you're new to the literature, I can tell you that Stalin isn't distorting anything and it really is a good primer.

Mason Baker
Mason Baker

What do you think of the accusation that Stalin didn't actually write any of his books and just out his name on them? I don't really give a shit personally but I've never seen any actual evidence of this

Gabriel Gomez
Gabriel Gomez

parliamentarianism -> incremental changes through democratic means.

The downside in activism in bourgeois democracy is best displayed in a numbers game. A few people can steal from the masses because on an individual level, the thieves, get a lot of reward and hence will have a lot of motivation, while members of the masses will on an individual level at best experience mild motivation from being nickel and dimed. It is possible to temporarily reverse this dynamic because the pain of small cuts can add up to highly motivated political action. However once most of the pain is looked after the previous dynamic becomes more prominent again, and the course is reversed again. There are many proposed solutions to this, for example one is to provoke a capitalist crisis when you have your people in office, and use those crisis to continue your reforms beyond what would normally be possible politically. Also of note is the use of referenda.

The general strike, can quickly turn into a situation where you get a battle of reserves, the capitalists have the larger reserves. If you want to engage in this you have to be in a position to produce double pressure on the capitalists because your strike also has repercussions far down the supply lines. This generally is the case only in few places, For example blocking the distribution in very large countries with high levels of import, would have an enormous effect on the global economy, causing pressure from the outside to grow a lot. However you are basically gambling that the capitalists that produce locally see this as opportunity to increase their relative market-share against other capitalists that have outsourced production, and they back-stab each other. There no longer is local production for everything that is outsourced, and hence this is probably increasingly less viable.

Lenin's imperialism is no longer up to date, there clearly is a new phenomenon where the capitalist centres are aiming to just destabilize the periphery to "brain-drain" and "youth-drain" and generally erode the level of organization of societies. On top of that you have increasing third worldisation in first world countries, where some areas are on the verge of falling back to pre-industrial conditions. Other factors are the new limitations imposed by the environment, where a new dialectic between human activity and environmental consequences, is slowly imposing new constraints to the system.

Other aspects you need to take into account is control over technology, now has political ramifications as well.

Anthony Clark
Anthony Clark

Mostly, it was Mao's power grab after having been justly sidelined for the Great Leap Forward trainwreck. The rest of the party barred him from positions of real power, yet not only did nothing about his cult of personality but actually kept fostering it, being a valuable tool of soft control. Well, Mao decided to leverage that one thing he had left in order to get back in the game, and boy did he succeed. It was, partly, a Great Purge Made in China.

Some areas actually benefitted, see The Unknown Cultural Revolution. But it's nearly impossible to measure the impact accross the endless villages which dotted the imense Chinese countryside. Besides, it's very unlikely that these improvements outweigh the disaster unleashed in urban centers.

Kayden Gomez
Kayden Gomez

This reeks of bullshit, but it doesn't hurt to ask tho it would if I were under Stalin's reign kek, is there anything to it?

Attached: c1fa8166d44bb2f824ad0611b894cdbaf270c07f.png (378.02 KB, 467x562)

Luis Perez
Luis Perez

I unironically voted Gloria LaRiva of the PSL last major presidential election. No regurts. Only regurt is still not yet having eaten Kevin McCarthy for dinner. Still working on that one. He’s top of my “to eat” list.

Tyler Long
Tyler Long

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1.19 MB, 1881x2651)

Juan Parker
Juan Parker

I voted for jill Stein but only cuz Gloria wasn't on the ballot in my area

Adam Smith
Adam Smith

This brings me to my second question. How do we feel about Mao? It seems that ☭TANKIE☭s are split on this issue, with Maoists nowadays usually willing to defend Stalin but many Stalin fans being unwilling to go to bat for Mao or at least be more generally critical of him than Maoists are of Stalin

Attached: 1487803357405s.jpg (8.7 KB, 226x250)

Oliver Martinez
Oliver Martinez

There's a lot to praise him for and a lot to criticize him for. He had some useful ideas and some not so useful ideas. Maoists are usually morons but some of their theory is worth reading imo (C&R by JMP for example).

Andrew Nguyen
Andrew Nguyen

It's true. Stalin lived rather simply and plainly, to the point that some saw him as more of a Georgian "brute" rather then someone "refined" in culture. If you read about his childhood and his life in general, you would understand why.

Nathan Phillips
Nathan Phillips

Pic related, Stalin's vast fortune at the time of his death

Attached: stalin.png (503.01 KB, 1184x857)

Gabriel Torres
Gabriel Torres

It's due to Mao being a rather poor statesman, and his somewhat autistic attitude towards things that fostered unneeded division with the USSR. His retention of both the petit and national bourgeoisie also inadvertently fostered the situation China sees itself in today.

John Williams
John Williams

with Maoists nowadays usually willing to defend Stalin but many Stalin fans being unwilling to go to bat for Mao or at least be more generally critical of him than Maoists are of Stalin
wtf
I have not seen any people praising Stalin and shitting on Mao. Mao was amazing.

Camden Murphy
Camden Murphy

I have not seen any people praising Stalin and shitting on Mao. Mao was amazing.
You may be forgetting a certain split.

Jackson Miller
Jackson Miller

Mostly, it was Mao's power grab after having been justly sidelined for the Great Leap Forward trainwreck
The GLF was a success.

Joshua Perry
Joshua Perry

?????
You mean the split between the Kruschevites and Mao? During which, the Kruschevites shat all over Stalin?

Elijah Ramirez
Elijah Ramirez

I can't really talk about the GLF and the Cultural revolution, but before that Mao undoubtedly did more for China than anyone else in history.

Sebastian Cook
Sebastian Cook

I feel like ML's nowadays need to concentrate on how to fix issues socialist countries had more than to justify the bad aspects of these countries.

Asher Russell
Asher Russell

To then break with the USSR is something which is devoid of pragmatism and to back groups which were against its interests is something Stalin would have never advocated for. Regardless of Khrushchev's slandering, to take that and push it to the point of the communist movement becoming divided when the enemy is right there is careless.

Justin Ramirez
Justin Ramirez

Britainrainians
<UKranians
'ad a laff

Zachary Young
Zachary Young

Stalin's most successful flunkie, and as with all his fellow flunkies, save perhaps for theory, into the garbage he goes. Stalin was a product of his time, and to take his legacy as something to be emulated would be the death knell for the second wave of socialism, because it was for the first one. Had he avoided the 30s famine and not executed the Great Purge, he would have been nothing short of a legend, but as history played out, sadly, he killed the revolution in order to save the revolution. Napoleon and Robespierre rolled into one.

Dominic Nguyen
Dominic Nguyen

I'm aware of that, I'm curious about the "estate" he left behind.

Is that in a museum?

the Soviet Union would launch a campaign to conquer Europe
NOPE
The USSR never had any intention for overt imperialism like this, despite the lingering assumption made by just about everyone in the West. Further, Stalin insisted for a long time on an alliance with France and the UK to cordon Hitler off, but the former was pathetically deferential to the latter, which was, itself, horrified at the prospect of alliance with the "Red bacillus", which was compounded by Poland, Romania and the Baltics refusing passage to the Red Army in case of German aggression. All of Europe saw Nazi Germany with better eyes than they did with the USSR.

Adrian Price
Adrian Price

to quote Chen Yun possibly the most based of the Chinese Revolutionaries
Had Mao died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been a great man but flawed. But he died in 1976. Alas, what can one say?

Jose Thomas
Jose Thomas

Cornman was the one who fucked up relations with China. He ruined the GLF as well.

Kayden Diaz
Kayden Diaz

Looks like /leftpol/ is back folks

Hudson Butler
Hudson Butler

not true, Sino-Soviet relations had always been rocky since the 30s because Mao always felt like China was playing second fiddle to the USSR. Mao, like Khruschev and the CPSU post-1956, considered Stalin 70% good and 30% bad. he was a good revolutionary and statesman, and was an important figure in the defeat of fascism and building socialism, but made many mistakes (some of which Khrushchev even admitted were done because Stalin saw them as necessary to safeguarding the revolution). the whole "revisionism" thing was purely an ideological basis used to justify Mao splitting off from the Soviets.

Isaac Watson
Isaac Watson

I really think we're in clown world because of the position I'm in.
Cliffite here, be a Marxist for fuck sakes.
Watch the Finbol video and then come back.

youtube.com/watch?v=4xWeMBXV23g

It is an admissible argument to say that it was the Stalin factions moderate measures on the peasant question in the 30's that inevitably led to the Kulak uprising. The economic power of Kulaks lay entirely in their ability to produce more grain, a result of owenrship of lands and tools. This kind of class domination is mutually exclusive with socialist construction and not commiting to a programme of armed expropriations by the peasantry was a betrayal of the worker-peasant alliance. Going by pure Stats, the kolkhoz policies were a success in subverting the productive power of the Kulaks and sending them into the sperg of the century.

Or rather, in socialist construction, reinstating One man ownership in the factories, tying worker's means of subsistence to their employment status in singular enterprises, which consisted often of lodgings/towns and cities around factories, logging facilities, mines etc. set in place a dynamic by which workers must submit themselves to the discipline of their managers and bosses. This breaks the dynamic of soviet power, whilst the worker under the constitution was harder to fire, penal measures were common, threatening the worker and their families with downgraded worker status.

The penalties threatened the access to health, docked wages and participation in social life.

The survival of militant or rebellious workers and their families in a fledgling economic order were in the hands of isolated bosses who had the mandate to stay the discipline of the soviet. Noting also that the infrastructure for a mobile labor force was not in place at this point.

The reorganisation of the economy under Stalin, both spatially and judicially put down militant workers and in turn empowered layers of the deposed bourgeois and petty bourgoisie, the people who brown nosed their way into specialist positions, foremanships, soviet appointments, party membership and careerism. Worker militancy, has a conspicuous nature in the DOTP, it is hard to tell whether a militant worker is upholding the revolution or undermining it and as far as owners are concerned, it is definitely the latter. Soviet power holds worker's industrial action accountable to worker's and their interests, it is absolutely necessary to navigate a post-revolutionary society.

The too many various ways in which soviet power was undermined, either by what was arguably necessity in the civil war, and by the economism and class collaborationism that followed as the soviet republic was consolidated in the period of the NEP.

This had the double edged effect of availing the means of production to be worked outside of the near constant post-revolutionary antagonism, between the soviets, the workers and the government, specialists and the Trusts. But allowed the germs of bourgeois power to remain and to be consolidated into political power. Given the Death of scores of Cadre in the Civil war, this is exactly what happened.

At a cursory glance, Stalin was aware of this and so was Trotsky. My only critique of Trotsky was him painting Stalin as an architect of the ascendance of these layers. His faction was Party to the decisions that produced this, but not for the reasons the Kruschevite faction was. In fact I'd be bold enough to say they had each other backwards and ignored a more potent enemy, regardless of Trotsky's misgivings upto '33.


I don't have the time or patience to cover the mess that was purges and War period or even parse Trotsky and the fascists because fuck that. but given the dynamics set off early in the revolution, the important political conclusion to note is that the proletarian camp lost it's most important beachheads of political power in the soviet union.

Stalin may have tried to reverse the counter-revolutionary impulse, but he was too late, he was politically isolated and flailing in the dark landing more misses than hits, owing to the fact that key positions of power were 1. Already heavily influenced and stacked by the counter-revolutionary faction and 2. Had the entrenched judicial power to act independently of the party and worker's organisations during the purges and after the war.

So can we stop with the 'Stalin was an Authoritarian meanie' Or dealing in Abstract ahistoricals? We aren't liberals. There are critiques we can deal to Stalin and the CCCP and there are far better ones than the cursory overviews In this post. Acknowledge where proletarian power was won and where it was lost, that is where we can historically measure 'liberty'.

Attached: ples-dont.jpg (13.46 KB, 465x288)

Brody Sanchez
Brody Sanchez

yup

Justin Howard
Justin Howard

bad b8 m8
In fact i will further it and say, one needs only read dialectical and historical materialism from stalin. Once the basic idea of historical materialism is planted in your mind, you should be able to reconstruct, on the fly, the entirety of maxist thought.
Reading other things then, are only for moral support, as you see people like lenin also thought the things you have thought. And also to spot the beliefs of revisionists, to let you know to be suspicious of them.

Stalin surely wrote everything, with out reading anything. He absorbed his knowledge through his revolutionary activity alone.

Easton Carter
Easton Carter

so a brutal leader like Stalin is wholly unnecessary today in capitalist abundance

Two points to make here. First, capitalist abundance exists solely in the countries within the imperialist alliance. In second and third world countries, while industrialization obviously exists, production is geared towards commodities that can be sold to the first world, not towards the country's self-sustainability.

The second point is that M-Ls aren't against critiquing Stalin, they are simply against the revisionist unscientific approach of various "leftist" fractions (trots, ultra-left etc) that leads them to denounce the achievements of the USSR, or spout bullshit like "state capitalism", essentially creating the worst kind of anti-communism, one that regurgitates neoliberal and nazi lies with a "leftist" facade.

Jace Scott
Jace Scott

coups are a good thing and democratic centralism is a bad thing

trots aren't even hiding their anti-communism anymore

James Morris
James Morris

It's funny because all the faggots saying "my parents lived there" mean "my parents lived there during the 80s for a few years" and then proceed to discuss Stalin as if they are an authority on the subject, while people who actually lived under Stalin love him. Same thing in Yugoslavia about Tito

Tyler Harris
Tyler Harris

I'm aware of that, I'm curious about the "estate" he left behind.
Due to both the laws and the fact that most of his children were dead, there wasn't really an estate to be left behind besides to his daughter (who left) and his adopted son (of whom I have no idea was left anything).

Jose Bennett
Jose Bennett

Pretty based if I have to say so myself. He did a lot of good during and after the Vietnam War:
Against all protests and doubts from inside the party, try and then succeed in changing the poliburo's fears of a 2nd Korean War.
BTFO'ed both the Chinese and USSR suggestions of keeping the fascist South Vietnam government. Once and for all pushing the Vietnamese gusanos to California.
Pushing all of the Chinese bourgeoisie back to China so they can be re-educated.
Rightly calling Dengoids imperialists for invading the spratty islands and conspiring with the US in 1974
Led Vietnam in defending against /pol/ pot's gang of fasprims and their revisionist Dengoid masters in 1979.
But the guy could be criticised for a lot of shit as well:
Basically did a terrible job in changing the South's economy to socialism.
Not going far enough in annihilating the US's main grip in South East Asia like Thailand.
He's basically Vietnamese Stalin.

Attached: Duan.jpg (196.78 KB, 1280x1707)

Ayden Jones
Ayden Jones

*Dead or imprisoned
Sorry, had to clarify that

Alexander Moore
Alexander Moore

Is there any accounts or writings of stalins views of his profession? (cobbler). Why did he choose it? Did he continue staying up to date with the latest in cobbling after he became a revolutionary and statesman? Is the reason he liked those old boots of his because he did personal work on them? I imagine him perhaps rebuilding them while contemplating his next course of action. As he gets new ground to stand on he simultaneously makes the new ideas, assembling the shoes, assembling the plans.

Noah Green
Noah Green

Why did he choose it?
Stalin did not choose to become a cobbler, he was kidnapped by his father and forced to work as one. He spent more time enrolled in the seminary.

Colton Watson
Colton Watson

because expat dissidents always have a huge axe to grind ,the same with venezuela/cuba which is why you cant trust those guys. Of course they are mad that castro took away their grandpapis slaves and gave them healthcare

Grayson Anderson
Grayson Anderson

he also worked in an observatory or radio stattion or something like that if i recall

Ryder Wilson
Ryder Wilson

but i thought it was his parents who were upset that he became a cobbler to start with
do you mean my image of stalin, as humble man who just wanted to cobble shoes but whos rejection by his parents as he failed to live up to their standards of a more prestigious profession lead him to become a revolutionary and future leader of the ussr is wrong?

Hudson Bennett
Hudson Bennett

Why the fuck did the ussr keeping the south Vietnam gov

Oliver Hughes
Oliver Hughes

Gorby was a reformer who, while being retarded, had his heart in the right place when he started collaborating more with washington and the west in general
You what mate?

Attached: 1234342123123123.jpg (8.91 KB, 480x360)

Adam Turner
Adam Turner

Even in Stalin’s time, the USSR has never really believed in Ho’s commitment to communism especially after the disillusionment of the Indochina Communist Party (with Ho wanting to put the party operations secret in preparation for protracted people’s war against the Chinese nationalists and the French). Surprisingly that it was Mao who convinced Stalin and the USSR politburo into supporting the Viet Minh. Later on with Khrushchev and Brezhnev, the USSR only supported North Vietnam for building socialism and protection against American bombings but not reunification. Since the complete disaster that was the PKI in Indonesia and the strategic failure of the Tet Offensive really made the USSR doubting the possibility of a North Vietnam victory.

Luckily Duan actually did the impossible and the Tet Offensive actually succeeded in completely changing the US involvement in the war. This did increased the Soviet’s support but only to make sure that Vietnam would continue to be allies with the USSR and lessen Chinese influence in the region.

Attached: 86F9B6D6-7430-43F6-98C8-4A421A893520.jpeg (110.21 KB, 960x629)

Christian Sanchez
Christian Sanchez

Later on with Khrushchev and Brezhnev, the USSR only supported North Vietnam for building socialism and protection against American bombings but not reunification.
should note that the change of Soviet policy in the Vietnam question is prob the most major consequence of Khruschev's deposing. The corn man was unwilling to risk his "good personal relations" with US leaders by supporting Vietnamese communists. Under Brezhnev the course changed, which ultimately lead Vietnam to realign away from China and towards Soviet Union.

Aaron Rodriguez
Aaron Rodriguez

Attached: 60338860-612711739219149-724676590469906432-o.png.jpg (290.22 KB, 1315x2748)

Bentley Hughes
Bentley Hughes

is this a parody? i'd call it /pol/-tier but I think even their more schizophrenic infographics have some semblance of sourcing, or a least some manner of viable metrics
the attempt at trying to seem authoritative with graphs and figures only makes this twice as retarded for anyone with two braincells
if I understand this correctly, the main point is that 20th century socialist states were repressive because of circumstances, rather than some inherent quality in socialism itself, and that a post-industrial socialist country of the 21st century would look very different to semi-feudal continental countries in the 20th century. This is a very very important point, but there are a million better ways to convey it instead of this ☭TANKIE☭ logic stalin-dindu-nuffin rubbish.

Gavin Peterson
Gavin Peterson

Sources: Dude trust me lmao

Brayden Peterson
Brayden Peterson

Pretty much this. Also is it weird that this board have such an disinterest in the Vietnam war or even the Vietnamese socialist movement. Most threads about fucking Hoxha and his autism of calling everyone revisionist (some were rightly so, but it led to him defending /pol/ pot and his gang of reactionary fucktards) have much more interest while most Vietnam threads dies in minutes.

I mean it’s one of the only anti-imperialist war that had both people’s war and full-scale war with a 2 major imperialist countries and won. It also completely changed the perception of America and its strategy in intervention in the developing world. Especially in the recent trends of US cuckservatives in revisioning the war into a US victory and somehow the communist forces caused more war crimes somehow.

This is not even talking about how modern Vietnam is much more open to other “capitalism with socialist aesthetics” countries like China and can be more easily radicalized to leftism and non-revisionist socialism than for instance China.

Nolan Roberts
Nolan Roberts

I once knew an anarchist Vietnamese-American girl who was basically s huge lifestylist and pretended to be homeless despite having petty bourg parents. Her grandparents were Vietnamese gusanos and when I asked her what she thought about the Vietnam war she said it was probably a good thing that the USA invaded because if they hadn't even more people would have died then did with them invading lol

Attached: 1500173356335.png (529.89 KB, 1705x931)

Jayden Moore
Jayden Moore

I know this is going to sound stupid but I legitimately think this motherfucker had autism. I'm 100 percent not joking, Pol Pot and people who today claim that he was just as good of a "socialist" leader as Stalin are fucking nuts, every piece of objective evidence proves that he was a CIA backed puppet, he literally went to war with a socialist country RIGHT NEXT DOOR and his theory was essentially an inverse of Leninism (instead of "seizing the means of production and State institutions to accelerate development and create a socialist society with the tools of industrialism" it was "seize the means of production and State institutions to obliterate them and create the primitive communism Marx and Engels precisely said shouldn't be returned to")

Gadaffi was basically an Arabian socdems and he was more of a Marxist than fucking Pol Pot

Attached: 220px-Pol-Pot-Headshot.jpg (9.29 KB, 220x277)

David Moore
David Moore

Vietnam became less socialist than China or even Venezuela

Mason Hernandez
Mason Hernandez

Communism has great ideas, but the KGB was horrible.

Hudson Cook
Hudson Cook

Rapidly decreases carbon output by steadying the population and heavy industry
Appreciates the simple life
Sought to export his revolution to the opportunists at his east
How based can one man get?

Noah Peterson
Noah Peterson

khmer rouge cambodia was allied with/a proxy of China, which after Nixon Went To China was an American ally against the Soviet Union. Vietnam was a firm ally of the Soviet Union, and therefor at odds with China and the US ofc.

In 78/79 the Khmer Rouge, being basically an insane fascist government, picked a doomed fight against Vietnam. Eventually they straight up invaded a few border towns and massacred the entire populations. the Vietnamese had enough and invaded Cambodia, and the KR fell almost immediately except for a few die hards who fled across the Thai border.

The US, through China and Thailand, funded and armed the remnants of the Khmer Rouge for the next 10 years as they fought a guerrilla war against the Vietnamese occupiers and the largely puppet government (under Hun Sen, the current de facto dictator of Cambodia). the KR, once they realized where there bread was buttered, fully renounced marxism and became a purely anti-vietnamese nationalist movement, still under Pol Pot and basically the same ideological leadership. Also immediately after the Cambodian liberation, China invaded Vietnam to punish them for removing their proxy. Vietnam managed to whip the much larger Chinese army, and Giap should be recognized as the greatest military commander of the 20th century.

Throughout this the United States and China recognized in the UN the Khmer Rouge government as the legitimate government of Cambodia, vs the Soviet and Vietnamese backed government that effectively controlled 90% of the country. It was only after the Cold War ended that America stopped geopolitically backing the Khmer Rouge and suddenly got cosy with Vietnam.

ideologically there was certainly some insane twist on maoism that played a part in the Khmer Rouge's crimes, but the United States was absolutely an accessory to them.

Chase Cox
Chase Cox

i've heard this type of "argument" so many times and it really doesn't mean anything. you're just saying "oh communism works in theory but not in practice", without any further explanation and completely ignoring the context of muh scary KGB. do you think the USSR, during the cold war when everyone was doing espionage and trying to subvert them, just shouldn't have had an intelligence agency? it's such a retarded thing to even suggest and just assumes that the Soviets existed in some vacuum without any outside influence and everything they did was just because they were a big scary police state all for the sake of being evil.
the CIA? FBI? MI6? those are all fine and dandy but god forbid a socialist country have anything of the sort because then it's just a pure evil and human rights abuse.
the KGB weren't even as "horrible" as say the Cheka or NVKD were, but people still harp on about them because the name sounds spooky and it's easy to compare them to 1984.

William Lopez
William Lopez

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting

Aaron Jackson
Aaron Jackson

Good christ. Fuck even those who joke about supporting him.

Ryan Sanders
Ryan Sanders

2893345
Gusanos sucking American imperialist cock
Gusanos knowing shit about history

That's not a surprise mate. But with that being said, this opinion is not at all unheard-of in modern Vietnam, most boomers are still Marxists at the core. But the rest like millenials, zoomers and the religious are either libshit or straight-up reactionary libertarians.

This comes from the fact that modern day gov propaganda and education always paint the time before revisionism (or "Doi moi") as bad even though back then health care, education and basic necessities are free and the coruption was much less rampant. I even once talked with a zoomer who unironically support another French occupation because he believed that the French will help making a better train system than the modern one.

Attached: justlookatthisshit.jpg (67.19 KB, 430x269)

Carter Gutierrez
Carter Gutierrez

Sad but true.

Henry Hill
Henry Hill

. I even once talked with a zoomer who unironically support another French occupation because he believed that the French will help making a better train system than the modern one
You know what? Say what you will about America but at least they don't fetishize fucking trains jesus. Both in fascist and normal conservative circles Asians and Europeans freak the fuck out over public transit which is preferable to the highway but god damn

Christian Lopez
Christian Lopez

How do we feel about Lukashenko? I don't know much about him but he seems to essentially be a socdem who uses Soviet imagery for good pr. I've also read he is basically just Putin's guy in Belarus but idk if that's legit or just western propaganda, along with other things I've read about Belarus. It seems to be a place with decent living conditions that's just really boring

Attached: -86400097-943a4381-837a-447e-a61f-51e0c512df16.jpg (20.9 KB, 624x351)

Hudson Wood
Hudson Wood

reminder the CIA funded domestic terrorists to murder anti-imperialist Vietnamese immigrants
latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-aug-18-fi-1224-story.html
pbs.org/video/frontline-terror-little-saigon/
Same situation with Cuban immigrants and others. One reason there are so many gusanos in the USA is that the non-gusano immigrants get murdered.

Jacob Harris
Jacob Harris

The USSR never had any intention for overt imperialism like this
Well they did, but it wasn't military, more a support for any communist uprisings that sympathized with the USSR. It's not talking about Ledokol shit from Rezun.

Joseph Gomez
Joseph Gomez

But state violence only happens in communism muh nkvd

Anthony Taylor
Anthony Taylor

He used to be a soviet bureaucrat, and he's supported some pretty strong nationalization measures inside of Belarus. I doubt that he really is just a Putin puppet because the things he's done have been legitimately helpful to the Belarusian economy. The Belaya Rus party on the other hand is fucking stupid, they have no real politics and are literally just a cult that goes along with whatever Lukashenko does.

Nathan Phillips
Nathan Phillips

Trains are the only true socialist mode of transportation. Individual transport is bourgeois counterrevolution-ism.

Bentley Ross
Bentley Ross

Great comment, I cross-posted it to here

Ryder Rodriguez
Ryder Rodriguez

see desuarchive.org/leftyb/thread/3171/

Brandon Russell
Brandon Russell

This cat is an adorable lil ☭TANKIE☭

Attached: IMG-20190528-013722.jpg (343.18 KB, 720x720)

Brody Torres
Brody Torres

Thanks comrade looks interesting
Cute

Luke Adams
Luke Adams

Literally the ideology that caused Fascism making that joke.
huh, i've never heard the claim that mutualism caused fascism, can someone elaborate?

Jackson Sullivan
Jackson Sullivan

Ism about mutualism but anarchism and syndicalism have a bad history of recruiting people to the Left only for them to go right wing later on. There's also a phenomenon among lifestylist anarchist types where anticapitalist anarchists become individualists and then gradually move towards neoliberalism and neoreactuonary ideas (Count Cannula is a prime example of this)

Brayden Gutierrez
Brayden Gutierrez

avoided 30s famine
with what, magical powers ?
Great Purge
im split about this affair, but its pretty ez to say now that it was unnecessary when it could have very well been essential to the survival of ussr
napoleon + Robespierre
so you mean to say he was perfect ?

Luke Gray
Luke Gray

A serious question for ☭TANKIE☭s, what do you mean by "capture" the state apparatus through revolt? From what I can see we largely wouldn't keep any of the forms or reactionary personnel of the old state, it seems to me like at best it's a process of utterly eradicating the previous state and creating a new non-state governmental organization.

Zachary Morgan
Zachary Morgan

Resurrecting this thread with some nice propaganda I found

Attached: social-democracy-is-objectively-the-moderate-wing-of-fascism-social-democracy-is-34466295.png (201.15 KB, 500x871)

Lincoln Lewis
Lincoln Lewis

Attached: ThumbsUp.jpg (19.09 KB, 316x400)

Dylan Perry
Dylan Perry

Attached: ThumbsUp.jpg (19.09 KB, 316x400)

Brandon Watson
Brandon Watson

Meant to post this version

A serious question for ☭TANKIE☭s, what do you mean by "capture" the state apparatus through revolt? From what I can see we largely wouldn't keep any of the forms or reactionary personnel of the old state, it seems to me like at best it's a process of utterly eradicating the previous state and creating a new non-state governmental organization.
I'm not exactly sure who you are quoting here but the Leninist model has always advocated for directly attacking the dictatorship of capital and building a new State apparatus based around the principles of Democratic centralism. Lenin originally posited that any bureaucratic duties necessary to the function of society should be kept and others which were only necessary to perpetuate capitalism should be abolished and from this benchmark things should be reorganized so that the proles and the vanguard could manage production in a way that realistically could build socialism while suppressing challenges to it

In practice Lenin had to reorient some things and Stalin essentially had to double down in this reorientation when Hitler began aggressing again the SU. Not only did Russia need to materially develop on the scale of the rest of Europe in a very short time frame but it also had to constantly defend itself and the larger SU from constant counter attacks.

People can debate, and have even within the Marxist Leninist movement, about whether or not more or less measures could have or should have been taken and it's objectively true that much of what Lenin outlined in his theoretical works wasn't actually achieved by later SU leaders but it's also true that whatever the struggles and setbacks the SU did for a considerable amount of time manage to defend the revolution and even in the revisionist era managed to keep Westerners from fucking everything up.

Attached: 20190610-111858.png (593.68 KB, 473x739)

Ian Morgan
Ian Morgan

Is that a real Stalin quote? If so what did he mean by that? Social-democracy sucks yet it's generally still as far as you can get from fascism in the developed world without overthrowing the capitalist order.

Luke Williams
Luke Williams

without overthrowing the capitalist orde
exactly

Attached: drei-pfeile.jpg (81.26 KB, 543x768)
Attached: Bundesarchiv-Bild-102-00015,-Friedrich-Ebert(cropped).jpg (42.92 KB, 491x653)

Jack Howard
Jack Howard

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism

For the quote specifically here's the gull thing:
Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc.

Attached: 3cd2be94df6b6ccbd7cc86bb8295bf32d0d01457e92142223e49dd16d3257664.jpg (111.79 KB, 960x538)

Asher Lopez
Asher Lopez

Reminder that the SPD fought side by side with fascists against actually revolutionary socialism, and that Stalin was 100% right about everything.

Never trust the Rosa killers.

Henry Bailey
Henry Bailey

It kind of blows my mind the level of mental gymnastics socdems who post here do to disentangle themselves from the repeated historical examples of social democracy not only failing to build socialism but actually aiding in bringing about periods of reaction

Not to mention that the Social Democratic welfare states only went as far as they did in Europe because the ussr was on their doorstep and the second it was gone they started rolling programs back almost immediately.

Charles Young
Charles Young

Yes, it's real, although he completely repudiated it five years later and may have never genuinely believed it. "Social fascism" was a core component of the ultra-left "third period" line of the Comintern. As far as there's any theoretical backing for it at all, it's that both socdems and fascists have a petite bourgeois class basis, and therefore they see eye to eye on a few state welfare and anti-monopoly measures. The practical demands of the "social fascism" line was to reject any and all cooperation with socdem parties and trade unions. After a failure to coalesce with the SPD led to Hitler's rise to the Chancellorship, the KPD celebrated with the slogan "after Hitler, our turn". Instead Hitler sent the KPD to concentration camps, banned the trade unions, and started the bloodiest war in human history.

After the "social fascism" line allowed Hitler to take power, Stalin and the Comintern did a complete 180 with the new "popular front" line, calling for Communists to subordinate themselves to the "democratic bourgeoisie" against fascism. In fact, during this time, the Communist parties went further right than the socdems, urging American communists to make "no strike pledges" and even to widen the popular front in France to a "french front" and include french fascist parties who opposed Germany on the basis of nationalism.

Many people doubt Stalin even believed the "social fascism" line. The ultra-left "third period" can be explained as political maneuvering to remove his rival Bukharin's right opposition faction from power, just as Stalin had allied with Bukharin to remove Trotsky's left opposition faction immediately before.

Nathaniel Green
Nathaniel Green

Like this.

Attached: 6c808a065469d7e5afbcde6a3a67979c[1].jpg (79.96 KB, 550x786)

Robert Hall
Robert Hall

Maybe something like this.

Attached: state.png (13.05 KB, 800x600)

James Gonzalez
James Gonzalez

Will trots literally ever stop being butthurt

Liam Morales
Liam Morales

Read State and Revolution, it's a short, fun book. It answers your questions. Anyway, the key point is to ABOLISH the bourgeois dictatorship and REPLACE it with a proletarian one. So, you are not far off.

Ethan Mitchell
Ethan Mitchell

All I'm trying to say is if you want to suck off Papa Stalin at least be consistent about it, ML has renounced the "social fascism" concept for decades.

Jordan Jenkins
Jordan Jenkins

*whispers blyat under his breath*

Blake Young
Blake Young

ML has renounced the "social fascism" concept for decades.
no it hasn't. socdems are as cryptofash as ever.

James Barnes
James Barnes

although he completely repudiated it five years later
proofs

The practical demands of the "social fascism" line was to reject any and all cooperation with socdem parties and trade unions
You heap slander ON TOP of slander by going out of your way to argue that communist parties weren't cooperating with unions.

After a failure to coalesce with the SPD led to Hitler's rise to the Chancellorship, the KPD celebrated with the slogan "after Hitler, our turn".
1. Half of Germany did become communist in the end.
2. KPD's analysis was based on the rational guess that Germany would not be able to magically invade the rest of Europe and get away with it. Part of the reason that Hitler came to power in the first place was socdems helping him. The other part was that all of the "Western democracies" deliberately colluded to hand Europe over to Hitler, and indeed, were instrumental in his rise. Liberals' love affair with Hitler just confirms Stalin's statement.

After the "social fascism" line allowed Hitler to take power, Stalin and the Comintern did a complete 180 with the new "popular front" line, calling for Communists to subordinate themselves to the "democratic bourgeoisie" against fascism.
Know how I know you haven't read any Lenin? You think a change of tactics, to take the correct approach in different circumstances, is a change in theory and analysis. The Comintern and Stalin pushed cooperation, not only because Germany was a threat, but because there was a very real possibility of Britain and the USA joining in on Germany's side!

tl;dr:
Kill yourself you slandering cunt.

Lucas Ramirez
Lucas Ramirez

The ultra-left "third period" can be explained as political maneuvering to remove his rival Bukharin's right opposition faction from power, just as Stalin had allied with Bukharin to remove Trotsky's left opposition faction immediately before.
You are confusing internal politics (politburo) with global politics (comintern), reducing the problematic altogether to "stalin bad".

Dylan Carter
Dylan Carter

You think a change of tactics, to take the correct approach in different circumstances, is a change in theory and analysis.

Attached: 1.png (122.21 KB, 270x282)

Jace Lewis
Jace Lewis

Marxism Leninism is about sucking off Stalin

Attached: gettyimages-458769886-copy.jpg (1.82 MB, 2520x1455)

Jason Williams
Jason Williams

But seriously, why are trots so retarded?

Leo Bailey
Leo Bailey

proofs
Stalin approved and supervised the political lines promulgated at the sixth congress of the Comintern in 1928 (social fascism) and that of the seventh congress in 1934 (popular front). This should be common knowledge for anyone interested in socialist history, but if you want a source, here you go: marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1985/comintern/ch6.htm

Half of Germany did become communist in the end.
If it weren't for the titanic fuckup of the Third Period, the whole of Germany would be communist, and without the sacrifice of 40 million corpses to the war.

You heap slander ON TOP of slander by going out of your way to argue that communist parties weren't cooperating with unions.
During the third period, the Comintern sought to build "red" dual unions controlled by the Communist parties. It was an unmitigated disaster which only separated militants from the mass of the working class at a crucial time.

Part of the reason that Hitler came to power in the first place was socdems helping him.
The SPD, in fact, was the only party in the Reichstag to oppose the Enabling Act. It was as a result of its basis in the reformist trade union movement, which, seeing the plans of Hitler laid out in Mein Kampf and Mussolini's actions in Italy, was irreparably opposed to fascism's plan to dismantle their organizations. There was therefore an objective class basis for a coalition. Instead, the KPD refused to see this imminent danger to the working class and instead joined the Nazis in a referendum to depose the existing SPD government, with the reasoning, "after Hitler, our turn".

there was a very real possibility of Britain and the USA joining in on Germany's side!
This is where your idealism shows. There was never any chance of an alliance with Germany to crush the USSR - the geopolitical power balance would never allow one power, Germany, to conquer the entire "heartland" as they aspired to do. Liberals indeed preferred a fascist victory in Germany over a socialist revolution which would threaten their class privilege, but this ideological sympathy did not overrule their imperialist interests.

The line of the sixth Comintern congress applied to the USSR as much as abroad, and it was indeed invoked to purge rightists.

What is "Marxism-Leninism" defined by after Lenin's death, other than what it is opposed to? "ML" is opposed to Trotsky, Zinoviev, Bukharin, etc… the fact is that the ideology was codified by Stalin, and Stalin's writings and Stalin memes are passed around all "ML" circles. If you read Marx and Lenin yourself, you'll see that Stalin's "theory" was nothing but a historical exigency to justify putting the interests of the Soviet national state over that of the world revolution.

Attached: stalin-vs-hitler-memes-2.jpg (65.72 KB, 680x681)

Juan Walker
Juan Walker

SuccDems didn't let communists do it in 1919, but they'd let them do it in 1932, because reasons
What fucking masses? The ones that were voting by the millions for DNVP and DVP?

Attached: 5008c8de1f822806acf252f417a8118b6a913206851aa51a2ce01a9f94d55e98.jpg (64.01 KB, 800x699)

Ryan Wood
Ryan Wood

The correct term would be Unser Kampf

Xavier Diaz
Xavier Diaz

Stalin's "theory" was nothing but a historical exigency to justify putting the interests of the Soviet national state over that of the world revolution
What was realistic after 7 years of (civil and world) wars and with all the other revolutions failing? What would have been your concrete proposals countering Stalin?

Jackson Howard
Jackson Howard

based

Dominic Young
Dominic Young

SOVIET NATIONAL STATE

Attached: The-Death-of-Stalin.gif (1.48 MB, 480x270)

Austin Powell
Austin Powell

here was never any chance of an alliance with Germany to crush the USSR
You're a fucking idiot. France and Britain had, from the start intended to have Germany be an attack dog to attack the USSR. It's why the Royal British family was doing nazi salutes and sending thousands of dollars worth in gold to Germany.
Liberals indeed preferred a fascist victory in Germany over a socialist revolution which would threaten their class privilege, but this ideological sympathy did not overrule their imperialist interests.
Western corporations and politicians such as Prescott Bush annd Henry Ford provided millions of dollars in investments and support to germany up into 1942 (with many providing assistance all the way to the war's end).

If it weren't for the titanic fuckup of the Third Period, the whole of Germany would be communist
Neumann and Remmele wanted to split the KPD and Remmele himself left the party in 1932, after they lost democratically against Thälmann.

Margarete Buber-Neumann became an anti-communist propagandist after her husband resigned from his offices, wrote books about a horrible communist dictatorship and denounced the KPD's resistence to the far-right police in Weimar as "terror against the good German policemen".

Stalin saved the KPD you fucking tool.
the KPD refused to see this imminent danger to the working class and instead joined the Nazis in a referendum to depose the existing SPD government, with the reasoning, "after Hitler, our turn".
And with good reason. The Communist Party of Germany (KPD) received nearly 5 million votes in the German presidential election of 1932 along with a peak of 100 seats in the Reichstag. It wasn't until after Hitler took power that its leaders were arrested and the party was crushed. They reckoned they could deal with the NutSacs
the ideology was codified by Stalin, and Stalin's writings and Stalin memes are passed around all "ML" circles. If you read Marx and Lenin yourself, you'll see that Stalin's "theory" was nothing but a historical exigency to justify putting the interests of the Soviet national state over that of the world revolution.
Have YOU ever read State and Revolution or Problems of Socialism in the USSR? Stalin's politics were different to the initial revolutionary line because the momentum of the revolution in Europe had run out of steam after Western countries successively suppressed all attempts at revolution; from Germany to France.
"In 1939 on the verge of a socialist majority in parliament the French Government, fearful of its position and political and international failings, decided on a universal ban on all communist and socialist affiliated parties and individuals, with over 1500 being imprisoned and 300 executed in the next 2 months"
If workers in the West were unable to successfully over-throw the government, supporting many of the movements would have been a losing battle and a waste of resources and time. The USSR was in no shape to support other revolutions when it required international trade to acquire resources that were otherwise unavailable to it such as engineers who could help establish factories and teach soviet people to be engineers. This takes time and effort and antagonizing other countries with no tangible reason is pointless. Stalin and Lenin and others wrote theory but they put pragmatism first. Which is why they attempted to make an anti-Hitler pact repeatedly throughout the 1930s with France and Britain in spite of their animosity to one another.
Moreover the gamble helped after WW-2. Socialist parties held a large number of seats in French government post-WW2 and this stayed up until Khruschev blew it with the leaked rubbish that was the Secret Speech (see Furr).The next year socialist parties lost seats in dozens of different countries, and never recovered them.

TL;DR: Stalin is by far not perfect and criticism is healthy. He often admitted to making mistakes and made 4 attempts to step down from his post. However making blatant accusations that border on the "red fascism" fallacy is fucking retarded. Want to post that ind of rubbish? Go to /leftpol/index.html they're all about irrational stalin-hating

Attached: идите-на.jpg (34.83 KB, 768x433)

Thomas Kelly
Thomas Kelly

The Holodomor killed more than just the kulaks .

This is not the best recruiting material…

Charles Lewis
Charles Lewis

The Holodomor
That name was created by Ukrainian fascists.
There was a famine in Ukraine. "The Holodomor" is a fascist myth that never happened.

Isaiah Phillips
Isaiah Phillips

Stalin had a personal grudge against Ukrainians ever since he got dumped by a Ukrainian chick in high school. That's why he personally flew up into the sky and paid each cloud over Ukraine to withhold rain, then flew down to the ground and started killing Ukrainians with his bare hands.

Levi Nguyen
Levi Nguyen

When did it occur yo you that "authoritarianism" and "right deviations" and shit are 99 percent spooks that mean nothing?

For me it was by reading world history and realizing that literally every historical epoch was followed by some sort of consolidation of power and a suppression of those in the movement that brought about the epoch of the most extreme version of its ideology. I also realized it was a weak argument when anarchists and leftcoms admit this pattern throughout history but claim that's why you can't call yourself a socialist if you support a leftist vanguard doing something similar because "muh freedom" because when Lenin and Stalin did it they weren't trying to solidify their own status within the party leadership solely out of self preservation but because they realized the material conditions of the situation would cause a total decimation of the revolution if it blindly followed ideological pissing contests.

I mean if you believe in the Nazi and CIA propaganda about Lenin and Stalin I can see why you would dispute this but when you realize how much of that shit was flat out made up or embellished and actually get the full context of "notoriois" things Lenin and Stalin did that "betrayed the revolution" It becomes extremely clear that not only is what a lot of they did something that happens in literally every revolution (including the excesses and things that they can rightly be criticized for) but also that the majority of it was from a materialist attitude.

Adrian Edwards
Adrian Edwards

Found a good argument against blind support of Rojava from the boys themselves when I was reading "The Foundations of Leninism" this morning, figured I would post it here since it isn't really worthy of its own thread or of bumping that god awful Rojava thread from the other day.

"The various demands of democracy," writes Lenin, "including self-determination, are not an absolute, but a small part of the general democratic (now: general socialist) world movement. In individual concrete cases, the part may contradict the whole, if so, it must be rejected"

"It means that support must be given to such national movements as tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism, and not to strengthen and preserve it. Cases occur when the national movements in certain oppressed countries came into conflict with the interests of the development of the proletarian movement. In such cases support is, of course, entirely out of the question."
"This is the position in regard to the question of particular national movements, of the possible reactionary character of these movements-if, of course, they are appraised not from the formal point of view, not from the point of view of abstract rights, but concretely, from the point of view of the interests of the revolutionary movement."

Gavin Cox
Gavin Cox

<communists when talking about democracy in the US and similar countries
Obviously there are extreme structural issues that prevent true rule by the masses, while elections may not actually be falsified, there is no guarantee that representatives will do what they campaigned for. Besides, correlation between money given to a candidate and them winning is practically 1, and even if the generals weren't controlled by money the primaries certainly were. There are also structural barriers for small parties gaining traction (especially in the US) and atop all the effective disenfranchisement people are constantly being propagandized to by the corporate media.
<MLs when talking about democracy in the USSR and similar countries
they voted tho

What version of Democratic centralism do you advocate for? The one before they banned all other parties in the soviets? The one before they banned party factionalism? Any of the intermediate states? Or full Stalinist democratic centralism? I know that in a lot of sects they do blatantly undemocratic things like slate voting and open ballots, and iirc there was a switch from secret ballot to open ballot among the soviets as well.
by having elections from bottom up
What do you mean by this? Do you mean that the first group of elected party members elects the next higher tier and so on and so on? Because I don't understand how that wouldn't create a strong structural incentive for higher party officials to meddle with lower elections (especially if these higher votes were open ballot, which they have to be to keep these officials accountable to their voters). In any case, having all higher posts elected by lower ones exclusively already reminds me of literal class based democracies where the propertyless literally couldn't vote.

unmarxist evaluation of stalins mistakes
How were they unmarxist? Did they emphasize the cult of personality too much rather than 'material factors', because analyzing material factors would either mean exonerating the failures of Stalin or having a structural critique of the party/soviet system itself and why it needed to have a Stalin which would have been a move to de-legitimize his own government.
<complains about a unmarxist view of history
<story on why the soviet union collapsed is that people became revisionist because they weren't democratic centralist enough
I doubt this is really the story. I'm not historian, but mixcloud.com/symptomatic-redness/jacob-feygin-on-the-soviet-union-part-2/ seems like a more materialist analysis of the soviet collapse and a better one (start at minute 12 approx).

No Socialist state has ever been achived without a vanguard party and democratic centralism
Sure, and that's a good reason for emulating what got them there, but the vanguard parties and democratic centralisms are different for different revolutions and different periods of the revolutions, and all of these revolutions required social bases which were not (primarily) started by the parties that eventually got into power. Not to mention none of them really succeeded, perhaps they failed better than other attempts (and failed much better than capitalism I don't hate the soviets), but I don't even see a real path any of those states had towards communism even if there weren't any capitalist powers though I'd love to be convinced wrong here.

Asher Miller
Asher Miller

I don't want to eat Capitalists, but I do want to smash Capitalists' and Fascists' faces into the pavement. Call it a compromise.

Gavin Lopez
Gavin Lopez

Recently read this article: rbth.com/history/327846-henry-wallace-magadan-kolyma-collusion

And I can't for the life of me actually understand what the fuck is going on. THey keep stating that everything was cleaned up and fake… and yet they provide little evidence to what they claimed such as that "stalin groomed Henry Wallace"
This is a step up from the "gorillion killed in gulag" claim but its still shaky as hell, but if people believe the gorillions meme so well, something like this that's more written out is even more convincing.

Ayden Sullivan
Ayden Sullivan

This thread was going so well, why'd it stall suddenly?

Liam Smith
Liam Smith

bumping with song

Attached: Сталин,-вставай!.mp4 (4.98 MB, 354x360)

Samuel Butler
Samuel Butler

okay but what does stalin have to do with marxist-LENINISM?
Well Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist for one…

Isaiah Young
Isaiah Young

so a brutal leader like Stalin is wholly unnecessary today in capitalist abundance
We'll need to reform energy sector to combat climate change, reform agriculture to stop relying on oil and imports, reform education and entertaintment to stop making people stupid and every step of the way porkies gonna do their worst to undermine our efforts.
I gave up believing building socialism without going hardcore authoritarian for a while is a possibility, but hopefully with less paranoia and murders next time.

Jayden Cox
Jayden Cox

a brutal leader like Stalin is wholly unnecessary today
except that today's lack of a stricter authority is what causes so many issues. The USSR let itself relax far too early and quickly while clinging to party bullshit. Grover Furr's book on Stalin and his attempt to democratize the USSR further details this partially. For socialism to function and become communism it must
1) Be Global
2) Have several generations worth of people raised by socialist ideals and kept true to them.

Kayden Ramirez
Kayden Ramirez

Revisionists took over, dissolved the thread against the wishes of the readers.

Luis Anderson
Luis Anderson

Tankpill me on the actual soviets, everyone, including russian language sources, claims they never held any power after 1918 and were there just for show for the entirety of USSR, how true is that?

Andrew Richardson
Andrew Richardson

The Soviets were what became regional and local administration in many of the republics and independent SSRs of the USSR. This whole "muh denied soviets" meme is from leftcoms and ancoms who often dislike the USSR on principle

Brandon Martin
Brandon Martin

Well that sucks but is not unexpected

Hudson Nelson
Hudson Nelson

Bordiga: discouraged militant anti-fascism pre-WW2; spent most of WW2 chatting to police informants and calling Hitler and Mussolini authentic revolutionaries while actual communists fought and died against fascism
Source on all of this?

Dominic Kelly
Dominic Kelly

1) why are you asking for a source when you're saging
2) He's literally "le armchair man"
3) not OP so I don't have a bunch of sources but here is one
overland.org.au/2017/11/against-anti-fascism-amadeo-bordigas-last-interview/

Caleb Diaz
Caleb Diaz

I didn't feel like I needed the source on a fast time-frame and didn't think my question was worthy of bumping (and still don't), it wasn't an insult.
thanks for the interview.

Sebastian Cooper
Sebastian Cooper

I am pretty well pilled on Stalin, but there are still a few things about the early USSR which are often made out as "tankies BTFO" arguments by anarchists, and I would like to know more about them, so, can I get red pilled on the issues of:
1. Makhno. Heard he was a /pol/ Pot tier dipshit, but would like some more info on him.
2. Kronstad rebellion. I heard that they were pretty reactionary and deserved it, but again, would like more information.
3. Suppression of labour movements and syndicalists (no, this has nothing to do with my flag), which is always touted as the number one argument for why Leninists are evil statist authoritarians by anarchists
4. Bukharin. Know very little about him, apart from some posts on this board which say he was pretty nazbol

Charles Butler
Charles Butler

Makhno. Heard he was a /pol/ Pot tier dipshit, but would like some more info on him.
Here my friend

Basic summary; The Free State was originally White Russian and used the old serf system, Mahno had helped to free it with the Red Army, but as the system flew out of control he started doing the same shit and spurning the Bolsheviks, provoking conflict.

sources
icl-fi.org/english/wv/archives/oldsite/2005/Makhno-839.html

isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml

marxist.com/who-was-makhno-and-what-did-he-stand-for.htm

reddit.com/r/communism/comments/64wkgf/polemic_the_anarchokulak_bandits_of_russia_and/

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (180.37 KB, 843x846)

Landon Johnson
Landon Johnson

Kronstad rebellion
Many members and initiators were literal czarists and other reactionary scum who essentially capitalized on anarchist unrest and used it to their advantage

icl-fi.org/print/english/esp/59/kronstadt.html

Adrian Turner
Adrian Turner

Reported for homophobic slurs.

Chase Barnes
Chase Barnes

Suppression of labour movements and syndicalists
Lenin didn't order the prosecution of any dissidents or plain intellectuals for the sake of being dissidents or artists, but during late 1922, after his first stroke and while in generally terrible health, the government sent several dissident members of the intelligentsia, supposedly handpicked by Lenin, into foreign exile in several boats which would be nicknamed "philosopher ships". However, literature on this is surprisingly scant, and there's only one book in English about it that I know of, The Philosophy Steamer by one Lesley Chamberlain, who seems to be a credible author.
Regardless, it sucks, but from a practical point of view, I can understand why Lenin did it. The sequence of WW1, Revolution and Civil War made for utter chaos, and in such unstable situations, the distance between discourse and action decreases, and propaganda intellectual production is at its most potent. And precisely because of the dire situation, intellectuals and artists will be all the more vocal as well.
Now put yourself in Lenin's shoes. A Bolshevik-led army took down the hopelessly pro-bourgeoisie Provisional Government and declared the soviets to be the new power, which had been an increasingly vehement demand of the populace, especially in Petrograd. He keeps the door open for the other two socialist parties – pro-Porky as their leadership had been – to join, which is expected seeing how the three parties were largely de facto rulers via the soviets before October. And what do the other parties do? Even as the Winter Palace was still being seized, they insisted on negotiating and compromising with the Provisional Government. It was downright ridiculous. After long hours of negotiating a pan-socialist government end in failure, they refuse to participate in the rule of the very bodies they had been participating in already, and despite the absence of any other pretenders to power. Bizarre at least, moronic regardless.

Jonathan Miller
Jonathan Miller

Still, they weren't banned or anything, and kept on with their newspapers and agitation and participating in soviets and public life, altho sadly that would slowly change as things spiraled out of control. The problem at first was that aforementioned little distance between discourse and action, and firebrand newspaper articles could spark revolts. Mensheviks endlessly exhorted people to resist the Bolsheviks, and the SRs did even worse, resorting to outright terrorism. It is true that you can see the Bolshevik government slowly chip away at the power and freedom of unions, parties and even the soviets themselves, but if you were to see them in a timeline, you would see that those measures pretty much always were a reaction to some bullshit pulled by opponents of Bolsheviks or Soviet power. You know the infamous Red Terror, a favorite propaganda piece of anti-communists? It was started because Lenin and Petrograd Cheka's chief Uritsky were both shot on the same fucking day. Lenin obviously survived the attempt by a SR, but Uritsky had the bad luck of being shot by a military cadet (who, incidentally, was member of a tiny leftwing but anti-communist party). And Bolsheviks weren't given to take it lying down, so there was a vicious circle: more discontent required more repression which generated more discontent etc.
Besides political opponents completely fagging everything up within Russia, many foreign socialists and anarchists, would-be comrades, also shat on you at every opportunity, because they weren't the ones trying to govern that dumpster fire and condemned you for not dissolving the State on day one. One could say it was the Bolsheviks against the world, but it would be incorrect, because the most important side, the people, largely sided, or eventually came to side, with the Bolsheviks. Without popular support, they would have been annihilated, because they would have been completely isolated. Being the people's choice is what carried Soviet Russia to win a civil war on a country the size of a continent in only 3 or so years.
Given the chaotic situation he had to manage, Lenin was pretty much a fucking saint, even despite his occasional telegrams demanding all rebels to be shot or whatever. The philosophers' boats were his way of saying "you know what, I already put up with way too much shit, and that includes yours, so I'm getting you out of my sight before I'm tempted to do something worse". The political opposition that didn't take up arms nor exhorted people to do fight or sabotage were largely left alone and would continue living in peace in the USSR…

Carter Wood
Carter Wood

He keeps the door open for the other two socialist parties – pro-Porky as their leadership had been – to join, which is expected seeing how the three parties were largely de facto rulers via the soviets before October. And what do the other parties do? Even as the Winter Palace was still being seized, they insisted on negotiating and compromising with the Provisional Government
Always makes me mad how facts like these have been buried by right wingers, even by other "leftists"

Christopher Reed
Christopher Reed

Somebody never learn. If people live in slavery they revolt. I told you about the states but you didnt listen.

Josiah Lopez
Josiah Lopez

2946467
What did he mean by this

Adam Bennett
Adam Bennett

If people live in slavery they revolt
I told you about states but you didnt listen
Obviously its anarchist 'muh uppreshive shtet' crap

Alexander Russell
Alexander Russell

But he killed peeps

Camden Ward
Camden Ward

Attached: 1564433113000.png (139.52 KB, 352x960)

James Cook
James Cook

/r/anarchism

Gabriel Gonzalez
Gabriel Gonzalez

hurr durr, I don't understand that the soviets were what the party was composed of
Shut up

Attached: tenor.gif (40.09 KB, 220x220)

Michael Brooks
Michael Brooks

76% of the citizens voted to preserve the USSR
it fell anyway
former party members got rich off looting state enterprises

This is my problem with tankies in a nutshell. How do you prevent the party from betraying the proletariat? I haven't seen a good mechanism and the USSR sure as hell didn't have one.

James Gonzalez
James Gonzalez

… How do you prevent the party from betraying the proletariat?
Purge?
I haven't seen a good mechanism
Purge?
and the USSR sure as hell didn't have one.
Purge?

Dominic Reyes
Dominic Reyes

Thing is Anarchists did not want to work with anyone in Catalonia. The Anarchists did not even have generals in their army or commanders, since they took that thing to an extreme. That literally everyone was so capable of leading the army as anyone else.

Anyway they mostly remained mobs that would go around sperging and refusing to take help or aid the Communists or Republicans since "muh authority and government bad." This is in spite of the fact Catalonia itself and the anarchists had gulags and labour camps, something people mock them for a lot.

To top it all off you get this thing:

Juan Garcia Oliver and Federica Montseny both of CNT-FAI as ministers of the Caballero government
In spite of the fact that anarchist philosophy was against centralized government of any form and that the CNT-FAI had always shunned parliamentary politics while attacking the Socialists for collaborating with the state, by September 1936 they had decided to join the Generalitat of Catalonia. The CNT feared that arms would be withheld and that they would be isolated if the Generalitat under Lluís Companys formed a government with the Unified Socialist Party of Catalonia (PSUC).[4] CNT members filled the Ministries of Health, Supplies and Economy and the Central Anti-Fascist Militia Committee was dissolved.

Soon after, the CNT also joined the national government. On October 18 a CNT plenary session of the regional federations granted the national committee secretary Horacio Martínez Prieto full powers to conduct negotiations with prime minister Francisco Largo Caballero. CNT representatives Juan García Oliver, Joan Peiró, Federica Montseny and Juan López filled seats in Caballero's cabinet. They took control of the national ministry of justice, industry, health and commerce, respectively.[5] The CNT saw this "maximum concession compatible with its antiauthoritarian spirit" as crucial to winning the war.[6] There was widespread friction and debate between the "collaborationist" and "abstentionist" anarchists in the CNT. Many anarchists outside of Spain (such as Alexander Schapiro) criticized CNT-FAI for entering into the government.[7] There was also concern among anarchists with the growing power of Marxist communists within the government.

Some anarchists outside of Spain viewed their concessions as necessary considering the possibility of the Nationalists winning the war.

Emma Goldman said, "With Franco at the gate of Madrid, I could hardly blame the CNT-FAI for choosing a lesser evil: participation in government rather than dictatorship, the most deadly evil."[9]

The problem was and this is my main issue with anarchists, they outright refused to help any of the other left factions while the right wing nationalists literally had a collation of everyone. The Carlists, Falange, Monarchists, Catholics. They all worked together.

Meanwhile the Republican side was disunited and it was only when the Fascists were literally at the capital did many of the Anarchists finally put aside their differences and say "we may need some kind of government."

Pic related.

Attached: case-1.png (298.59 KB, 674x754)

Sebastian Rogers
Sebastian Rogers

How come everyone after Stalin died went full retard? Even Mao fucking lost it and started doing stupid fucking shit. I'm not into mysticism but maybe Stalin was the chosen one.

James Johnson
James Johnson

Forget if Che or one of the Kims said it but saw an image on leftybooru about that.

Something like they started with attacking Stalin and calling him a dictator as their strawman on the evil commie, but as time went on soon Lenin and the others were next on the chopping bloc.

I'm still of the opinion a lot of shit about Stalin is lies, and made up, and inflated.

Zachary Wilson
Zachary Wilson

Stalin led the Soviet Union into saving the world, that's enough to make him the best communist leader in history.

Luke Ward
Luke Ward

It was Ludo Martens who wrote that in his book, Another View of Stalin.

Attached: 955481528464703489-20180122-221523-img1.jpg (116.44 KB, 958x960)

Logan Edwards
Logan Edwards

This, but unironically.
The entire membership of the Communist Party was therefore subjected to what is called a “cleansing” or “purge” in the presence of large audiences of their non-Communist fellow workers. (This is the only connection in which the Soviet people use the term “purge.” Its application by Americans to all the Soviet treason trials and in general to Soviet criminal procedure is resented by the Soviet people.)
Each Communist had to relate his life history and daily activities in the presence of people who were in a position to check them. It was a brutal experience for an unpopular president of a Moscow university to explain to an examining board in the presence of his students why he merited the nation’s trust. Or for a superintendent of the large plant to expose his life history and daily activities — even to his wife’s use of one of the factory automobiles for shopping — in the presence of the plants workers, any one of whom had the right to make remarks. This was done with every Communist throughout the country; it resulted in the expulsion of large numbers from the party, and in the arrest and trial of a few.
t. Strong

Lucas Gonzalez
Lucas Gonzalez

^^^^^^
Stalin literally saw the rise and fall of fascism and its defeat and demise in his lifetime, the greatest rival to the USSR. That even Churchill and western allies admit that without the USSR they probably couldn't have won.

Hate to shit on the anarkiddies but I don't see peace and love communes doing that good a job on fending off literally almost all of fascist Europe and their war machine.

Hunter Morales
Hunter Morales

PDF of the book if anyone wants it.

Colton Rivera
Colton Rivera

Anyway they mostly remained mobs that would go around sperging and refusing to take help or aid the Communists or Republicans
Reminds me of Gonzalists

The Anarchists did not even have generals in their army or commanders, since they took that thing to an extreme. That literally everyone was so capable of leading the army as anyone else.
They had Durruti going off and leading the coordination stuff since they saw him as exceptional big boy.
My view is that an informal state just kinda forms if you actually fight back and just don't except being shot at if look at this and Makhno centralizing shit.

Wyatt Watson
Wyatt Watson

Reminder that Makhno was a LARPer

Ethan Gomez
Ethan Gomez

More like CRAPno

Nolan Garcia
Nolan Garcia

No one-party system, no ban on factions, no purges. All of these encourage sycophancy, dishonesty and create the ideal conditions for opportunists and careerists to clog up the vital arteries of the party and state while convinced communists are purged and then kept out of climbing the ranks by the careerists who know their own 'safe pairs of hands'.
This is how you get a situation with one communist sitting atop a pyramid of servile flatterers exulting them as the divine guardian of marxism and when they die the opportunist and careerists simply run the state as the body within which they are parasites and the moment they run it irretrievably into the ground turn themselves into capitalists dismantling the economic basis of socialism to maintain their subsistence off of it.
This needs to be coupled with thorough political education on all levels of society, the careerists and opportunists love nothing more than an apathetic and politically unsophisticated working class as it allows them to justify their self-serving and often simply inept policies with vulgar and base interpretations of marxism as nothing more than sterile dogma rather than revolutionary science.

Attached: lunacharsky-soviet-education.JPG (115.25 KB, 1560x242)
Attached: Lunacharsky-on-education-reform.JPG (72.67 KB, 515x322)

Xavier Price
Xavier Price

No one-party system
Personally I'm not convinced a multi-party system and the dictatorship of the proletariat are compatible, unless you mean something similar to how East Germany or the DPRK have/had multiple non-Communist parties that recognise the leading role of the Communist party.
no purges
Purges in the sense mentioned above (>>2953546) seem like one of the best ways of preventing careerists and opportunists from advancing, imo.

I'd add onto the comments about education that a culture of constructive criticism should obviously be fostered alongside a good education in Marxist thought.

Alexander James
Alexander James

Personally I'm not convinced a multi-party system and the dictatorship of the proletariat are compatible, unless you mean something similar to how East Germany or the DPRK have/had multiple non-Communist parties that recognise the leading role of the Communist party.
I'm not convinced of it either but I think it might be workable, at least the ability of a number of distinct communist parties to operate, if the US can have a two-party system where both parties are capitalist why couldn't the USSR have a two-party system where both parties are communist. The competition and economic pluralism, no matter how limited, i think i good for the political life of the country, not least because it provides a spectacle. I do think there are things to be learned from people's democracies, I like the idea of civic/non-party groups having representation in the legislature, like the FDJ in the DDR as well as trade unions and women's organisations etc. but i think that the permanent coalition of national unity model while allowing more plurality of political opinion and its influence on policy it still stifles the democratic political life of the society, which ideally we would have the opposite arrangement if anything.
But yeah, I'm not entirely set on multi-partism as a necessity, however i would very much like to see a multi-party workers' state and if it would work.
Purges in the sense mentioned above
With all due respect and appreciation for methods of maintaining the accountability of officials and representatives, etc. that's not the context in which the word purge is literally ever applied and everyone knows what is being referred to, and the political terror is without a doubt one of the main contributing factors to the degeneration and growth of careerism and opportunism within the CPSU and other ruling communist parties.
Mind you while such exercises for accountability and other democratic measures are desirable, if they were conducted on such a scale in the USSR they were far from sufficient to prevent the advancement of careerists and opportunists, clearly much more is necessary, and different structures, ones which provide less opportunity for opportunists and do not have such perverse incentives towards sycophancy and opportunism are the clear answer here.

Jacob Lewis
Jacob Lewis

How do you ensure the ones doing the purging aren't themselves careerists and opportunists? Would you support Gorbachev if he decided to enact purges to get rid of all those who opposed the transition to a market based economy?

Gabriel Russell
Gabriel Russell

Another View of Stalin so fucking boring. Holy shit, the guy spends the first 10 pages talking about Stalin statues. It's insane. Parenti is a better writer, and should be recommended over this dude.

Ryan Butler
Ryan Butler

Mostly I'm just thinking that if we're both on the same page wrt the Communist party being made up of the most politically advanced and resolute section of the proletariat, why split it up? The tendency should be towards unity, not away from it. Obviously internal party democracy should be kept alive and serious debate encouraged, but splitting the party itself seems counter-productive, especially seeing as multi-party systems in capitalist countries often simply have those parties end up representing the interests of different strata of the bourgeoisie.
Would you support Gorbachev if he decided to enact purges to get rid of all those who opposed the transition to a market based economy?
<we should ensure that all members of the party, especially those employed as state functionaries and in administrative/managerial positions, are subject to regular criticism from below to help keep the Party accountable and in touch with reality
<WHAT IF GORBACHEV DID A CAPITALISM THOUGH HUH??
???

Gavin Davis
Gavin Davis

Why Be A Tankie? Talking Socialism in the USA
youtube.com/watch?v=fkYRcBL1tmg

Aaron Young
Aaron Young

My primary concern vis a vis a one party state is that it leads to the party and the state being inextricably intertwined which in turn makes party membership the destination of choice for careerists. Political pluralism whether within the communist camp or broader where power changes hands between parties helps maintain the internal dynamism of the vanguard as a vanguard first and foremost and not a state institution to be clogged up by careerists and opportunists who funnel through it.
I am generally sceptical of the idea of unity as something for a body politic to aspire to.

Lucas Sanchez
Lucas Sanchez

why couldn't the USSR have a two-party system where both parties are communist
The Soviets tried this with the Left SRs. It ended up with the Left SRs attacking the Bolsheviks for the most retarded reasons.

Lincoln James
Lincoln James

Obviously the situation is different during a war.

Ayden Perry
Ayden Perry

I feel like Caleb Maupin got a bad draw in the early 2000s and that in the 2020s he'll find new popularity. American Leftism was still insanely dogmatic about "libertarian socialism" and "horizontalism" at the time and very spooked by Cold War propaganda so I think Maupin will get some recognition soon

Christian Murphy
Christian Murphy

bump to stifle the flood

Adrian Martin
Adrian Martin

I am generally sceptical of the idea of unity as something for a body politic to aspire to.
What else should a co-operative society aim for, though?

Mason Rivera
Mason Rivera

Bump

Cameron Gray
Cameron Gray

You're leaving out the fact that the Cointern supported the Popular Front i.g. the liberal bourgeois Republican government. And the fact that the Stalinoids crushed the socialized communes. The social revolution was betrayed just so that Moscow could have a puppet government beholden to their interests.

Nathaniel Diaz
Nathaniel Diaz

Yeah those damn stalinists trying to save Spain from fascism instead of focusing on some economic experiment

Caleb Fisher
Caleb Fisher

Diverting resources to crush anti-fascists instead of fighting fascists is the best way to deal with fascists. Also, supporting liberals, backing private property over actual communists is more important too. And working with Hitler is also anti-fascism too.

Jaxson Morales
Jaxson Morales

Also, liberal democracy is the source of fascism. But, you know, its better support it instead of ending it when you have the chance. Working with counter-revolutionaries is better than working with actual communists.

Carter Wood
Carter Wood

Diverting resources to crush anti-fascists instead of fighting fascists is the best way to deal with fascists. Also, supporting liberals, backing private property over actual communists is more important too. And working with Hitler is also anti-fascism too.

▶Anonymous  08/03/19 (Sat) 23:22:27 No.2958521

Also, liberal democracy is the source of fascism. But, you know, its better support it instead of ending it when you have the chance. Working with counter-revolutionaries is better than working with actual communists

Can any anons explain this piece of shit (Democrat ki k e) and what they're doing here?

This piece of shit is:
D&Cing openly
"anti-fascist" who aren't the enemy, neoliberals are.
A neoliberal. Disgusting scum.

Jeremiah Reed
Jeremiah Reed

What in hell do YOU think YOU'RE doing right now?

Neoliberalism is bad. You are bad.

National So cialism is good. You are bad.

Christopher Ortiz
Christopher Ortiz

Diverting resources to crush anti-fascists instead of fighting fascists is the best way to deal with fascists
Working with counter-revolutionaries is better than working with actual communists
That must be why the anarchists did shit like barely doing any fighting against fascists compared to the communists, seizing government telephone exchanges, supporting the coup of General Casado who proceeded to open the gates of Madrid etc.

Attached: lessons-of-peoples-war-in-spain.png (181.98 KB, 803x1045)

Christian Kelly
Christian Kelly

No one should waste their time on Marxism, its useless. Read Proudhon for the real stuff.

Connor Scott
Connor Scott

Shoo, exploiter, shoo.

Noah Martin
Noah Martin

8977 Official Zig Forums + 4chan FBI server gg/Xq2uYaa

Attached: 1564450991806s.jpg (2.65 KB, 125x88)

Charles Gray
Charles Gray

t. dumm m*rxoid

Liam Moore
Liam Moore

espressostalinist.com/2014/01/15/grover-furr-anatomy-of-a-fraudulent-scholarly-work-ronald-radoshs-spain-betrayed/

Ian Ramirez
Ian Ramirez

Attached: e3e2dfeaf8a0e2421136152492d60560ba3aa2250b6afc940cb2fd0976dac4e1.png (352.07 KB, 595x649)

Landon Gutierrez
Landon Gutierrez

noo, don't alienate the bourgeoisie
can't be scaring the 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸middle class🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 with revolution
haha, what do you mean socialism, this is a bourgeois revolution, we have to follow all the right stages first : )
who knew the mensheviks would end up coming out on top

Attached: the-kind-vladimir-ilyich-would-have-shot-everybody-here.jpg (112.55 KB, 1200x773)

Chase Davis
Chase Davis

dude, fuck material conditions, just will to power lmao

Carter Ross
Carter Ross

MLs are cool until they get to power
the many blunders of miss Piggy is a recent example
my main problem with MLs is that they have their heads too far up their asses
you tell them about democracy, how it is really important, how it is the weakest link, how your planned economy can only be as good as your democratic decision making mechanism, and all they keep doing is blabbering democratic centralism this, democratic centralism that, it's gonna work this time I swear on my momma
NO, it's not gonna fucking work, it failed and sent your beloved workers state crashing down harder than roman empire did, and burning, burning, burning…

Alexander Gonzalez
Alexander Gonzalez

The ussr literally became subverted by internal opportunism because Stalin was too careful during the purges

Luke Turner
Luke Turner

i-it's all those fucking jews revisionists!!
here it is, lads and gents
marxist-leninist in its natural habitat
please don't make any sudden moves or it might purge you

Jayden Bailey
Jayden Bailey

Yes user, Marxist Leninists are antisemitic, that's why antisemitism was punishable by law in the Soviet union

Also please read Blackshirts and Reds by Michael parenti, it not only debunks your conflation of Marxist Leninist states with fascism there's a whole chapter which talks about how Stalin fucked up, including not going far enough with the purges because he was too concerned with the democratic part of democratic centralism. It's well sourced even

Jose Martinez
Jose Martinez

Yes user, Marxist Leninists are antisemitic
No user, Marxist-Leninists invented their own Eternal Jew - The Revisionist
he is scheming, plotting, waiting for just a moment of weakness

including not going far enough with the purges because he was too concerned with the democratic part of democratic centralism
the most retarded take I have ever seen

Hudson King
Hudson King

the most retarded take I have ever seen
Beria was too liberal by trying to push all power to the soviets at Stalin's death in accordance with the Stalin authorised constitution
Everthing you thought you knew about Stalin is a lie comrade

Owen Bailey
Owen Bailey

It's hilarious because you are literally describing what Trotsky and Zinoviev openly said they were doing

Jacob Hill
Jacob Hill

purging counter-revolutionaries is like the holocaust
You're literally 1 step away from the liberal "Hitler = Stalin" meme with that shitty false-equivalency.

Also read Stalin and Democracy part 1 and 2.

Attached: a-social-revolution-must-be-defended.png (398.7 KB, 621x708)

Carter Roberts
Carter Roberts

Yep, the opportunists, careerists and sycophants came to power and subverted socialism because there was too little purging, they totally weren't enabled precisely by purges because they thrive on dogmatism and party orthodoxy.
You bash your head against the wall repeatedly and when you get a bruise conclude that bashing your head against the wall further would've stopped the bruise from appearing.

Nathan Morgan
Nathan Morgan

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xWeMBXV23g

Jack Green
Jack Green

There were a couple holodomor sources in the OC thread that looked nice but got lost in the thread. Anybody have them?

Brandon Smith
Brandon Smith

1) look up the thread archive
archive.fo/ovBVQ

Go to the following threads

Logan Cox
Logan Cox

thank you