Hardcore anti-Soviet leftists

You never snake on a mate, regardless.

Odd world view for an ancom, i would assume the success of the eastern bloc would render your world view unnecessary.

Ever heard of counter-revolutions? If you're an actual revolutionary leftist repressive action is necessary and an historical inevitability. The same was true for 19th century liberal revolutions.

Name me one successful socialist revolution that did not suppress it's opposition.

I don't know how opposing fascists in red is somehow bad for leftism.

Attached: download.jpg (225x225, 8.35K)

So you agree snitching on redlibs is okay?

not this shit again

Seconding this with my fellow an-com.

EVen if I think the USSR handled things very poorly in relation to other leftists it's entirely inappropriate to entirely renunciate it. You can not seriously claim we're better off without it or that it did not make huge important strides for the world.

Being either rabidly pro-Soviet or anti-Soviet is retarded. The USSR made plenty of mistakes which should be criticized. But the USSR also represented a quantum leap forward in terms of standards of living and economic development of Russia and the other SSRs, which should be emphasized to all spooked liberals.
The point to be made to non-leftists is that the USSR was great in many ways, shoddy in other ways, but most importantly serves as an example to learn from going forward. Rome wasn't built in a day, after all.

Regardless of your intentions, yes, if you worked against the Soviet government, you were on the side of the imperialists. Much like how radlibs condemning Maduro's government for being a "totalitarian regime" are useful idiots for the establishment.

The USSR was anti-communist and bourgeois, adhering dogmatically to the idea of stages. Marx was proven wrong in this regard after the Super Great Leap Forward and DK’s instant achievement of full-communism in 1975

sounded believable until

It may sound fantastical, but that is what actually happened. No other communist state has gone so far as to abolish money, markets and distribute according to need in communes. The workers can’t be waiting for ever and there is zero signs that the DOTP will ever wither away

almost every prison has.

Sick comeback bro. Democratic Kampuchea was the first truly classless society. All other “socialist” states have been state-capitalist distortions.

Also, you haven’t addressed why the DOTP has never showed any signs of withering away, only becoming stronger. Pol Pot solved this problem in one stroke

FIRST TRULY GLASSLESS SOCIETY

I'll probably get banned again for pointing this out, but whatever.

no, we just read books instead of posting on twitter.
So get this. Before WW2, the USSR wanted to ally with Western imperialists against Nazi Germany but it didn't work so Stalin's regime signed a major diplomatic / trade deal with Nazi Germany in which they agreed to divide up Eastern Europe. When the Nazis broke the deal, Stalin allied with the Western imperialists. After they beat Nazi Germany, Stalin made a new deal with the British to divide up Eastern Europe again. Stalin's USSR had zero problem accommodating and/or allying with imperialist powers.
Geez, imagine communists wanting communism and not an insane police state!
Well, I agree that the collapse of the USSR was pretty much a catastrophe.

The USSR was allied with imperialist powers during WW2.

Attached: ussr0158.jpg (800x578 27.05 KB, 229.15K)

Stalin was a geopolitical pragmatist. The USSR couldn't steamroll Europe on its own, and thus needed to ally with this or that faction to advance its geopolitical interests. There is nothing weird about this if you've read some IR-theory. The harsh realities of geopolitical competition have always created strange bedfellows in international politics, regardless of the actors' purported ideological purity in domestic politics. Being successful in both spheres almost necessitates some degree of hypocrisy unless you're so dominant in both that you can just brute-force your interests on everyone else, like the US almost could during the 90's and early 2000's. The Soviets were never in that enviable position.

read literally anything by marx brainlet

It was reactionary primitivism

what is dotp

It is dishonest and unjust to characterize the SU as a collaborationist with imperialism just because for a short period of time when compared to it's lifetime it focused on internal economic development and had a pragmatic foreign policy (specially when it's very existence was being threatened by the Nazi invasion).

Dictatorship of the Proletariat

They were the Khmer Rouge, right? What was their plan? IIRC a lot of my ML comrades say they were reeeeaaaally fucking crazy.

this is false. There is no way a country could survive a war on two fronts.
It would have been better for the USSR to engage in a defensive war and not collaborated with imperialists

I think people conflate criticism of the Soviet Union, with being "anti-Soviet" (which is of course code for pro-imperialism). There are plenty of radicals who recognized the writing on the wall, but I don't know of many who opposed the Soviet's in a way that openly condoned for future imperialist take over (except for some trot-to-neocon traitors).

Attached: ddc2f2363660fc427d7d5d41fdf0082417715ea3f7b6283be40f4a1b39869a7b.jpg (500x372, 42.29K)

It was a weird blend of Left Communism and Cambodian voodoo
Imagine a Leftcom death cult

this is a stupid meme

...

I can't be bothered to quote and respond to everyone but is another good example. Historical and current socialism does not exist in a vacuum. I think that both MLs and libsoc/ancom leaning people who are atleast aware of imperialism and socialist states providing a higher quality of life than capitalist states at a similar level of development will agree with the statement that socialism as it has existed thus far can best be described as "constrained socialism". It has only been implemented OUTSIDE the most developed, industrialized and educated capitalist imperialist core, and faced constant harassment, sabotage, intervention, propaganda etc. from those countries. Paraphrasing another user, there is some legitimacy to the claim that the Soviet Union went through a Thermidor, or "deformed" in Trotskyist lingo. But despite this, it's still worth supporting. You have to drill this into your head:

The Soviet Union was not perfect. It's not what we want and it's not what future socialism will look like. But it is legitimate, it was more good than bad, and it was socialist.

Attached: propaganda.jpeg (640x466, 27.62K)

Maybe it's because the only difference between USSR and right-wing regimes was nationalization of all industry and hostility towards religion.

/thread

So pointless insane shit

I think I saw the Pol Pot dude that’s on here ranting about needing to destroy all the current proletariat somewhere else

You are uneducated. Pol Pot had plans to develop industry. Read ‘Pol Pot Plans for the Future’

You were reading a strawman of my statement that large sections of the bourgeoisie and labor-aristocracy will need liquidated and / or re-educated. Their material conditions shape them and mould them from a young age. Clay is moulded while soft. The reactionary class-enemy will also resent his lost privileges, some are impossible to reform and better to simple kill. These people are like weeds. If you do not pull up a weed by its roots and all, it may grow back and sprout up among your garden of beautiful flowers.

Attached: 226949C1-E5A1-4B00-BC9E-F7BDA8E4E87B.jpeg (1242x360, 387.21K)

wtf pol pot r u jewish
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem

I am simply spreading the wisdom of the Khmer to this board of urbanite revisionists and bourgeois pseudocoms

Attached: 6179F62F-3768-476A-A054-3167A1D70207.jpeg (1242x564, 701.79K)

Not really wisdom if you don't know what it means

I’ve truly been BTFO. Don’t worry, my mission is eternal. I will make Zig Forums see the truth that the capitalists have hidden from them. Then YOU will understand what has been revealed to me

Latent schizophrenia

CIA script running at full power, I see.

No I'm not the one Khmer posting

They're not on Marxists.org do you have a link?

ok, "lmao, let's work with the U.S" Pol "race war" Pot.

don't talk shit on the people that fund and support you schizo khmer

Zero proof. Even if there was proof though, there is nothing wrong with working with a foreign government to liberate your homeland from the hellish grip of Vietnamese occupiers who re-enslaved the Khmer, restored capitalism and re-established brutal exploitation. The USSR accepted weapons from the United States in WWII. Pol Pot’s genius also extended to using Sihanouk as a way to gain popular support. If he thought it was right (assuming it did happen because no one can ever prove it), I trust his judgement.

Look on libgen.io. I posted a link and a pic but it’s not going through on my end.

It depends? Some of them are dumb as shit. Some are traitors. Some have irreconcilable differences with the specific system of the USSR.

Attached: all power to whomst now.jpg (622x494, 116.52K)

Literal monarchist propaganda. Now go off and reestablish your ties to the monarchy Zig Forums

Attached: DmBVq48WsAAPcly.jpg (1199x608, 148.4K)

Like I said, /liberalpol/

Great post, based ancom poster

This is literally the core of Trotsky's arguments: no socialist state which is surrounded and threatened by hostile imperialist powers can possibly live up to the promises of the revolution that created it. For that to happen, the flame of the Russian Revolution has to spread to other countries that will provide its economic basis. All the Stalin apologists on this board will precede their arguments with the qualifier that Stalin was faced with impossible circumstances, and that much is true.

Where Stalin fucked up was in making no attempt to change those impossible circumstances by promoting revolution in other countries through the Comintern. Instead, to try and immediately shore up the Soviet national interest, he sought to make trade deals and military treaties with the imperialist powers, and promoting revolution would jeopardize those deals. The Comintern was thus transformed into an organization to contain world revolution rather than promote it. Stalin's Comintern constantly preached subservience to capitalist forces, inventing the theory of "national democratic revolution" to back it up, leading to the defeats of revolutions in China, Spain, Greece, the list goes on. By the end of his reign, Stalin was urging workers to make "no strike pledges" and to "critically support" the goddamn Tories because they would uphold the percentages agreement. Workers everywhere began to become disillusioned with the Communist parties - the imperialists claimed that they were being played as pawns of Stalin's foreign policy, and they were right.

You may retort that promoting world revolution may have failed, and as a result the USSR would have been unable to secure the trade deals and military treaties that Stalin did and would therefore collapse or be conquered. Even in that situation though, because it did not compromise on its revolutionary principles, the USSR would be remembered as an inspiration, not a warning.

Good post.

Lol, is this really what trots believe?

Mistake on my part to end the sentence on that note, it suggests that the defeat of the world revolution would have been likely. Instead, had revolution in, say, Spain been successful, the dream of revolution would look achievable in Germany and France, and from there, all the way to the imperialist capitals of Britain and the USA. The end of history would be proclaimed with the victory of global socialism, not global capitalism.

Was the Comintern practice bad though? It supported dozens of anti-colonial and anti-imperialist movements. In the end it couldn't secure global socialism because it came about in underdeveloped countries and could only free other underdeveloped countries from the military superiority of the USA, UK, France, the Netherlands and others. Do you have any idea of how many HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS (a population far exceeding either the US or the USSR at the time) have gained independence thanks to the Soviet Union?

Attached: indonesië cpn.jpg (368x460, 45.26K)

Critizicing the USSR should not only be allowed but encouraged, even if the tranny mod gets butthurt about if

...

>>>Zig Forums

>>>/marx/

...

The Comintern supported the national bourgeoisie of the colonial nations, not the proletariat.

Take China as a case in point. In 1926 a huge wave of general strikes and workplace occupations swept Chinese cities. Had the Communist Party of China chosen to launch an insurrection for revolution, it would probably have gained mass support, just like the October Revolution had in Russia. Instead, the Comintern insisted that the CPC back down and support Chiang Kai Shek's Guomindang bourgeois nationalist party, which had been inducted into the Comintern the same year. They furnished this with the "national-democratic revolution" theory, which claimed that the stage of a bourgeois revolution had to be completed before socialism could be attempted. The result was the Shanghai Massacre of 1927, which murdered thousands of the Party's best leaders and set the progress of the revolution backward 20 years. Not that Stalin supported that one either - at the start of the Chinese civil war he told Mao that "we considered the development of the uprising in China had no prospect and that…. they should join the Chiang Kai-shek government and dissolve their army."

In this case, I dare say, the "anti-colonial" policy of the Comintern was little different than the "anti-colonial" policy of the US: to support bourgeois nationalists in order to pry back colonial trade barriers to the region's markets.

Possible effort post later, but until then, this is an excellent book on the Comintern's failures:
marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1985/comintern/index.htm
The Stalin quote about the Guomindang comes from this:
marxists.org/archive/weisbord/Stalinism.htm
It's unsourced because it's an unfinished manuscript, but the author hasn't made anything up in his published work so I trust it.

...

you act like the comintern had some magic power to force the CPC to do its bidding. Mao himself repeatedly said that the KMT vacillated between revolutionary and reactionary. He willingly and intentionally allied with them at various points.

Of course not, that's why it's called a revolution! Do you know why the Red Scare was initiated to begin with? Because they feared that the Russian Revolution would spread to America.
The "anti-Franco forces" were defined as the "democratic bourgeoisie". The official line was that:

Accordingly, the rule of private property was violently maintained by the "communist" party. Leaders of Spanish revolutionary organizations were tortured and assassinated. As a result, no workers were motivated to give their lives for the Spanish Republic. The small and big bourgeoisie had long since defected for Franco.

The CPSU in the Comintern had immense authority specifically because it was the only party to lead a successful socialist revolution. The world parties did not forsee it selling out their interests for the sake of the Soviet national state.

Soviets are fine, it's the people who forgot to give all power to the soviets that I have a problem with.

...

Like who?

Information incriminating the CIA must be CIA propaganda. It's the only explanation that makes any sense.

Attached: thanks cia.png (996x1020 214.28 KB, 220.5K)

Who is this, Parenti?

As for your third source, the CIA at least was always too afraid to utilize Trotsky or other revolutionaries in its cold war propaganda program, it drew the line at the "Non-Communist Left" of explicitly anticommunist socdems with maybe a Kautskyite invited now and then. Source is The Mighty Wurlitzer by Hugh Wilford, I can dig up the PDF if you want.

I remember reading a while ago that the CIA had trouble finding people who were ready to combat communism in Europe, except for self proclaimed socilaists, those were the true anti-communists.
Wish I could find the source.

So who were the hundreds of thousands of workers who died defending the Republic? Ghosts, aliens, or what?

Ultimately, canon fodder. I know that's hard to hear, but the Spanish civil war was a monumental failure for the Communist movement. This was both due to insurmountable foreign opposition from imperialist and fascist nations, and also internal contradictions in the movement it'self. We need to except this and move on, invoking their name in a romantic sense only betrays their sacrifice.

Attached: 9a9dffffbfaf1811f8c82011836d541acc2ce33ab49c26862c0f569d4df3d3e4.png (2000x1166, 53.44K)

A Spartakist wrote some months before his execution that in all his readings of natural history he couldn't find a more disgusting subspecies than a Social Democrat.

It's in Haffner's book about the 1918/19 and I don't even know if it's translated but anyway, the SPD has done more against Communism than the NSDAP.

>>>/gnussr/

Attached: Screenshot_20190403_212409.jpg (720x725, 91.75K)

Thats downright retarted, being realistic is demanding small changes. Because those changes actually have a chance of being made so it sparks debate. Big changes are always ignored, they dont spark anything and dont achieve anything. Sure a revolution will be nice but if you wanna play the politics game in this day and age the left should be demanding small modest changes

The USSR, whatever it was, is entirely irrelevant today, it should largely be purged from the political horizon of the contemporary left considering that the worker's movement is dead and that the USSR implodedm. The notion of "imperialism" as used here is likewise anachronistic and is the socialism of idiots.

This is precisely unrealistic insofar as "small modest changes" and parliamentary politics have nothing to do with communism today, even if we accept the highly dubious position that they once did. They are "realistic" insofar as realism confines us to the present as it's horizon

It depends on the kind of anti-soviet you're talking about, but 90% of the time with anti-soviet marxists its just down to bad theory or social chauvinism.

Ok dear w*Sternoids, we, uncivilized slavic scum, fucked up. Soviet system was in fact state capitalism, USSR was even more imerialister than imperialists themselves, Stalin was a tyrant and so on and so on. Show us how it's done.

Attached: 53percent_guy.jpg (550x407, 47.61K)

Yes
Do they prefer a world where there’s absolutely no one reasonably resisting global western imperialism? All for some utopian garbage?
Yes, but at least there is no "muh class collaboration"

...

Vietnam’s vendetta against the Khmer goes back millennia. Read the Black Paper

heng samarin did more for the Cambodian people you admire than any of the faggots you admire

Get a load of this retarded parliamentarian. Shouldn't you be writing your local congressman to solve global warming for you?

Attached: 00824e8eeff0d79f0c7c3110124789250b0bcdf1b3daf9e59f05cee31b0b386b.png (838x528, 353.57K)

Nah he was a traitor. DK had made a clean-sweep of all exploitation, corruption and class structures and was betrayed by the Khmer that had fled to Vietnam for opposing to the revolutionary line. Once the glorious Angkar was overthrown capitalism was restored. Just look at Cambodia today and see where the traditional Marxist line gets you – revisionism

Pol Pot was right about the urbanite intellectuals tbh, especially the young ones.

What would happen if capital succeeded in smashing the Republic of Soviets? There would set in an era of the blackest reaction in all the capitalist and colonial countries, the working class and the oppressed peoples would be seized by the throat, the positions of international communism would be lost.
Stalin, Speech at The Seventh Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I. (December 1926)

Sounds a lot like "vote blue no matter who"

He was talking about the civil war though

it was over at that point

* Istvan Meszaros feelings *