God milk bars were/are so good, borscht, pancakes and kompot to die for.
Why yes I am a trot
Wow, a whole new low for you catfucking retard.
So you wanted china to be a retrograde, isolated nation that would eventually follow a complete collapse like the USSR so that its country can be even worse than it is now? This is what OP means in that trots love when countries outside the imperial core are defeated or weak. China doesn't need to heed western "leftist" ideals of socialism, it has agency and is forging its own path. Western "leftism" should be spat on and laughed at.
You may as well blame fucking India and Bangladesh as well. Heck, by your metric you should blame Africa to for "allowing" corporations to set up shop. Imagine this type of gaslighting.
This is litteraly why people shot trotcucks whenever they could. They absolutely hate it when developing countries actually do develop and the result is not some western trotcuck fantasy land after which they conclude that actually America is still better as a world empire start posting infographics about how the developing country is capitalist and retrograde and go back into trotcuck fantasy world western university where they blow each other about how awesome moral and scientific they are
Ban this cat flag cunt.
Comparing the dissolution of the Comintern with the antics of Russian landowners in 1917 is ridiculous. I already showed that Stalin spoke of dissolving the Comintern in April 1941, i.e. before the USSR's alliance with the US and UK. Rather than psychoanalyze Stalin (" the old revolutionary can't bring himself to admit…"), we have his actual, private statements to Dimitrov and others.
Soviet enterprises were already supposed to be profitable under Stalin, hence concepts like cost-accounting. The problem is that many enterprises weren't. The purpose of the Liberman (not "Lieberman") reforms was to try and fix this situation by giving incentives for enterprises to make more than they spent.
The historical experience of the international communist indicates otherwise.
The Red Army in the 1920s-30s was still confronted with the Eastern European Cordon Sanitaire, Japanese militarism, and other reminders of the Civil War years. Again, the name of the army was changed to reflect the new situation after WWII.
I don't think the bourgeois governments particularly cared whether Molotov was called People's Commissar or Minister. If anything, they would be suspicious of the latter given that it could easily be interpreted as the USSR portraying a greater self-confidence in the international arena, that it was an equal to other countries in terms of military and diplomatic power.
Gee, I wonder what could cause a workers' movement to have an objectively harmful program and to pursue harmful actions, if not a harmful ideology guiding it?
Again, one can criticize how Poland's government mishandled the economy and workers' grievances, but the question here is whether Solidarity was a "revolutionary" movement or not. I'd argue it was not, not even in 1980.
I can't claim that because there were no centralized "program and demands" to begin with. That was exactly my point: it's asinine to compare the situation in Hungary in 1956 with the organization and discipline of the Red Army.
There are works that do so. In fact, Sam Marcy and Vincent Copeland (later to found the WWP) found their first major divergence from Trotskyism in assessing what happened in Hungary in 1956. Copeland, under the alias "V. Grey," wrote "The Class Character of the Hungarian Uprising."
There was also "The Truth About Hungary" by Herbert Aptheker: espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com
And then we have works published in Hungary itself, e.g. archive.org
Again, you see "no harm" in supposed "revolutionaries" destroying statues of Lenin. The absurdity should be apparent.
A point I don't need reminding of, since I never denied it. Again, I've never spoken of a "pure revolution." I just don't pretend that what happened in Hungary in 1956 was an attempted "revolution."
Yeah and their political trajectory was in the direction of social-democracy. It obviously isn't difficult to have been "on the left" of Walesa, or to have broken with him after 1989. The question is whether they were objectively "on the left" of the Polish state in the 1980s.
As I said, Gomułka's compromise was clearly nonsensical, and I'd say that historical experience shows it would have been better to permit private agriculture to develop with assistance from the state. That way when the transition to collective farming does come on the agenda, one would be collectivizing large, materially advanced farms (or even turning them into state farms, if conditions for those are favorable.) At the same time, even while private initiative is being promoted, peasants would be permitted to voluntarily form collectives provided they perform well, rather than forcing the mass of peasants to form collectives under unfavorable circumstances.
Again, while collectivization obviously does bring benefits (and in the USSR for instance the government felt forced to pursue collectivization due to the "grain strikes" and the need to rapidly industrialize to meet the defense needs of the country), building collectives on the Soviet model would not have made Polish peasants content, nor would it have prevented problems with food supplies to the cities (although it would have been better than the IRL situation where, as I said, Gomułka simply froze the countryside in place, with large amounts of tiny uneconomical private plots surviving on government subsidies.)
Tankie brain worms at work
Trotcucks are willing agents of US empire. There are plenty of criticisms of China but it's pointless to talk about it to Trotcucks you wouldn't talk about China's problems with Bill Kristol ("former" Trotcuck) or the John Birch Society because it's not gonna be an argument in good faith and it's not gonna go anywhere
The WSWS is imperialist? Since when